Investigating the weak students’ participation in Cooperative Learning SITI FAIRUZ ADENAN P61631

1. Research & Methodology SKBI 6004 Investigating the weak students’ participation in Cooperative Learning SITI FAIRUZ ADENANP61631

2. Introduction • Cooperative learning as a teaching technique • Interaction will support the learning – providing efficient classroom environment (Lau & Habibah, 2011). • make students away from : not being confident and, isolated.

3. Background • Modern cooperative learning has been used widely in all subject areas and institution levels (Felder & Brent, 2007). • Formal and informal cooperative learning • Formal - grouped for several weeks -working on extensive project • Informal :- organized during teaching & learning - engage students with materials

4. Statement of the problem • Reading class is uninteresting and dry : lectures and reading comprehension exercises done individually • Weak students concerns educators • Students find it is difficult to get organized and to begin independent activities (Wright, 2011) • Learning environment/support is negative/passive especially for weak students

5. Purpose statement • The aim of this study is to investigate the involvement and responses towards cooperative learning amongst the weak students.

6. Research Questions • How do weak students react during cooperative learning activities in reading class? • What are the impact that they get from the cooperative learning activities in reading class? • What are the students’ responses towards cooperative learning in reading class?

7. Significance of the study • It is intended to help weak students in learning the target language by providing an active and positive classroom environment. • Plus, perhaps, the finding will help educators in handling weak students in a different level of proficiency group.

8. Literature Review • Morgan (2012) & Wichadee (n.d.) have same framework : 5 basic elements of cooperative learning in their study • Marcus (2009) focuses on the grouping of the students in having cooperative learning activities in the classroom. • Heterogeneous groupings have some significant failings : stronger students become frustrated with weaker students • Most of the studies are on mixed ability students  same issue of balancing good and weak students

9. Literature Review (Framework) 5 elements of Cooperative Learning ( Johnson & Johnson , 1995) • 1. Positive Interdependence. • 2. Face-to-face Interaction. • 3. Personal responsibility. • 4. Collaborative Skills. • 5. Group processing.

10. Research Design • Qualitative Research • Piloting for 10 weeks • Observations with video-tapping ( 1 hour) • Checklists are used while observing (focus on 5 elements) • Interview Protocol ( Asmussen & Craswell,1995)

11. Sampling • Purposive Sampling • Semester 2 Diploma students in Uitm Pahang(Bel260) • 30 students – different proficiency levels • Weak students were identified by looking at previous grade – (C )

12. Research Instruments • Observation & Interviews • Checklist for observations constructed based on the 5 elements of Cooperative learning • Interview is semi-constructed also based on the 5 elements • Only for weak students

13. Data Collection Observation ( 1 hour) Interviews Audio record Video-taped 4 participants Checklist Observational F0rm Weak students Stage 1 : General Stage 2 : Low ability Stage 3 : check certain themes Semi-structured

14. Data Analysis Interview Observation Transcribe Checklist Analysis Coding Thematic Analysis Thematic Analysis

15. Conclusion • Most of them participated and engaged: - Positive interdependence, explain to each other to solve problems, encourage & support others by giving others their time to complete task but too hard task makes them stress • Cooperative learning impacts weak students’ learning : - Gain personal responsibility, manage to place themselves in the group work, gain confidence but they need times to finish up, broken English 3. Most of them give positive feedback on having cooperative learning ( task-oriented learning) but need clear instruction

16. Matrix

17. References • Marcus, R,. (2009). Observations on Cooperative-Learning Group Assignments. Chauncey Truax Post-Doctoral Fellow, Department of Philosophy, Hamilton College 198 College Hill Road Clinton NY. From http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Papers/groupings.pdf • Morgan, B. M. (2012). Teaching Cooperative Learning with Children’s Literature. National Forum of Teacher ducation Journal Volume 22, Number 3, http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Bobbette,%20Morgan%20Te aching%20Cooperative%20Learning%20with%20Children%20Literature%20NFTEJ%20V22%20 N3%202012.pdf • Mai Neo, (2004). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. Cooperative learning on the web: A group based, student centered learning experience in the Malaysian classroom Multimedia University, Malaysia. From http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/neo.html • Ornelas, (2004). Cooperative Learning. A Project Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of San Francisco. From http://www.inbetweenness.com/Lisa%20Ornelas's%20publications/COOPERATIVE%20 LEARNING.pdf • Syafini Ismail & Tengku Nor Rizan Tengku Mohamad Maasum (2008). The Effects of Cooperative Learning in Enhancing Writing Performance. From http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/solls09/Proceeding/PDF/Shafini.pdf • Wichadee, S. ( n.d.) The Effects of Cooperative Learning on English Reading Skills and Attitudes of the First-Year Students at Bangkok University.