measuring students’ readiness for l2 group work in a university in japan kumiko fushino temple...

Measuring Students’ Readiness for L2 Group Work

in a University in Japan

Kumiko FushinoTemple University, Japan Campus,

Graduate College of Education

Cooperative Learning

Definition (Fushino)Principles and techniques that involve small groups as an instructional means so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning

Heterogeneous Grouping

Making groups with students with diverse characteristics (e.g. academic abilities, races, genders, personalities)

↓Usually, forming with students with diverse academic abilities

In College English Classes…

a) Ability Groupingb) Unavailability of personal information

other than sexes　　⇩Academically homogeneous students in

a class (with the same nationality and L1)　　⇩

How can we form heterogeneous groups?

Readiness for L2 Group Work

An alternative way to form heterogeneous groups

DefinitionLearners’ self-perception of the degree to which they are prepared cognitively and affectively for L2 group work (Fushino)

Assumptions for RGW

A) Students are at different levels of readiness for L2 group work.

B) Students’ readiness for L2 group work can change as they work in groups over time

C) Students will benefit from learning together with those who are more ready for L2 group work

Expectancy-value Theory(Another support)

If people believe success in a given task (expectancy) and think it worth doing (value),

↓they will likely be more motivated.

(Wigfield, 2000; Wigfield & Eccles, 1994)

Components of Readiness for L2 Group Work

A) Communication Competence in L2 Group Work

B) Beliefs about Group Work

Purpose of the Study

To investigate Japanese college students’ Readiness for L2 Group Work

Research Question 1

To what degree does the students’ readiness for L2 group work differ due to the type of course and proficiency grouping at the onset and the end of one semester?

Research Questions 2

To what degree does the students’ readiness for L2 group work change due to the type of course and proficiency grouping between the beginning and the end of one semester?

Method

A) Research PeriodSpring semester, 2005

B) Research Site English Classes in a prestigious,

co-ed, university in Tokyo area

C) Participants 772 (367 males + 402 females) 1st-year students Various majors Two proficiency levels

higher & lower (Placement test) Two English courses

Communicative Course Language and Culture Course

D) Questionnaire Administration Questionnaire 1:

at the beginning of the semester

Questionnaire 2: at the end of the semester

Analytical Methods Factor Analysis

Generalized least square extraction with promax rotation (Preliminary Analysis)

2 × 2 ANOVAs (RQ 1)

Mixed Between-within-subjects ANOVA (RQ 2)

ResultsExtracted Factors1. Communication Apprehension in L2

Group Work (α = .89)2. Self-perceived Communicative

Competence in L2 Group Work (α = .90)3. Beliefs of Group Work (α = .93)4. Traditional Instruction Orientation (α

= .86, all items were reverse coded)5. Positive Beliefs about the Value of Group

Work (α = .90)

(α = Questionnaire 1 reliability)

Operational Definition of RGWReadiness for L2 Group Work (RGW) = Communication Confidence in L2 GW + Beliefs about L2 GW (Max = 10)

Confidence = (Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work-R*

+ Self-perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work) / 2

Beliefs = (Positive Beliefs about the Value of Group Work +

negative Traditional Instruction Orientation + Beliefs of Group Work Usefulness) / 3

Note. *Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work-R was reverse coded.

RQ1: Group Differences Descriptive Statistics for RGW

(Questionnaire 1)

Level Course n M SD

Higher LAC 125 6.93 .88

COM 84 7.10 .91

Lower LAC 247 6.68 .89

COM 169 7.27 .88Higher LAC

Higher COM

Lower LAC

Lower COM

Level x Course

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Mea

n of

RG

W

2 × 2 ANOVA Results(Questionnaire 1)

Source SS df MS F p η2

Observed Power

Level .269 1 .27 .34 .559 .001 .090

Course 19.25 1 19.25 24.44 .000* .038 .999

L × C 5.98 1 5.98 7.60 .006* .012 .786

Error 489.16 621 .79

Note. Computed using α = .05, R Squared = .071 (Adjusted R squared = .067), *p < .05.

Interaction of Level & CourseRGW (Questionnaire 2)

Higher LowerProficiency Level

6.60

6.70

6.80

6.90

7.00

7.10

7.20

7.30

7.40

7.50

Est

imat

ed M

argi

nal

Mean

s

CourseLACCOM

Descriptive Statistics for RGW (Questionnaire 2)

Level Course n M SD

Higher LAC 122 7.15 .86

COM 78 7.22 .96

Lower LAC 241 6.76 .89

COM 160 7.42 .95

Higher LAC

Higher COM

Lower LAC

Lower COM

level x course

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Mea

n of

RG

W

2 × 2 ANOVA Results(Questionnaire 2)

Source SS df MS F p η2

Observed Power

Level 1.19 1 1.19 1.43 .231 .002 .223

Course 16.83 1 16.83 20.28 .000* .033 .994

L × C 10.64 1 10.64 12.82 .000* .021 .947

Error 495.43 597 .83

Note. Computed using α = .05, R Squared = .082 (Adjusted R squared = .078), *p < .05.

Interaction of Level & CourseRGW (Questionnaire 2)

Higher LowerProficiency Level

6.60

6.70

6.80

6.90

7.00

7.10

7.20

7.30

7.40

7.50

Estim

ate

d M

arg

ianl M

eans

CourseLACCOM

RQ1: Course Differences◆ Summary

Readiness for L2 Group Work: COM students > LAC students(Both Questionnaires 1 & 2)

No statistically significant difference for Level

Level × Course Interaction

RQ2: Time Differences Descriptive Statistics for RGW

Time

1Time

2

LevelCourse

N M SD N M SD

Higher LAC 122 6.92 .89 122 7.13 .86

COM 79 7.12 .91 79 7.22 .96

Lower LAC 245 6.65 .92 245 6.75 .91

COM 161 7.24 .88 161 7.40 .88

Figure: Mean Differences

Higher LAC

Higher COM

Lower LAC

Lower COM

level x course

6.60

6.70

6.80

6.90

7.00

7.10

7.20

7.30

7.40M

ean o

f RG

W

Time 1Time 2

Mixed Between-Within-Subjects ANOVA Results

Source SS df MS F pPartial η2

Observed Power

Between

subjects

Level 1.86 1 1.86 2.11 .147 .003 .305

Course 37.18 1 37.18 42.09 .000* .065 1.000

L×C 14.20 1 14.20 16.07 .000* .026 .979

Within subjects

Time 5.25 1 5.25 6.72 .010* .011 .735

T×L .05 1 .05 .07 .796 .000 .058

T×C .07 1 .07 .09 .766 .000 .068

T×L×C .52 1 .52 .67 .413 .001 .129

Interaction of Course and Level in RGW

Higher LowerProficiency Level

6.60

6.70

6.80

6.90

7.00

7.10

7.20

7.30

7.40

7.50

Estim

ated

Mar

egin

al M

eans

CourseLACCOM

Changes in Readiness for L2 Group Work among the Higher and Lower Proficiency Students

1 2Time

6.60

6.70

6.80

6.90

7.00

7.10

7.20

7.30

7.40

7.50Es

timat

ed M

argi

nal M

eans

Proficiency Level

higherlower

Changes in Readiness for L2 Group Work among the Students in the LAC and COM Course

1 2Time

6.60

6.70

6.80

6.90

7.00

7.10

7.20

7.30

7.40

7.50Es

timat

ed M

argi

nal M

eans

CourseLACCOM

RQ2: Time Differences◆ Summary

All groups: Improved Readiness for L2 Group Work after one semester of English instruction

The COM students: More ready for L2 Group work than the LAC students This tendency unchanged

Discussion 1. Group Differences

A. Course DifferencesReadiness: COM > LAC (Not Surprising)[Reason]1) Items = related to oral production2) Students knowing the course emphasis →Communicative oriented students

(higher readiness) chose the COM course3) COM students: more opportunities to interact became more ready for L2 GW

B. Level × Course Interaction[Reason]Lower COM: the highest Readiness for L2

Group Work a) high RGW chose COM course

b) matched instruction to their preferenceLower LAC: the lowest Readiness for L2 Group

Work a) preference for acquiring receptive skills b) avoidance of interaction

2. Time Differences

A. Readiness for L2 Group Work: Time 1 > Time 2

[Reason]Effective English instruction to elevate Readiness for L2 Group Work

↓ However,More Closely looking at the results,

B. Communication confidence: Time 1 > Time 2

[Reason]a) English-only policy of the

universityb) Less anxiety provoking, relaxed

classes

C. Beliefs about L2 Group Work: -- No Change

[Reason]a) Group work—Really cooperative?b) One semester—Too short for the

change to occur?c) Decreased motivation?

Conclusion & Implications

Implications for Research on Readiness for L2 Group Work

Readiness for L2 Group Work = New Concept Stepping stone for more refinement

Pedagogical Implications1) RGW Questionnaire = a useful tool to form heterogeneous groups2) Students’ Different degrees of RGW

Necessity of the training of working constructively together

3) Necessity of differentiatedinstruction based on the RGW

4) Students should be aware of their levels of RGW.

5) Students should know that RGW can changeable.

◆ Conclusion Grouping based on Readiness for L2

Group Work an alternative way to form heterogeneous groups

Less ready students can learn more effective ways to participate in L2 group work from more ready students

Readiness for L2 Group Work Questionnaire = Useful tool to form heterogeneous groups

Thank you for your attention!

Email:Kumiko-

fushino290729@nifty.com