سبد خرید من
هیچ محصولی وجود ندارد
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (TEFL)
جدید
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was an investigation of the comparative impact of cooperative and competitive content-based instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension and writing. To fulfill the purpose of this study, 60 female students of SAMA School of Mashad were selected from among a total number of 90 based on their performance on the KET test and randomly put into two experimental groups. The same content was taught to both groups during 12 sessions with the different methods of competitive and cooperative teaching being used in each class. A posttest (a reading and writing section of another KET) was administered at the end of the treatment to both groups and their mean scores on the test were compared through an independent samples t-test and an ANCOVA. The results led to the rejection of both null hypotheses with the cooperative method of instruction being more effective on EFL learners’ reading comprehension and writing.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vii
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1
1.1. Introduction 2
1.2. Statement of the Problem 7
1.3. Statement of the Research Questions 8
1.4. Statement of the Research Hypotheses 9
1.5. Definition of Key Terms 9
1.5.1. Reading 9
1.5.2. Writing 9
1.5.3. Content-Based Instruction 10
1.5.4. Cooperative Learning 10
1.5.5. Competitive Learning 11
1.6. Significance of the Study 11
1.7. Limitations and Delimitation 12
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 14
2.1. Introduction 15
2.2. Content-Based Instruction 16
2.2.1. Theory Behind Content-Based Instruction 18
2.2.2. Content-Based Instruction: Different Approaches 20
2.2.2.1. Sheltered Model 20
2.2.2.2. Adjunct Model 21
2.2.2.3. Theme-Based Model 21
2.3. Cooperative Method of Teaching 22
2.3.1. History 22
2.3.2. Types 25
2.3.3. Elements 27
2.3.4. Cooperative Learning Techniques 29
2.3.4.1. Think Pair Share 29
2.3.4.2. Jigsaw 30
2.3.4.3. Jigsaw II 30
2.3.4.4. Reverse Jigsaw 30
2.3.4.5. Reciprocal Teaching 31
2.3.4.6. The Williams 31
2.3.4.7. STAD 31
2.3.5. Research Supporting Cooperative Learning 32
2.3.6. Benefits and applicability of cooperative Learning 32
2.3.7. Limitations 35
2.3.8. Cooperative Goal Structures 37
2.3.9. Theoretical Influences of CL 39
2.3.10. Theoretical Underlying CL 40
2.3.10.1. Vygotskian Perspective 40
2.3.10.2. Piagetian Perspective 41
2.3.10.3. Bandura's Social Learning Theory 43
2.3.11. CL Methods 44
2.3.12. Elements of CL 45
2.4. Competitive Method of Teaching 46
2.4.1. Competitive Goal Structures 47
2.4.2. Individualistic Goal Structures 49
2.4.3. Personality Traits 50
2.5. Writing 52
2.5.1. Importance of Writing in History 52
2.5.2. Goals and Significance of Writing 55
2.5.3. Approaches to Teaching Writing 58
2.5.3.1. Product-Based Approach 58
2.5.3.2. Process-Based Approach 60
2.5.3.3. Genre-Based Approach 63
2.5.4. Writing Process 64
2.5.4.1. Planning (Pre-writing) 66
2.5.4.1.1. Brainstorming 66
2.5.4.1.2. Clustering 67
2.5.4.2. Free Writing 67
2.5.4.3. Drafting 68
2.5.4.4. Revising 68
2.5.4.5. Editing 69
2.5.4.6. Providing Feedback 70
2.6. Reading 71
2.6.1. Phonemic Awareness 71
2.6.2. Balanced Approach and Code-Emphasis 73
2.6.2.1. DRA: A Balanced Approach Assessment 74
2.6.3.2. DIBELS: A Code Emphasis Approach Assessment
76
CHAPTER III: METHOD 80
3.1. Introduction 81
3.2. Participants 81
3.3. Instrumentations and Materials 82
3.3.1. Tests 82
3.3.1.1. Key English Test (KET) 82
3.3.1.2. Posttest 85
3.3.2. Materials 85
3.3.2.1. Textbooks 85
3.3.2.2. Dictionary 86
3.4. Procedure 86
3.4. Procedure 84
3.5. Design 90
3.6. Statistical Analyses 90
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 92
4.1. Introduction 93
4.2. Participant Selection 93
4.2.1. Descriptive Statistics of the KET Piloting 94
4.2.2. Descriptive Statistics of the KET Administration 96
4.2.3. Dividing the Participants into Two Groups 97
4.3. Posttest 103
4.3.1. Reading Posttest 103
4.3.2. Writing Posttest 104
4.4.Testing the Null Hypotheses 105
4.4.1. Testing the First Null Hypothesis 105
4.4.2. Testing the Second Null Hypothesis 106
4.3. Posttest 103
4.4.Testing the Null Hypotheses 105
4.5. Discussion 111
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL 114 IMPLICATIONS
5.1. Introduction 115
5.2. Restatement of the Problem 115
5.3. Pedagogical Implications 117
5.3.1. Implication for EFL Teachers 117
5.3.2. Implication for EFL Syllabus Designers 118
5.4. Suggestions for Further Research 118
REFERENCES 120
APPENDICES 132
Appendix A: Sample KET for Homogenization 133
Appendix B: Writing Rubric 145
Appendix C: Posttest