This study was an attempt to investigate the effects of cooperative learning on Grade 11 students’ writing performance in Afar Regional State, Samara Secondary and Preparatory School, in focus. More specifically, the study addressed the following research questions: (1) What are the effects of cooperative learning on students’ writing performance? (2) Which one of the components of writing most benefited from the cooperative learning approach? And the following hypotheses: (Ho) There is no significant difference in the mean gain scores of the writing performance before and after the incorporation of cooperative learning and (H1) There is a significant difference in the mean gain scores of the writing performance before and after the incorporation of cooperative learning. This research project was mainly experimental in design. Pre-test and post-test measures were analyzed using a t-test statistical procedure. The main subjects of the study were two sections of Grade 11 students. Moreover, 60 students, 30 each from two natural science classes were randomly grouped as experimental and control groups. The effects of CL on students’ writing ability was examined through the pre-test and the post-test. The results of the pre-test showed that there was no significant difference in the students’ writing between the control and experimental groups prior to the experiment. The results of the post-test showed that there was a significant difference between the control and experimental groups in students’ writing abilities (P<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was proved to bring change on students’ writing ability. Similarly, the study also identified that organization is the basic component of writing skill that benefited most from the cooperative learning approach. However the current study was showed positive effects of CL on students’ writing performance, in the future researches can be conducted on the effects of CL on other language skills.
| Published in | Arabic Language, Literature & Culture (Volume 6, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.allc.20210602.11 |
| Page(s) | 26-36 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Cooperative Learning, Writing Skills, Cooperative Writing, Individual Writing, Writing Performance, Components of Writing
| [1] | Alamirew G/Mariam (2005). A Study on the Perception of Writing, Writing Instruction, and Students’ Writing Performance. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Addis Ababa University. |
| [2] | Brown (2000).Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Longman. California. |
| [3] | Brown, H. Douglas, (1941). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Longman. California. |
| [4] | Brown, H. Douglas, (2000). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2ndedn). Longman. California. |
| [5] | Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. |
| [6] | Brown, D., and Thomson, C (2000).Cooperative Learning in New Zealand Schools, Palmerston, NZ: Dunmore Press. |
| [7] | Crandall, (1999).Cooperative language learning and affective factors. CUP. |
| [8] | Christison, M.A. (1990). Cooperative learning in the EFL classroom. English language forum. |
| [9] | Cohen, E. (1994a). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom.(2nd Edition). New York: Teachers College Press. |
| [10] | Cohen, L. (2000) Research Methods in Education (5thEdn). London: Routledge Falmer |
| [11] | Cohen, E.G., & Lotan R, A. (2014). Designing group work strategies for the heterogeneous classroom(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. |
| [12] | Creswell, J., Klassen, A., Clark, V., and Smith, K. (2010). Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences. The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSS). |
| [13] | Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. |
| [14] | Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 197-334. |
| [15] | Dorneyi, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press. |
| [16] | Ebrahim, A. (2012). The effect of cooperative learning strategies on elementary students’ science achievement and social skills in Kuwait. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 293-314. |
| [17] | Effandi, Z., & Zanaton, I. (2007). Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: A Malaysian perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. |
| [18] | Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [19] | Galton, M., and Williamson, J. (1992).Group work in the Primary Schools, London, Routledge. |
| [20] | Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996).Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in classroom-based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187-200. |
| [21] | Gillies, R. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271-287. |
| [22] | Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., and McConnell, D. (2004). Advances in Research on Networked Learning. Instructional Science, 31(1-2), 1-6. |
| [23] | Hamidah, C. M. (2008). The Impact Study on the Performance of Critical Thinking Skills in Writing a Summary of the Subject of Malay Language among Students of Different Levels of Achievement. MA Thesis, Serdang, Malaysia. |
| [24] | Haregewoin Abate (2008).The Effect of Communicative Grammar on the Grammatical Accuracy of Students Writing: An Integrated Approach to TEFL. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. AAU. |
| [25] | Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Harlow: Longman. |
| [26] | Harmer, J. (2005). How to teach English. An introduction to the practice of English language teaching. Addison Wesley Longman Limited. (First Pub 1998). |
| [27] | Harmer, J. (2006).The practice of English language teaching. England: Pearson. |
| [28] | Harris, J. (1993). Introducing Writing. England. |
| [29] | Hayes. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C.M. Levy and S. Randell (eds), The science of writing. NJL Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |
| [30] | Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [31] | Hedge,T.(2005).Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [32] | Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1989). Cooperation and helping in the classroom: A contextual Approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 113-119. |
| [33] | Hogan, T.P., Benjamin, A., & Brezinksi, K.L. (2000). Reliability methods: A note on the frequency of use of various types. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(4), 523-531. |
| [34] | Hornby, G. (2009). The effectiveness of cooperative learning with trainee teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 35, 161-168. |
| [35] | Ismail, S.A. (2007). Exploring students’ perceptions of ESL writing. English language teaching, 4(2) |
| [36] | Italo Beriso (1999). A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Teacher versus Peer Feedback on Addis Ababa University Students’ Writing Revisions. Ph.D. Thesis, AAU. |
| [37] | Johns (2003).‘Genre and ESL/EFL Composition Instruction’ In Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing, Barbara Kroll (Ed.) 195-217 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [38] | Johnson, R.T., and Johnson, D.W. (1986).Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and children, 24, 31-32. |
| [39] | Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T., (1989).Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Interaction Book Company. |
| [40] | Johnson, D. and Johnson, R.T. (2003). Students Motivation in Cooperative Groups. Cooperative Learning the Social and Intellectual. Outcomes of Learning in Groups. London: Routledge Flamer. |
| [41] | Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. and Holubec, E.J.(1994). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom, Alexandria, VA, ASCD. |
| [42] | Johnson et al (1998). Cooperation in the Classroom, Edina, MN, Interaction Book Company. |
| [43] | Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999).Learning together and alone: Competitive and Individualistic Learning. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. |
| [44] | Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved on April 18, 2017, from http://www.cooperation org/pages/cl-methods.html |
| [45] | Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in Postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15- 29. |
| [46] | Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009).An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365-379 |
| [47] | Kagan, S. (2001).Cooperative Learning. Kagan Publishing. |
| [48] | Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. San Clemente: Author. |
| [49] | Kagan, S. & High, J. (2002). Kagan structures for English language learners. Retrieved from: December 9, 2018, http:www.KaganOnline. Com. |
| [50] | Kumar, R. (2001). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginner. London: Addison Wesley Longman. |
| [51] | Kyndt, et al. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educational Research Review, 133-149. |
| [52] | Law, Y. K. (2011). The effects of cooperative learning on enhancing Hong-Kong fifth graders’ achievement goals, autonomous motivation and reading proficiency. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(4), 402-425. |
| [53] | Lee, H. (2009). Group learning and cooperative learning in English language teaching.(Master’s thesis). Shandong Normal University, JINan, China. |
| [54] | Liang, T. (2002). Implementing cooperative learning in EFL teaching: Process and effects. Doctoral Dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. |
| [55] | Lotan, R. (2003). Group worthy tasks: When four heads are better than one. Educational Leadership, |
| [56] | Maasum, M. T. (2010). The Effects of cooperative learning in enhancing writing performance. Malaysia: SyafiniBt |
| [57] | Mandal, R. R. (2009).Cooperative learning strategies to enhance writing. The Modern of Applied Linguistics.1 (2). |
| [58] | Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J., Davidson, N., & Hawkes P., (1995). Building Bridges between Cooperative and Collaborative Learning. Change, 27, 35-40. |
| [59] | McDonough, J. and Shaw, C. (1993).Materials and Methods in ELT. Blackwell. |
| [60] | Millis, B. J. (2010). Cooperative Learning in Higher Education: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy. Stylus Publishing. |
| [61] | Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G. (1998).Cooperative learning for Higher Education Faculty. Phoenix. |
| [62] | MoE,(1994). Transitional Government of Ethiopia Education and Training Policy, Addis Ababa. |
| [63] | Slavin, R. E. (1983a). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman. |
| [64] | Slavin, R. E. (1989). Research on Cooperative Learning: Consensus and Controversy. Educational Leadership, 47, 52-54. |
| [65] | Slavin, R. E. (1994).Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice. (2ndEd.) Pearson. |
| [66] | Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn& Bacon. |
| [67] | Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(1), 3-13 |
| [68] | Zhang, X., & Chen, J. (1989).The techniques to teaching writing. English Teaching Forum, 27(2), 34. |
| [69] | Zhou, H. (2012). Enhancing non-english majors’ EFL motivation through cooperative learning. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 12(1), 1317-1323. |
APA Style
Mitiku Teshome Abeti, Italo Beriso. (2021). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Grade 11 Students’ Writing Performance: Afar Regional State, Ethiopia. Arabic Language, Literature & Culture, 6(2), 26-36. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.allc.20210602.11
ACS Style
Mitiku Teshome Abeti; Italo Beriso. Effects of Cooperative Learning on Grade 11 Students’ Writing Performance: Afar Regional State, Ethiopia. Arab. Lang. Lit. Cult. 2021, 6(2), 26-36. doi: 10.11648/j.allc.20210602.11
AMA Style
Mitiku Teshome Abeti, Italo Beriso. Effects of Cooperative Learning on Grade 11 Students’ Writing Performance: Afar Regional State, Ethiopia. Arab Lang Lit Cult. 2021;6(2):26-36. doi: 10.11648/j.allc.20210602.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.allc.20210602.11,
author = {Mitiku Teshome Abeti and Italo Beriso},
title = {Effects of Cooperative Learning on Grade 11 Students’ Writing Performance: Afar Regional State, Ethiopia},
journal = {Arabic Language, Literature & Culture},
volume = {6},
number = {2},
pages = {26-36},
doi = {10.11648/j.allc.20210602.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.allc.20210602.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.allc.20210602.11},
abstract = {This study was an attempt to investigate the effects of cooperative learning on Grade 11 students’ writing performance in Afar Regional State, Samara Secondary and Preparatory School, in focus. More specifically, the study addressed the following research questions: (1) What are the effects of cooperative learning on students’ writing performance? (2) Which one of the components of writing most benefited from the cooperative learning approach? And the following hypotheses: (Ho) There is no significant difference in the mean gain scores of the writing performance before and after the incorporation of cooperative learning and (H1) There is a significant difference in the mean gain scores of the writing performance before and after the incorporation of cooperative learning. This research project was mainly experimental in design. Pre-test and post-test measures were analyzed using a t-test statistical procedure. The main subjects of the study were two sections of Grade 11 students. Moreover, 60 students, 30 each from two natural science classes were randomly grouped as experimental and control groups. The effects of CL on students’ writing ability was examined through the pre-test and the post-test. The results of the pre-test showed that there was no significant difference in the students’ writing between the control and experimental groups prior to the experiment. The results of the post-test showed that there was a significant difference between the control and experimental groups in students’ writing abilities (P<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was proved to bring change on students’ writing ability. Similarly, the study also identified that organization is the basic component of writing skill that benefited most from the cooperative learning approach. However the current study was showed positive effects of CL on students’ writing performance, in the future researches can be conducted on the effects of CL on other language skills.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of Cooperative Learning on Grade 11 Students’ Writing Performance: Afar Regional State, Ethiopia AU - Mitiku Teshome Abeti AU - Italo Beriso Y1 - 2021/05/08 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.allc.20210602.11 DO - 10.11648/j.allc.20210602.11 T2 - Arabic Language, Literature & Culture JF - Arabic Language, Literature & Culture JO - Arabic Language, Literature & Culture SP - 26 EP - 36 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2639-9695 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.allc.20210602.11 AB - This study was an attempt to investigate the effects of cooperative learning on Grade 11 students’ writing performance in Afar Regional State, Samara Secondary and Preparatory School, in focus. More specifically, the study addressed the following research questions: (1) What are the effects of cooperative learning on students’ writing performance? (2) Which one of the components of writing most benefited from the cooperative learning approach? And the following hypotheses: (Ho) There is no significant difference in the mean gain scores of the writing performance before and after the incorporation of cooperative learning and (H1) There is a significant difference in the mean gain scores of the writing performance before and after the incorporation of cooperative learning. This research project was mainly experimental in design. Pre-test and post-test measures were analyzed using a t-test statistical procedure. The main subjects of the study were two sections of Grade 11 students. Moreover, 60 students, 30 each from two natural science classes were randomly grouped as experimental and control groups. The effects of CL on students’ writing ability was examined through the pre-test and the post-test. The results of the pre-test showed that there was no significant difference in the students’ writing between the control and experimental groups prior to the experiment. The results of the post-test showed that there was a significant difference between the control and experimental groups in students’ writing abilities (P<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was proved to bring change on students’ writing ability. Similarly, the study also identified that organization is the basic component of writing skill that benefited most from the cooperative learning approach. However the current study was showed positive effects of CL on students’ writing performance, in the future researches can be conducted on the effects of CL on other language skills. VL - 6 IS - 2 ER -
Information
Email: