دانلود پایان نامه

an 2005).
Table 4.7 normality tests
Group
N
Skewness
Kurtosis

Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
Cooperative
PET
28
-.316
.441
-1.265
.858

Pretest
28
-.310
.441
-.486
.858

Posttest
28
-.654
.441
-.320
.858
Competitive
PET
27
.789
.448
-.405
.872

Pretest
27
.519
.448
.420
.872

Posttest
27
.096
.448
.231
.872

The assumption of homogeneity of variances will be discussed when reporting the results of the independent t-test.
Upon checking the assumption and meeting them an independent samples t-test was run to compare the cooperative and competitive groups’ mean scores on the posttest of speech acts in order to probe the effect of cooperative and competitive learning on EFL learners’ achievement of speech acts.

The results of the independent t-test (t (53) = 4.77, P = .000 .05, r = .53) it represents a large effect size) indicated that there was a significant difference between cooperative and competitive groups’ mean scores on the posttest of speech acts.

Table 4.8 Independent samples t-test of Posttest scores

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means

F
Sig.
T
Df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower
Upper
Equal variances assumed
1.385
.245
4.770
53
.000
2.284
.479
1.324
3.245
Equal variances not assumed

4.780
52.734
.000
2.284
.478
1.326
3.243

It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances is met (Levene’s F = .245, P = .620 .05). That is why the first row of Table 4.8 , i.e. “Equal variances assumed” is reported.

Thus the null-hypothesis of the present study was rejected.

The two groups’ posttest results are demonstrated in Figure 4.2below.
Graph 4.2 Posttest of speech acts by groups

4.8. Empirical Validity

The Pearson Correlations between the PET and pretest and posttest of speech acts were calculated as empirical validity indices of the latter two tests. As displayed in Table 4.9 the significant correlations between the PET and Pretest (r (53) = .88, P = .000 .05) and posttest (r (53) = .60, P = .000 .05) of speech acts indicated that the speech acts tests enjoyed empirical validity.
Table 4.9 Pearson Correlation PET with Pretest and Posttest of Speech Acts

PET
Pretest
Pearson Correlation
.884**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
55
Posttest
Pearson Correlation
.604**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
55
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4.9. Reliability Indices
The K-R21 was run to check the reliability of the PET and pilot speech acts and te result for the PET and the pilot test of speech acts were (.84) and (.71) respectively.
Table 4.10 K-R21 Reliability

N of Items
Mean
Variance
K-R21
PET
66
37.25
53.630
.84
Pilot Speech Acts
20
14.31
12.629
.71

4.10 Reliability of the Writing Tasks in the PET test
The students’ writings on the pretest of PET were rated twice by the researcher, herself following the intra-rater scoring method. The writings were also scored by two raters, following the inter-rater method. A Pearson correlation was run to probe the inter-rater reliability and the results (Pearson R =.81, P = .000 .05) indicated significant agreement between the two raters. Table4.11 below represents the inter-rater reliability of the writing pretest.
Table 4.11Inter-Rater Reliability of the Writing Pretest

PREWRITING R2
PREWRITING R1
Pearson Correlation
.813**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
60
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Another Pearson correlation was also run to probe the intra-rater reliability of the writing pretest, and the results (Pearson R = .73, P = .000 .05) indicated significant agreement between the same rater in two different times. Table 4.12 shows the intra-rater reliability of the writing pretest.
Table 4.12 Intra-Rater Reliability of the Writing Pretest

Prewriting R1 b.
Prewriting R1a.
Pearson Correlation
.731**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
60
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

A comparison between the inter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities of the writing pretest showed that in both cases the correlation was significant at the 0.01 level. The inter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities reported were .81 and .73, respectively. This showed that the raters agreed upon the participants’ writing ability.
4.11. Discussion

The findings of the present study revealed that cooperative learning could prove more effective than competitive learning in the development of speech acts of the EFL students at the intermediate level. This is in line with findings of other researchers. Kessler (1992) employed cooperative learning to improve various language skills and components of the learners and he came up with rewarding results. Slavin (1995) also considered cooperative learning an effective teaching method in foreign and second language education and reported that via cooperative learning, the learners share their findings and second language learning experiences. Nelson, Gallagher, and Coleman (1993) found cooperative learning the best alternative for students improving their pragmatic knowledge of the second language they were developing since it put emphasis on active interaction among students of different abilities and backgrounds. Tsai (1998) displayed that more positive results could lie in academic achievement, social behavior, and affective development for the learners dealing with cooperative learning compared to the competition model of learning some institutions follow.
Basta (2011) discussed that cooperative learning could be considered the core concept within the discussion of communicative competence. While focusing on developing the second language within the framework of Communicative Language Teaching, Basta (2011) asserted that using speech acts could be encouraged via employing cooperative activities based on pair work and group work of learners in the classroom. In line with the above mentioned findings, Cohen(2007) argued that “interaction is essential to productivity and pragmatic development could be enhanced only when the task is open-ended and when the group members are cooperating with one another as if they have to exchange resources with each other”.(p.7)
Ellis (1991) considered cooperative instruction as a classroom method which might help the learners develop their second language and consciously try to solve their problems. Cohen and Perrault (1979), in their seminal work, Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts, paid a lot of attention to the role of interlocutors, situation, and the condition in which the conversation takes place. This means that they support the role cooperation can play in developing a real like conversation.
The findings of the study are in line with the research conducted in various domains of ELT and SLA, specifically when combined with notable assumptions such as activating learners’ awareness towards learning such as “focus on form” (Doughty, 2001), “focus on meaning” (Long & Robinson, 1998), “consciousness-raising” (Ellis, 1991), and “explicit an
d implicit” (Schmidt, 1990; 1994) issues in teaching the second/foreign language.
Theoretically speaking, cooperative based teaching of speech acts could be employed as one of the means in the development of ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). The effect of peer correction, teacher correction, and self correction could be well pursued in the implication of cooperative learning in the general language awareness of the learners. As Sugiharto (2006) presented pragmatic consciousness-raising could be redeveloped via employing cooperative learning. As Ho (2003) implied cooperation, and not competition, could be taken as a supportive factor in the development of second language among the learners. It also could energize the teacher’s feedback in the classroom.
Concerning the practical measures in close connection with cooperative teaching of speech acts in order to energize the current concepts in the classrooms, one could refer to the impact of this method in the development of language skills and components reported in the literature such as speech acts and second language learning (Schmidt & Richards, 1980), improvement of writing skill (Barkley, Cross and Major, 2005), development of overall communication (Bain, 2004).
Although cooperative learning techniques can be loosely categorized by the skill that each enhances, it is important to recognize that many cooperative learning exercises can be developed to fit within multiple categories. Communication and in its core concept effective, competence-oriented, face-to-face communication between the interlocutors enjoys a high bulk of speech acts: hence paying attention to the speech act tasks within the framework of cooperative learning is of paramount importance.  

این مطلب رو هم توصیه می کنم بخونین:   مقاله با موضوعالگوریتم ژنتیک، الگوریتم ازدحام ذرات، ازدحام ذرات، تحلیل حرکت

CHAPTER V

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications

In the first part of Chapter V, restatement of the problem, as well as research questions, hypotheses, and an overview of the procedures followed for the study, will be presented. In the second part, the pedagogical implications will appear, and in the third part of chapter V, suggestions for further research will be dealt with.
5.1 Restatement of the Problem
The present study was an attempt to investigate the comparative effect of cooperative and competitive learning on EFL learners’ achievement of speech acts. Considering the review of the related literature and what happens in real language classes, the following research question was put forward:
Is there any significant difference between the effect of cooperative and competitive learning on EFL learners’ achievement of speech act?
To answer the questions set the following null hypotheses were proposed:
H0: There is no significant difference between the effect of cooperative and competitive learning on EFL learners’ achievement of speech acts.
In order to test null hypotheses based on the results of the proficiency test of PET, 55female EFL learners at intermediate level whose scores fell within one standard deviation below and above the mean, were selected to be divided into two groups for the purpose of the study. Then a teacher- made multiple-choice discourse completion test (MCDCT) which comprised of 20 items was administered as the pretest. Nevertheless, the two groups were statistically compared via the results of the MCDCT pretest to make sure if they were eligible to take part in this study and if there was any difference in their ability in understanding the speech acts within the domain of pragmatic knowledge as commented in chapter four. The pretest checked the participants’ knowledge of speech acts in both groups with respect to apology and greeting terms. Analysis of the data showed that both cooperative and competitive groups were homogeneous before starting the treatment (see chapter four).
All the participants in both cooperative and competitive groups were exposed to the same material and same amount of time except that each enjoyed their own specific method of teaching and learning as explained in chapter three, section 3.3.2. Following 10 weeks of treatment via employing cooperative and competitive methods, the posttest was administered. The results of both pre and post tests were analyzed and compared through SPSS version 20 and then the results were checked against the research question of the study; the conclusions were drawn and reported.

5.2 Conclusion
The outcome of the pre and post-test data analysis clarified that the participants in the cooperative group significantly outperformed the subjects in the competitive group.


دیدگاهتان را بنویسید