Imam Khomeini International University - IKIU€¦ · Web viewWriting: organizing and...

Qazvin Islamic Azad University

A Proposal submitted in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for MA

Degree in Teaching English as Foreign Language (TEFL)

Topic:

The effect of competitive and cooperative teaching techniques on language

learning strategy use and learner autonomy of Iranian EFL learners

By: Hamide Layeq

0

Contents

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

1.1. Statement of the problem……………………………………………………………………… 3

1.2. Significance of the study………………………………………………………………………… 4

1.3. Research questions and hypotheses…………………………………………………….... 5

1.4. Definitions of key terms…………………………………………………………………………. 7

1.5. Limitations and delimitations of the study………………………………………….…. 8

2. Review of literature……………………………………………………………………………………….….. 9

2.1. Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9

2.2. Cooperative learning………………………………………………………………………………. 9

2.2.1. Principles of cooperative learning……………………………………………………….. 12

2.2.2. Types of cooperative learning……………………………………………………………… 12

2.2.3. Cooperative learning studies……………………………………………………………….. 13

2.3. Language learning strategies……………………………………………………………………. 15

2.3.1. Classifications of language learning strategies……………………………………… 16

2.3.2. Factors that affect language learning strategies…………………………………… 18

2.3.3. Language learning strategies studies……………………………………………………. 18

2.4. Learner autonomy…………………………………………………………………………………... 20

2.4.1. Learner autonomy studies…………………………………………………………………… 21

3. Method………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23

3.1. Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23

3.2. Participants…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23

3.3. Instruments…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23

3.4. Procedures……………………………………………………………………………………………… 24

3.5. Data analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………… 25

1. Introduction

1

The need to learn foreign language is almost as old as human history itself, but its

growth has happened by increasing globalization as well as the need of using a common

language in areas such as trade, international relations, technology, for media, and

science. As English is the international language, many researchers have focused on

different methods of teaching to find optimal methods and techniques to implement in

language classrooms. The history of language teaching methodology has experienced

substantial changes from the period of grammar–translation method to the

communicative language teaching, task-based approach, learning strategy training and

cooperative learning (Brown, 2000).

Experiential learning and student-centered learning introduced by philosopher Dewey,

and social psychologists Piaget and Vygotsky is a base for collaborative learning.

“In contrast to an individual learning in which each student is limited to his own

understanding of material, the engagement ideally entailed in collaborative learning

prompts students to reconsider their understanding of concepts so that they can clearly

explain information to others ” (Biesenbach-Lucas (2004, p. 156),

Johnson and Johnson (2009) mentions that researchers such as Sexton began to criticize

competition in late 1960s, and social scientists (Hartup, 1976; Johnson, 1980; Johnson &

Johnson, 1981; Ladd, 1999; Lewis & Rosenblum, 1975) pointed out the necessity of peer

interaction. Then, cooperative learning became popular from 1980s, by the advent of

communicative language teaching approach which gave emphasis to the communicative

aspects of language and the task-based approach, which created the context for

cooperative learning. In this period, and by work of O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and other

researchers, the need for stylistic awareness and strategy development in ensuring

mastery of foreign language become prominent.

2

Language learning strategies refer to any conscious actions, techniques and approach

which learners perform to improve their second language learning (Chamot, 2004;

O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford 1989; Oxford, 1990; Waden & Rubin, 1987).

Researchers have started to study language learning strategies since 1960s. Language

learning strategies has been affected by the cognitive approach. Researchers believe that

the shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered classes has drawn more attention to

language learning strategies. Many researchers have tried to classify Language Learning

Strategies; Oxford’s classification is the most comprehensive among them based on which

Oxford Strategy Use Inventory for Language Learning is created to measure the frequency

and the kinds of strategies learners use. She classifies strategies as: Direct strategies

(memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies) and indirect

strategies (metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies).

The concepts of autonomy and independence play an increasingly important role in

language education. The major concern here are issues such as learners’ responsibility for

their own learning, and their right to determine the direction of their own learning, the

skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning, the capacity for

independent learning and the extent to which this can be suppressed by institutional

education. According to Cooke (2013) autonomous practices might allow students greater

opportunity to reflect upon their own and their classmates’ performance and begin to

incorporate more collaborative elements, such as inviting others to share their opinion or

to demonstrate misunderstanding of their speech.

1.1. Statement of the problem and the aim of study

Although so many researchers have investigate the effects of different learner factors

such as age, gender, proficiency level, motivation, autonomy, and learners’ beliefs, and

learners’ purpose of using language learning strategies, few studies have been done on

the effect of environmental factors such as interaction with peers. So, this study aims to

3

investigate the effect of competitive and cooperative teaching techniques on language

learning strategy use and their effects on learner autonomy.

1.2. Significance of the study

With regard to what was mentioned above, by considering the important role of

language learning strategies and the significance of creating learning contexts to develop

communicative competence and self-direct learners, this study aim to compare language

learning strategy use in competitive and cooperative learning contexts and the extent to

which these contexts lead to more autonomous learning. It is expected that the findings

of this research will help teachers, learners and syllabus designers. It will help teachers to

create rich and meaningful learning environments by providing students with information

about the role and importance of reflective learning and language learning strategy use in

different contexts of learning. The findings of this study will also be useful for learners in

that they can become aware of the value of what they are doing and their own role in the

learning process and become familiar with the kinds of strategies which they can employ

in various contexts. This way, they will be able to incorporate effective strategy use into

their own learning, which may enable them to use of these strategies to be more

successful learners both in accuracy and fluency of English language use. They can also

feel more relaxed and less anxious by incorporating successful learning strategies in

learning context. Syllabus designers will also be benefit from the results of this study; if

they become informed that there is a definable relationship between the effect of

competitive and cooperative techniques on learners’ use of learning strategies and

learner autonomy, they will be able to design course books which encourage learners to

use more high level strategies and become more autonomous, and this improves their

learning; they can also use creativity to design course books which enhance self-

confidence, self-esteem and self-awareness leading to responsibility to create a positive

learning atmosphere and to increase learner autonomy.

4

1.3. Research questions and hypotheses

The present study aims to answer the following questions:

1-Is there any significant difference between the effects of competitive and cooperative

teaching techniques on overall language learning strategy use of Iranian adult

intermediate level EFL learners?


teaching techniques on memory strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners?


teaching techniques on cognitive strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners?


teaching techniques on compensatory strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners?


teaching techniques on metacognitive strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners?


teaching techniques on affective strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners?


teaching techniques on social strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners?

8-Is there any significant difference between direct and indirect strategy use of Iranian

adult intermediate level EFL learners in competitive learning context?

5

9-Is there any significant difference between direct and indirect strategy use of Iranian

adult intermediate level EFL learners in cooperative learning context?


teaching techniques on Iranian adult intermediate level EFL learners autonomy?

In line with the above questions, the following null hypotheses are formulated:

H01- There is no significant difference between the effects of competitive and cooperative

teaching techniques on overall strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners.


teaching techniques on memory strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners.


teaching techniques on cognitive strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners.


teaching techniques on compensatory strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners.


teaching techniques on metacognitive strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners.


teaching techniques on affective strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL

learners.


teaching techniques on social strategy use of Iranian adult intermediate level EFL learners.6

H08- There is no significant difference between direct and indirect strategy use of Iranian

adult intermediate level EFL learners.

H09- There is no significance difference between direct and indirect strategy use of

Iranian adult intermediate level EFL learners.


teaching techniques on Iranian adult intermediate level EFL learners autonomy.

1.4. Definitions of key terms

The key terms of the present study are defined in following way:

Cooperative learning:

“In contrast to an individual learning in which each students is limited to his own

understanding of materials, the engagement ideally entailed in collaborative learning

prompts students to reconsider their understanding of concepts so that they can clearly

explain information to others. Biesenbach-Lucas” (2004, p.156)

Language learning strategies: Ellis (2008) defines language learning strategies as actions

that learners perform in order to learn a language. Language Learning Strategies are those

techniques learners use to understand target language and improve their second

language skills (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1989; Oxford, 1990; Waden and Rubin,

1987). The present study adopts this definition, which the most comprehended and most

frequently used classification of language learning strategies consisting of two main

classes: Direct and indirect. Both classes consist of three groups to assess learners’

strategy use. For the purpose of this study language learning strategy use will be

operationally defined as learners’ scores on an established strategy use questionnaire.

7

According to Oxford (1990) direct strategies include:

Memory strategies: Techniques to store and retrieve new information, respectively.

Cognitive strategies: Skills which directly manipulate or transform the language.

Compensation strategies: Behavior to compensate for missing knowledge.

According to Oxford (1990) indirect strategies include:

Metacognitive strategies: Behaviors to center, arrange, plan, and evaluate one’s learning.

Affective strategies: Techniques to gain better control over emotions, attitudes, and

motivations related to language learning.

Social strategies: Actions which involve other in language learning.

Learner autonomy: The term learner autonomy was first coined in 1981 by Holec, the

father of learner autonomy, who defined autonomy as the ability to take charge of one’s

own learning (Holec, 1981). Depending on the writer, context, and the level of debate,

educators have come to many definitions. The most well-known definition is the one

mentioned above. In this study, autonomy will be operationally defined as the learners’

scores on an established autonomy questionnaire.

1.5. Limitations and delimitations of the study

The following limitations and delimitations need to be taken into account:

1- The focus of the present study will be just on EFL learners.

2- There will be only 40 participants. So, there will be constraints on making

generalization based on its results.

3- The participations of this study will be just female.

4- This study just focuses on students who are at intermediate level of proficiency.

8

2. Review of literature

2.1. Overview

This section presents a summary of the relevant literature relating to competitive and

cooperative learning, language learning strategies, and learner autonomy. The first part is

related to cooperative learning, the second part to language learning strategies, and the

final part to learner autonomy.

2.2. Cooperative learning

Gokhale (1995) defines collaborative learning as grouping and pairing of students at

various performance levels for working together in small groups to monitor themselves

and evaluate their own and others to achieve an academic goal. Yeok-Hwa (1998) adds

the new dimension of critical thinking skills development and states that collaborative

learning evolves critical thinking skills to make learners able to reflect and improve their

own learning.

“In contrast to an individual learning in which each student is limited to his own

understanding of material, the engagement ideally entailed in collaborative learning

prompts students to reconsider their understanding of concepts so that they can

clearly explain information to others.″ Biesenbach-Lucas (2004, P.156)

Martinez (2006, P.696) defines cooperative learning as “the monitoring and control of

thought″.

9

There are different techniques used in cooperative context, Barkley, Cross and Major

(2005) classify these techniques into the following categories:

Discussion: communication

Think-pair-share: This technique helps students to organize their thoughts

before express it to other students in class. They reflect on the question, posed,

practice and receiving potential solution. Instructor simply can make

cooperative learning context by use of this exercise.

Three-step interview: this structure can be used to start conversation, and also

provide students an opportunity to express opinion, or ideas from their peers.

At first students are paired and take turns interviewing each other, then, they

match up and students introduce their original partners. All students in a group

take turns in interviewing and introducing their peers. Interview can be started

by questions provided by the teacher.

Reciprocal teaching: explain, providing feedback, understanding alternative perspectives

Note-taking pairs: An exercise designed to make students take a note of a

concept and briefly explain their understanding of a concept based on

notes. This structure provides students an opportunity to receive reflective

feedback from their partner and find critical gap in their written records.

Jigsaw: This technique was applied by Aronson and his students in 1978

(Slavin, 1987). Students work on different parts of the task (Slavin, 1996). Each

group works on separate parts of a larger task. Using the Jigsaw technique

allow students to acquire a great deal of information in less time (Chen, 2005).

Littlewood (2009) believes that jigsaw is one of the most popular techniques in

cooperative learning.

10

Graphic organizers: discovering patterns and relationships

Group grid: A kind of practice allow students to organizing and classifying

information in a table or draw a tree diagram to show the relationship between

items or information.

Sequence chains: Multidimensional representation of series of actions, roles,

and events is the aim of this exercise. As same as previous exercise, this

structure asked students to organize the items. Furthermore it can be more

challenging by having students to identify and describe the links between

components.

Writing: organizing and synthesizing information

Dyadic essays: Writing an essay question and model answer based on

predetermined reading. These questions need to be different from questions that

simply recite facts presented in the reading. In class, students exchange essay

questions and write spontaneous answer. Then compare and contrast

spontaneous answer and model answer.

Peer editing: Type of editing, which take place at the idea generation stage and

peers provide feedback throughout the process.

Problem solving: developing strategies and analysis

Send-a-problem: Problem solving activity, is kind of activity in which students find

a solution in a group and contribute their solution to those that have been

developed by other groups. At last, students evaluate and elaborate the answers

and develop a final solution.

11

Three-stay, one stray: Gaining information and alternative perspectives by

listening and sharing progress within groups and between groups.

2.2.1. Principles of cooperative learning

In cooperative learning context both facilitators and learners become active

participants, and the hierarchy between facilitators and learners is eliminated.

Furthermore, in this atmosphere, knowledge is created, not transferred.

Table 1.Comparison between Cooperative and Traditional Classroom

Dimensions Cooperative learning Traditional instruction

Teacher roles Facilitator, observer, change agent, advisor, and supporter

Teacher-dominated, controller, and authority

Teaching activities Positive interdependence, two way communication

Negative interdependence, one-way transmit

Interaction

Evaluation

Group discussion, work together effectively, and teamwork skills

Emphasis on both, learning process and outcomes

Focus on drills and practicing as well as memory and review of knowledge Emphasis on learning outcomes

Taken from Wang (2007, p.25)

2.2.2. Types of cooperative learning

(Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008) categorize cooperative learning into:

1- Formal cooperative learning, in which learners work together the during one class

period or in several weeks, to gain common learning goals.

2- Informal cooperative learning differs from formal cooperative learning in the duration

of group work, it may be just for few minutes.

3- Cooperative base groups are long-term, and group members are heterogeneous and

meet each other regularly.

12

2.2.3. Cooperative learning studies

More than 1300 research studies have been conducted in the past 2 decades on

cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts. Finding of these studies validated,

modified, refined, and extended the social interdependence theory which is a base for

cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Cooperative or collaborative learning is

based on the work of the philosopher Dewey, and social psychologist Piaget and Vygotsky

about experiential learning and student-centered learning. As Johnson and Johnson

mention researchers such as Sexton began to criticize competition in late 1960s, and

social scientists (Hartup, 1976; Johnson, 1980; Johnson & Johnson, 1981; Ladd, 1999 Lewis

& Rosenblum, 1975) pointed out the necessity of peer interaction and relationship in

socialization and learning. Cooperative learning became popular from 1980s. According to

Johnson and Johnson classify variables which mediate the effectiveness of cooperation

into: Positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction,

appropriate use of social skills, group processing.

Nassagi and Tian (2010) in their study on collaborative and individual output tasks and

their effect on learning English phrasal verbs investigate the effectiveness of two types of

task ( reconstruction cloze tasks and reconstruction editing tasks) on learning English

phrasal verbs and also it aims to find whether doing the tasks collaboratively led to

greater gains of target verbs than doing the tasks individually and also examine whether

the type of tasks make difference by use of pre-test and post-test. They analyzed data

both qualitatively and quantitatively and also repeated measure ANOVA was used. They

concluded that in accuracy of production of target items there is significant main effect for

task type and also significant main effect of condition, but it shows no significant

interaction between time and condition. The finding of this study about pair work is

consistent with the results of some of the previous study (Kuiken & Vedder, 2002; Stork,

1997; Stork, 2005); although collaborative context may lead to better task performance, it

may not necessarily lead to subsequent learning of target forms.

13

Johnson and Johnson (2009) describe how social and educational psychology has

contributed to educational practice by expressing summary of social interdependence

theory as foundation of cooperative learning and give an overview of relevant research

and also by discussing the application of theory to education. They refer to theory as a

source for conceptual framework to organize thinking about cooperation and

competition, concluded what is known and also help to give direction for further studies.

Nussbaum (2008) aims give reasons about the importance of collaborative discourse

and collaborative argumentation in improving students’ deep-level understanding of

content and its long-term effects in learning gains, and also whether use of collaborative

learning make learners able to transfer their achieved knowledge when they are

individually in real context. the researcher refers to the difference between collaborative

discourse and collaborative argument and express that in classroom context instructors

invite students to use combination of these techniques and concluded that collaborative

discourse and collaborative argumentation improve learning and understanding since

students have an opportunity to engage in hypothesis testing, when they focused on

conceptual principles, when metacognitive reflection is prompted and promoted by

ground rules and group norms, also by use of collaborative techniques connection

between new information and previous knowledge become strengthened, so

collaborative discourse and collaborative argumentation function to have lifelong learning

gains.

Hung, Mehl and Holen (2013) in an explanatory study on relation between Problem

Design and learning process in problem –based environment express that problem based

learning is kind of cooperative techniques which improve critical thinking and also makes

learners ready undertake task in real world, they aim to have more self-directed learners.

They concluded that the kind of problems in this environment affects learners’ cognitive

level and also it has influenced learners’ perception psychologically.

14

With regard to what was mentioned above, there are differences in competitive and

cooperative learning contexts such as teaching techniques which can create environment

in which learners deploy different techniques to learn, and the kinds of feedbacks in these

contexts are different, also learners dependence to teachers and other classmates is

different in different contexts, so learner autonomy may be affected by different

techniques in different environment. The other factor which is influenced by different

context is the techniques learners employ for learning which is called language learning

strategies.

2.3. Language learning strategies

According to Oxford and Crookall (1989) learning strategies are things that learners do

to aid their understanding of target language.

(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford 1990; Waden & Rubin, 1987) define learning strategies

as what approaches and techniques students use to understand target language and

improve their progress in developing second or foreign language skills. Chamot (2004)

adds a new characteristic to this definition and it is consciousness.

Ellis (2008, p.703) argue that the actions that learners perform in order to learn a

language have been variously labeled behaviors, tactics, techniques, and strategies. With

regard to these definitions it is worth to mention that language learning strategies are

conscious and intentional techniques which facilitate language learning.

2.3.1. Classifications of language learning strategies

Different researchers classify learning strategies in different way. Most of these classifications reflect more or less the same categories of language learning strategies. According to Rubin (1981), Language Learning Strategies classify as: Direct strategies which include clarification, verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, practice and Indirect strategies which is consist of creating practice opportunities and using production tricks such as communication

15

strategies. Brown and Palinscar (1982) classify strategies into three groups: cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and affective social strategies. O’Malley, et al (1985) gives the same classification.

Table2. Classifications of language learning strategies

Namin, et al. (1978)

An active task approach

Realization of a language as a system

Realization of a language as a means of communication and interaction

Management of affective demands

Monitoring of second language performance

Rubin (1981)

Direct Strategies ( Clarification/ Verification, Monitoring, Memorization, Guessing/ Inductive reasoning, Deductive reasoning and Practice)

Indirect Strategies ( Creating Practice opportunities and Using Production Tricks such as communication strategies)

Brown and Palinscar (1982)

Cognitive Strategies

Metacognitive Strategies

Affective Strategies

O’Malley, et al. (1985)

Metacognitive Strategies


Socio-affective Strategies

Rubin (1987) Cognitive Strategies

Self-management Strategies

Oxford (1990)

Direct Strategies ( Memory Strategies, Cognitive Strategies, and Compensation Strategies)

Indirect Strategies ( Metacognitive Strategies, Affective Strategies, and Social Strategies)

16

Stern (1992)

Management and Planning Strategies


Communicative-Experiential Strategies

Interpersonal Strategies

Affective Strategies

This study adopts Oxford taxonomy consisting of two main classes and each class consists of three groups: Direct strategies consisting of memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies and indirect strategies consisting of metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. Definitions were mentioned in previous chapter.

Learning Strategies

Diagram of the strategy system: Overview (Oxford, 1990, P.16)

17

Direct Strategies Indirect Strategies

Compensation Strategies

Cognitive StrategiesMemory Strategies Affective StrategiesMetacognitive Strategies

Social Strategies

2.3.2. Factors that affect language learning strategy use

The choice of language learning strategies depends on different factors consists of

learners factors such as: sex, age, school years, proficiency, motivation, anxiety,

autonomy, aptitude, their purpose of using strategy, their beliefs and also environmental

factors such as: institution, interaction with peers and class together. In this research

based on last mentioned factors which is about the interactions of learners and teacher I

consider two kinds of learning context: competitive and cooperative.

2.3.3. Language learning strategy studies

More than three decades elapse since the beginning of studies in the area of language

learning strategies. Researchers have started to study language learning strategies since

1960.

Rubin (1975) refers to techniques learners used to acquire knowledge as learning

strategies, and this research initiate other researchers such as: Ellis(1985), Oxford(1990),

O’Malley and Chamot (1990), Nunan(1991), and Cohen(2000) to investigate relationship

between strategy use and success in second language mastering. Most of these studies

indicate that there is positive relationship between strategy use and second language

achievement and also concluded that both the frequency of strategy use and the choice of

strategies discriminate the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful learners.

Zhang and Li (2011) present a classification theory and framework for second

vocabulary learning strategies which enable learners to organize various strategies into

meaningful categories; and also by checking what strategies they have or have not, they

can choose an appropriate strategies at each important stage of their word studying.

Their framework consists of a six-factor structure; four categories related to cognitive

process of lexical acquisition and two others are metacognitive and affective factors. The

six-factor structure is most closed to three-component model proposed by O’ Malley and

18

Chamot (1990) with a major difference in that the affective factor is combined with social

factor and social strategies become part of cognitive factor.

Qingquan, Chatupote, and Teo (2008) in an article on A DEEP LOOK INTO LEARNING

STRATEGY USE BY SUCCESSFUL STUDENTS IN CHINESE EFL LEARNING CONTEXT investigate

the difference in frequency of language learning strategy use by successful and

unsuccessful First-year university students in China by use of Oxford Strategy Use

Inventory for learning version 7.0 (1989) and also Wen’s (1995) questionnaire which

characterized by the Chinese learning context used in mainland China with some

modification. They concluded that successful students used a wider range of learning

strategies for EFL learning significantly more frequent than unsuccessful students; also

successful students used different kind of strategies such as deep-L2-based, active

participation, positive-attitude, learning-process monitoring; while unsuccessful students

used surface-based, word-level, rote-memory, and gesture strategies.

Erten and Williams (2008) investigate the suitability of the two statistical procedures in

the calculation of the effectiveness of vocabulary learning strategies: calculating

percentage and correlation coefficient. Twenty intermediate to advanced level students

with different first language background given a written list of twelve words to study and

asked to report what they did to learn words as soon as they finished studying them. Both

percentage calculation and correlation coefficient were applied on the same data set. The

authors concluded that using percentage calculation as an indicator of strategy

effectiveness can be more realistic measure in terms of validating the strategy

effectiveness; although, correlation coefficient provided holistic treatment, percentage

calculation allow researchers to treat discreet cases of vocabulary learning strategies

separately.

Tseng, DÖrnyei, and Schmitt (2006) introduce a new approach to assess vocabulary

learning strategy use by learners: Self-regulated capacity. They refer to underlying

19

problems with strategy studies discuss about two famous instruments use to assess

learning strategies: Motivational strategies for learning questionnaire and Oxford strategy

inventory for language learning (SILL). With the mean scale coefficient 0.77, they

concluded that the validity and reliability of Self-Regulating Capacity in vocabulary

learning are satisfactory and the construct of self-regulated can successfully be

transferred to the field of second language learning.

2.4. Learner autonomy

Autonomy has been defined by many educators in different ways based on different

factors such as the writer and the context, and etc. It has been considered as personal

trait, as political measure, or as educational move. This is due to the fact that autonomy is

seen either (or both) as means or as end in education. Smith (2008) refers to Holec, the

father of learner autonomy, and defined autonomous language learner as learners that

take responsibility for the totality of their learning situation. He does this by determining

his own objectives; define the content to be learned and the progression of the course,

selecting methods and techniques to be used, monitoring this procedure, and evaluating

what he has acquired. Objectives are specific to the learner, and the learners’

communication needs determines the verbal element chosen. The operational definition

given by Little is that practice of learner autonomy requires insight, positive attitude,

capacity for reflection, and a readiness to be proactive in self-management and in

interaction with others. Benson (2011, p.124) autonomy and autonomous learning is

“learning in which autonomous learners demonstrate a capacity to control their learning”

and in which autonomous behavior is developed through practice in a way of learning

which help to promote self-direction. There are many different techniques to create

environment in which learners become autonomous. One of these techniques is peer and

self-assessment in cooperative learning context.

20

2.4.1. Leaner autonomy studies

Cooke (2013) in her article investigates the effect of transcription and reflective

practice on learners’ autonomy. She divides students into groups of five or six and used an

mp3 player to record the 6 minutes conversation of each group of students and then

wants students to transcribe the complete spoken interaction of their groups along with a

completed association comment sheet. Transcription convention was used by students to

show long pause and etc. The researcher concluded that transcription and reflective

practice can help support the development of noticing, arguably a key element in

autonomous acquisition of new language, language development and also allow students

greater opportunity to reflect upon their own and their classmates performance and

begin to incorporate more collaborative elements and also promote peer evaluation and

feedback.

Murphy (2008) investigates how distance language course materials support the

development of critical reflection and autonomy by examining course materials against

criteria derived from the features in the literature which is important in developing

autonomous learners and also by interview with learners who used of these materials.

The author refers to critical reflection, metacognitive strategies, self-assessment,

interaction and collaboration as the key criteria in automatization. She concluded that

now, in recent decades, distance course materials provide more opportunities for learners

to define their goals and decide on what they need to learn, engage in collaborative

activity, reflection, self-evaluation, and also require deployment of metacognitive

strategies, and make learners more autonomous.

Po-Ying (2007) on Exploratory Practice (EP) investigates how students react to play a

master role in their own learning by understand their experience which is the main idea of

Exploratory Practice, it also encourage self and peer evaluation, brainstorming, and focus

on areas of strengths through the process of Puzzle, Narrative, Discussion, and Reflection

of the puzzle. The writer concluded that in Exploratory Practice, students try out different 21

ways and then select suitable strategies according to their needs and their abilities; so

they become decision-makers which lead them to become engaged in learning, actively.

In another study, Vickers and Ene (2006) investigate advanced ESL learners’ ability to

gain grammatical accuracy when engaging in an autonomous self-correction that explicitly

direct learners to form, by make them compare their own written output and native

speaker text on a specific topic written by native teacher for the purpose of the study. The

researchers by use of pre-test select learners who are developmentally ready to learn the

form, which they aim to study; there were two groups in the study: control group and

experimental group which receive treatment (self- comparison). After learners completed

all of the tasks, post-test given to them and also another post-test given to them to

investigate whether the result is maintained or not. They concluded that Explicit Self-

correction was effective in terms of gains in grammatical accuracy and these grammatical

gains were both immediate and maintained.

With Regard to what was mentioned above about the differences in competitive and

cooperative context, and the factors which is influenced by these two context, the aim of

these research is to find the effect of these context in language learning strategy use and

also learner autonomy, to investigate whether cooperative teaching techniques leads to

increase frequency of the language learning strategy use and also promote learner

autonomy or not?

22

3. Method

3.1. Overview

This section explains the method including the participants, the instrument, the

procedure which will be employed to collect data, and the design of the study.

3.2. Participants

In the present study there will be a sample of 40 adult, female, intermediate level EFL

learners studying English for general purposes in a language institute. 20 students will be

in the competitive learning context and 20 in the cooperative learning context.

3.3. Instruments

To answer the research questions of the study, the following instruments will be

utilized:

1) Strategy questionnaire

2) Autonomy questionnaire

First, the Persian translation of a modified version of Oxford’s SILL (Strategy Inventory

of Language Learning) with 50 strategy items on a 5-pointLlikert scale from 'never' to

'always' will be given to the participants to obtain information about kinds and frequency

of language learning strategy use.

The questionnaire will consist of six categories:

1- Memory strategies which have nine items (Part A).

2- Cognitive strategies containing fourteen items (Part B).

3- Compensation strategies which include six items (Part C).

4- Meta-cognitive strategies including nine items (Part D).

5- Affective strategies which have six items (Part E).

6- Social strategies which involve six items (Part F).

23

Second, the Persian translation of an autonomy questionnaire on five-point scale and

coded as (A. never, B. rarely, C. sometimes, D. often, E. always) with 21 items, will be

given to the participants to measure their autonomy level.

3.4. Procedures

To achieve the purpose of this study the following procedures will be followed.

First, in order to encourage the participants to answer questions honestly and without

anxiety, the participants will be informed about the aims and the purposes of the study. Then,

the questionnaire will be given to the participants in two stages.

In the first stage, the autonomy and strategy questionnaires will be given to all of the

participants to capture their initial difference.

Then, in one class, cooperative teaching techniques will be used to the extent that no time

remains for learners to work individually; the other class will be the same as the traditional,

competitive classes in which each student will work individually.

At the end of the instructional period, the autonomy and strategy questionnaires will be

administered to measure the gain of the learners after the use of the competitive and

cooperative teaching techniques. The obtained data will then be summarized and submitted

to statistical analysis.

Table3. Quasi-experimental method

Control Group Pretest Competitive

Teaching

Posttest

Experimental

Group

Pretest Cooperative

Teaching

Posttest

24

3.5. Data analysis

To analyze the data and to answer the research questions about the effects of competitive

and cooperative learning techniques on language learning strategy use and learner autonomy,

two separate Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Procedures will be used.

25

References

Barkley, Cross & Major (2005). Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty.

Benson, p. (2011). Teaching and Researching Autonomy, Second Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2004). Asynchronous Web discussion in teacher training courses: Promoting Collaborative Learning or not? AACE Journal, 12(2), 155-170.

Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.

Brown, A.L., & Palinscar, A.S. (1982). Including Strategic learning from contexts by means of informed self-control training, Technical Report, 262, 1-49.

Chamout, A. U. (2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching, Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.

Chen, H. (2005). A comparison between Cooperative learning and Traditional, Whole-class Methods Teaching English in a Junior College. Academic Journal of kang-ning, 3, 62-82.

Cohen, A.D. (2000). Strategies in Learning and using Second Language, Benjing: Foreign language teaching and research press.

Cooke, S. D. (2013). Examining Transcription, Autonomy and Reflective Practice in Language Development, RELC Journal, 44(1), 75-85.

Tseng, w-t, DÖrnyei, Z, and Schmitt, N. (2006). a New Approach to Assessing Strategic Learning: The Case of Self-Regulation in Vocabulary Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Erten, I. H and Williams, M. (2008). a comparative look into how to measure the effectiveness of vocabulary learning strategies: through using percentages and correlation coefficients, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 4(2), 56-72.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative Learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology & Education, 7(1), 22-30.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. (first published 1979, Strasbourg: Council of Europe).

26

Hung, W., Mehl, K., Bergland Holen, J. (2013). The relationship between Problem Design and Learning Process in Problem-Based Learning Environment: Two Cases. Asia Pacific Edu Res. 1-11. DOI: 10.1007/s40299-013-0066-0.

Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success story: Social Interdependence Theory and cooperative learning. Educational Research, 38(5), 365-379.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., and Holubec, E. (2008). Cooperation in the classroom (8th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction book Company.

Lia, E. R. (2011). Collaboration: A Literature Review. http://www.pearsonassessments.com/research.

Littlewood, W. (2009). Chinese Learners and Interactive Learning. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Murphy, L. (2008). Supporting learner autonomy: Developing practice through the production of courses for distance learners of French, German and Spanish, Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 83-102.DOI: 10.1177/1362168807084495 Nassaji, H. and Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs, RELC Journal, 14(4), 397-419.

Namin, N., FrÖhlich, M., Stern, H.H., and Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto: OISE Press.

Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and Literature review, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345-359.

O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U.Stewner-Manzarares, G., Russo, R.P., and Küpper, L.(1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557-584.

O’Malley, J.M, and A.U.Chamot (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Oxford, R, L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every teacher should know. (Boston: Heinle & Heinle)

Po-ying, Chu (2007). How students react to the power and responsibility of being decision makers in their own learning, Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 225-241. DOI: 10.1177/136216880607074613.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner″ can teach us, TESOL Quarterley,9, 41-51.

27

Qingquan,N., Chatupote, M. and Teo, A. (2008). A Deep Look into Learning Strategy Use by Successful and Unsuccessful Students in the Chinese EFL Learning Context, RELC Journal, 39(3), 338-358.

Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 2, 117-131.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2(1), 43-69.

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Cooperation Learning and Cooperative School, Educational Leadership, 45(3), 7-13.

Smith, R. (2008). Key Concept in ELT: Learner Autonomy, ELT Journal, 62(1), 395-397. Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford. OUP.

Vickers, C. H. and Ene, E. (2006). Grammatical accuracy and learner autonomy in advanced writing. ELT Journal, 60(2), 109-116. DOI: 10.1093/elt/cci097. Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind In Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waden, A., and J. Rubin (eds). (1987). Leaner Strategies in language learning ( London: Prentice/ Hall international).

Wang, T.P.(2007). The comparison of difficulties between cooperative learning and traditional teaching methods in college English teachers. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 3(2), 23-30.

Zarei, A. A, and Elekaei, A. (2012). Learner Autonomy and Language Learning Strategies. LAP LAMBERT Academic publishing.

Zhang, B. and Li, Ch. (2011). Classification of L2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies: Evidence from Explanatory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses, RELC Journal, 42(2), 141-154.

28

Imam Khomeini International University - IKIU€¦ · Web viewWriting: organizing and...

Documents

Transcript of Imam Khomeini International University - IKIU€¦ · Web viewWriting: organizing and...