|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| Students in higher learning institutes in Malaysia face some difficulties in expressing themselves in English language and show lack of competency in speech. They perform poorly in the English language during examination held in the university and also interviews. Based on the problems encountered by the weak students, it was deemed necessary to provide some form of guidance to enable the ESL students to speak confidently. The guidance comes in the form of a cooperative interactive learning module for teaching speaking to weak ESL students. The purpose of the study is to develop a cooperative interactive learning module as a teaching approach that could benefit ESL students at the university. This study also investigates the attitudes of the students before and after using the cooperative interactive learning module concerning speaking.The research comprises of two stages namely instructional design, ADDIE model (to develop the module). A quasi-experimental design was carried out to look at the effectiveness of the Cooperative Interactive Learning Module on students’ speaking skills. Cooperative Interactive Learning (CIL) Training Module was designed as a teaching and learning aid to assist educators to enable them to use some of the fundamental concepts of (CIL) in their everyday teaching to enhance ESL students’ speaking skills. The module consists of three units of hands on activities, current practices on (CIL) and prior knowledge, CL concepts, conceptualization of a structural and complex CIL approach. The findings revealed that the Cooperative Interactive Learning Module was effective for higher learning institutes students because it enhanced graduates’ communication skills that will enable them to understand written and spoken instruction, and express ideas in a variety of situations. |
| References |
1. Baloche, L. & Brody, C. M. (2017). Cooperative learning: Exploring challenges, crafting innovations. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(3), 274-283. 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1319513 3. Bertram, G. (2002). The importance of oral language in the school curriculum. Effective 4. Communication. Ministry of Education, New Zealand Government. 5. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Principles From Https://Www.Researchgate.Net/Publication/254097701_cooperative_learning_theory_principles_and_techniques [Accessed Apr 12 2018]. 6. EyayuMolla and MeseretMuche, “Impact of Cooperative Learning Approaches on Students’ 7. Academic Achievement and Laboratory Proficiency in Biology Subject in Selected Rural Schools, Ethiopia,” Education Research International, vol. 2018, Article ID 6202484, 9 pages, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6202484. 8. Ghaith, G. M. (2018). Teacher perceptions of the challenges of 9. implementing concrete and conceptual cooperative learning. Issues in Educational Research, 28(2), 385-404. http://www.iier.org.au/iier28/ghaith.pdf 10. Gomleksiz, M. N. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw II) method on 11. teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (Case of Firat University, 12. Turkey). European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 613-625. 13. Jacobs, George. (2004). Cooperative learning: theory, principles, and techniques. 14. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2015). Theoretical approaches to cooperative learning. 15. In R. Gillies (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Developments in research and practice (pp. 17- 16. 46). New York: Nova. 17. Liao, H. C. (2009). Cooperative learning and EFL education: The past, the present, and the 18. future. Journal of National Taichung University: Humanities & Arts, 23(2), 87-108. 19. Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2015). Kagan Cooperative Learning: Dr. Spencer Kagan and Miguel a. Kagan. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. 20. Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publications. 21. Myles, (2002). Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error 22. Analysis in Student Texts. Retrieved on 16.4.2018 from http://teslej.org/ej22/al/html 23. Ning H., & Hornby, G. (2010). The effectiveness of cooperative learning in teaching English 24. to Chinese tertiary learner. Effective Education, 2(2), 99-116. 25. Park Ji Yong. (2008). iLED: interactive Learning Experience Design. MERLOT Journal of 26. Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 3, September 2008 357. Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, QL AU 27. Pattanpichet, F. (2011). The Effects of using collaborative learning to enhance students’ a. English speaking achievement, Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(11), 1-10. 28. Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: Valued pedagogy, 29. problematic practice. European Journal of Education, Research Development and Policy, 300-313. 45(2), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01430.x 30. Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education 3-13: a. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(1), 5-14. 31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.963370 32. lavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice, Second Edn. 33. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boston, a. MA: Allyn and Bacon. 34. http://tep.uoregon.edu/pdf/assessment/Student-EngagementTechniques.pdf 35. https://www.sdera.wa.edu.au/media/1235/teaching-and-learningstrategies.pdf 36. Yang, Ai-shih V. (2005). Comparison of the effectiveness of cooperative learning and 37. traditional teaching methods on Taiwanese college students’ English oral performance and motivation towards learning, A PhD thesis, Faculty of the School of Education- La Sierra University. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |