فرمت فایل : WORD (قابل ویرایش)
تعداد صفحات:164
پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد رشته آموزش زبان انگلیسی
The Comparative Impact of Competitive and Cooperative Content-Based Instruction on EFL Learners’ Reading 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 146
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 2.1. Modern Methods of CL 45
Figure 2.1 Writing Process 66
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the KET Piloting 94
Figure 4.1 Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the KET Piloting 94
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Scores Given by the Two Raters to the Writing Papers of 30 Students 95
Table 4.3 Inter-Rater Reliability between the Two Raters Scoring the KET Writing Papers 96
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics for KET 96
Figure 4.2 Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the KET
Administration 97
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of the KET Writing and Reading Scores of the Two Groups at the Outset 98
Figure 4.3 Histogram of the KET Writing Scores of the Cooperative Group 99
Figure 4.4 Histogram of the KET Writing Scores of the Competitive Group 99
Figure 4.5 Histogram of the KET Reading Scores of the Cooperative Group 100
Figure 4.6 Histogram of the KET Reading Scores of the Competitive Group 100
Table 4.6 Independent Samples t-test for the Experimental Groups’ Mean on the KET Writing Section at the Outset 101
Table 4.7 Mann-Whitney Test: Ranks 102
Table 4.8 Mann-Whitney Test: Test statistics 102
Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics for the Reading Posttest Piloting 103
Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics for the Reading Posttest in Both
Groups 104
Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics for the Writing Posttest in Both
Groups 104
Table 4.11 Independent Samples t-test for the Experimental Groups’ Means on the Reading Posttest 105
Table 4.12 Descriptive Statistics of the Two Groups’ Scores on the Writing Pre- and Posttests 107
Table 4.13 Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances 107
Figure 4.7 Linearity of the Dependent Variable and Covariate 108
Table 4.14 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (1) 109
Table 4.15 Between-Subjects Factor 110
Table 4.16 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (2) 110
Table 4.17 Estimated Marginal Means 110
چکیده
هدف از انجام این مطالعه بررسی مقایسه تأثیر آموزش رقابتى و توأم با همکارى محتوامحور بر خواندن و نگارش زبان آموزان انگلیسی بوده است. به منظور دستیابی به هدف این تحقیق 60 نفر از دانش آموزان سمای مشهد درمقطع سوم راهنمایی از میان 90 داوطلب بر اساس نتایج به دست آمده از یک آزمون انگلیسى انتخاب شده و در دو گروه تحقیق قرار گرفتند. در هر دو گروه، محتواى مشخص شده طى 12 جلسه توسط محقق/مدرس تدریس شد با این تفاوت که در یک گروه، روش تدریس آموزش رقابتی و در گروه دیگر، روش تدریس توأم با همکاری بوده است. در انتهاى دوره، پس آزمونى ارائه گردید و با استفاده از آزمون مستقل تی و آنالیز کوواریانس، میانگین نمرات دو گروه مقایسه شد که منجر به رد هر دو فرضیه صفر گشت. نتیجه این است که روش تدریس توأم با همکاری در میزان یادگیرى خواندن و نوشتار زبان آموزان مؤثرتر میباشد.