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