STAGES OF THE LESSON:
3- Post-listening activities:
- Students write down what they hear freely by words, phrases, or sentences.
- Students react to what they get in minds critically.
3- Post-listening activities:
- Students initiate an in-group discussion by comparing notes and negotiating with members. Students in each group try their best to make a consensus in limited time.
- The teacher signals students to stop the discussion and get ready for the answers.
- The teacher calls the numbers from 1 to 6 in every group by random. The called students will tell the whole class the final answers and reasonable explanations decided by the discussion in their own groups.
Reference: Huang, H. C., (2013), The King of English Listening, Taiwan, Tainan The Listening Comprehension Test
The listening comprehension test issued by Nan I Book Enterprise (南一書局) was chosen to examine listening comprehension ability. The test was exclusively supplied to school teachers to evaluate students’ listening ability; it was not for commercial sale. Students were not given any opportunity to practice the test beforehand. The format of the test was especially designed to correspond to the Comprehension Assessment Program for Junior High School Students. The tentative version of the English listening comprehension test could be downloaded (http://www.cap.ntnu.edu.tw/exam/102/102P_English150DPI.pdf). The questions in the listening comprehension test were designed based on the content of the main textbook used in the class. The main textbook at the researcher’s school was also issued from Nan I Book Enterprise. Thus, students were able to answer the questions in the test if they had learned something in class. The range of the test was from Lesson 6 to Lesson 8. The test was given after Lesson 6, 7, and 8 were taught. The function of the test was to measure if students of the experimental group could make
‧
more progress than those of the control group in their listening comprehension ability.
The whole test is appended to the Appendix E.
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire is designed to collect further information to answer the two research questions about whether listening anxiety can reduce and listening comprehension ability can improve or not. Students’ true feedbacks for CL can be embodied by words instead of checking the five items on the scales or doing the listening comprehension tests. Furthermore, the questionnaire can provide insights for the researcher to understand students’ conducts. If most of the students give positive remarks on the effectiveness of CL, CL may have supportive influence on listening anxiety and listening comprehension ability.
The questions on this questionnaire focus on two aspects in this research: The decrease in listening anxiety, and the improvement in listening comprehension ability.
Besides other instruments which would be measured quantitatively, this questionnaire could be qualitative evidence to examine the function of CL. The two questions are listed below:
1. Do you think that cooperative learning reduces your listening anxiety? Write down your reasons if you have.
2. Do you think that cooperative learning improves your listening comprehension ability? Write down your reasons if you have.
The questionnaire was conducted in Chinese, the participants’ native language.
The Chinese version is shown in Appendix F.
The Classroom Observation
In order to know more about students’ behaviors in the execution of cooperative learning, the researcher was supposed to make some record of the whole process in class. Thus, what really took place in the classroom could be known. The
‧
record could also be named as classroom observation. The observation was done in the form of the journal. The researcher took notes and wrote feedbacks in the journal right away after every class. The journal could reflect the authentic conditions in every class by cooperative learning. Besides listening comprehension tests, FLLAS, and the questionnaire, the classroom observation might be a contributive instrument to discuss the decrease in listening anxiety and the improvement in the listening comprehension ability in this study.
Procedure
This study was to explore if students’ listening anxiety could be reduced and listening comprehension ability could be promoted under the mode of cooperative learning. Although every class at the researcher’s school had nearly similar proportion of high-achievers, mid-achievers, and low-achievers, the researcher still gave his students the proficiency test to ensure the similar starting level of listening comprehension ability. General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), elementary level, was the tool to ensure the similar baseline listening proficiency.
Next, students took the pre-test of Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale (FLLAS). The pre-test of FLLAS was applied to measure if students had similar degree of listening anxiety. After the GEPT test and FLLAS were quantitatively calculated, two classes with similar level of listening proficiency and similar degree of listening anxiety were chosen as the experimental group and the control group.
The whole research process began from middle October, 2013 to middle January, 2014. It lasted for about 12 weeks until the winter vacation. Listening activities were done in the initial 15 minutes of every English class four times a week.
The listening tasks for both groups were the practices in the listening textbook, The King of English Listening. The procedure of doing listening tasks contained three steps: pre-listening, while-listening, and post-listening. Both groups were treated with
‧
the same teaching methods in the stages of pre-listening and while-listening.
Nonetheless, in the post-listening stage of the control group, students were taught in the traditional way. The teacher gave the answers and explained the key points to students in the post-listening stage after the teacher told them about today’s listening task, played the soundtracks of CD, and guided students to answer questions by paper and pencil. Teacher was the sole resource to solve students’ questions. In contrast, students in the experimental group followed the lesson plan incorporated with the notion of CL in the post-listening stage. The complete lesson plan had been detailed in the section: Lesson Plan Incorporated with Cooperative Learning.
The structure of CL, Numbered Heads Together by Kagan (1989), provided fundamental steps about how the activities of teaching listening proceeded in the stage of the post-listening. In Kagan’s supposition, high-achievers would endeavor to help other members. In the researcher’s class, high-achievers knew that they might not be called frequently, but they still wanted to see their group doing well. Thus, high-achievers would do their best to look after other in-group members.
Mid-achievers and low-achievers learned harder because they knew that they would possibly be called by the teacher. The teacher kept watching for all students’
cooperation in every group and designated Number 3, 4, 5, or 6 to answer and explain the questions more often in order to evaluate the in-group interaction. Students of Number 3, 4, 5, or 6 were potential mid-achievers and low-achievers who might need high-achievers’ assistance. Every member in the same group played his or her part well regardless of the definition of high-achievers, mid-achievers or low-achievers.
Additionally, there were 27 students distributed to the five groups, so two groups had six members and the other three groups had five. The extra students named as student 6 were still called to answer questions.
‧
Students had to have their own numbers, so the teacher could confirm that every group operated well by randomly choosing a member to answer. Unlike those students who learned as a whole entity in the control group, students in the experimental group were divided into five sub-groups. Students were categorized from Rank 1 to 5 or 6 in a group according to students’ first monthly English exam in which the listening comprehension test took one-fourth part of the whole English score. Students in every sub-group were kept heterogeneous in terms of the normal s-style distribution. The top five students who got the highest score were arranged from Group 1 to Group 5 as Rank 1. Another five students who had higher score were located from Group 5 to Group 1 reversely as Rank 2. Another five students were put in the order of Group 1 to Group 5 as Rank 3, etc. This rationale was what was called the normal s-style distribution. High-level, mid-level, and low-level students mixed in every group more averagely. The high-level would be expected to lead the activities and help the mid-level and the low-level because their grades were not judged by individual but by group. Table 3.2 shows the first grouping of students by the normal s-style distribution after the first monthly exam.
After the second monthly exam, the grouping of the experimental group was reshuffled to avoid over-reliance on specific group members and the complaints about the constitution of each group (Gartin & Digby, 1993). They might get used to the routine that the same high-achievers guided the same mid-achievers and low-achievers if the constitution of each group did not alter at all. Before the second monthly exam, all students were told that the grouping would be changed. Their ranks could go up if they strived to study harder and made progress. Consequently, students would be encouraged to pay more attention in class and do their share better in their groups. Besides, the new grouping prevented the low-achievers from being tagged as poor students. Their ranks might rise by dint of their efforts for study.
‧
Table 3.2 The Grouping of Cooperative Learning by the Normal S-style Distribution (After the First Monthly Exam)
Group Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
In terms of the rewards, Slavin (1991) insisted that external rewards be a necessary part of CL. Students were rewarded with biscuits or snacks on the basis of students’ group performance and the accuracy of the answers. Students’ group points
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
were counted every week and a ceremony would be held to award the winning groups in the last English class in a week. The researcher always prepared five different packs of biscuits or snacks. The group with the most points could choose their favorite first. After the winning group chose theirs, the other groups just could choose one by one until the last group did. Students were more willing to do their best within their groups with the external incentives though students were expected to take action internally by the teacher.
Three months later, all students in both groups were required to take the listening comprehension test complied by Nan I Book Enterprise. The range of this test was from Lesson 6 to Lesson 8, correspondent with the final exam of this semester. Also, the Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale (FLLAS) was filled out by students in both groups as the post-test. At the final stage of the procedure, the FLLAS and the listening comprehension test of the two groups were measured quantitatively to compare the differences of listening anxiety and listening comprehension ability.
Finally, to collect more data to answer the two research questions, the questionnaire was passed out to all the students. All the students answered the questionnaire after the FLLAS was done. This qualitative method was to educe students’ opinions about if CL could reduce their listening anxiety and improve listening comprehension ability. The results also offered the insights for the researcher to know more about students’ behavior in this study.
Figure 3.1 is a brief overview of the whole procedure of this study:
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Figure 3.1 Procedure of This Study
Note:
1. Proficiency Test = General English Proficiency Test
2. Pre-test & Post-test = Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale
3. Listening Test = The Listening Comprehension Test by Nan I Book Enterprise Proficiency Test
Pre-test (FLLAS)
Selection of Participants
Pre-listening Instruction
While-listening Instruction
Post-listening Activities in the Experimental Group: Cooperative
Learning by Students
Post-listening Activities in the Control Group: Teacher Provides
Answers and Explanations
Listening Test
Post-test (FLLAS)
The Questionnaire
Data Analysis
‧
Comparison between the Two Groups in the Listening Comprehension Test of GEPT
An independent-samples t-test was adopted to compare the listening comprehension test of GEPT between the two groups. The result revealed no significant differences in listening proficiency before the experiment. The statistic comparison of this test between the two groups is shown in Table 3.3 (t = .030, P
> .05, df = 52).
Table 3.3 Statistic Comparison of the Listening Comprehension Test of GEPT
Group N M SD t p df
Control Group 27 68.5926 18.91532
.030 .976 52 Experimental Group 27 68.7407 17.54246
Comparison between the Two Groups in the Pre-test of FLLAS
FLLAS was allocated to all participants before the experiment in order to assure that there were no significant differences in the listening anxiety between the two groups. The result was examined via an independent-samples t-test and it revealed no statistical differences. As a result, it was reasonable to assume that the two groups were at similar level of listening anxiety initially (t = -.402, p > .05, df = 52). The statistic comparison of listening anxiety is shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Statistic Comparison of the Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale as Pre-test
Group N M SD t p df
Control Group 27 116.3704 19.32744
-.402 .689 52 Experimental Group 27 114.1852 20.60627
‧
The teaching process followed the sequence of pre-listening, while-listening and post-listening (Richards, 2005; Rost, 2002). Students in either group took the same listening tasks in the pre-listening stage and the while-listening stage. However, students’ learning directions varied in the post-listening stage. Students in the control group were given answers and explanations after listening, but students in the experimental group would have to discuss and determine the answers through cooperative learning. The process had been described in the section, Lesson Plan Incorporated with Cooperative Learning. The lesson plan is a framework of how the teaching process goes in the experimental group. In short, the pre-listening and while-listening activities in the lesson plan are both available for the two groups.
However, activities in the post-listening stage differ between the two groups. The control group was treated with the traditional way of questions and answers, but the experimental group was treated with the mode of cooperative learning.
Data Analysis
Some data of this study were analyzed in a quantitative way. The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 12.0 was chosen to compute the data. The listening comprehension test of GEPT and the pre-test of FLLAS were treated by an independent-samples t-test to substantiate the fact that no significant differences in listening anxiety and listening comprehension ability appeared in both groups before the experiment.
The first research question could be answered by the analysis of FLLAS. The post-test of FLLAS was analyzed through an independent-samples t-test to examine if the listening anxiety would reduce by cooperative learning. The significance level was set at < .05.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Besides, the data collected from the first question in the questionnaire were divided into positive opinions and negative ones. Students’ listening anxiety might possibly lessen if the amount of positive opinions surpassed the negative counterparts a lot. Also, students’ opinions would be quoted as the verbal evidence for the quantitative result.
The second research question could also be answered by the analysis of the listening comprehension test compiled by Nan I Book Enterprise. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to analyze the test so as to evaluate whether the significant differences came into being in the listening comprehension ability by cooperative learning. The significance level was set at < .05, too.
Like the data for the first question, those for the second question were classified to see which opinions, positive or negative, occupied more proportion.
More positive opinions hinted that the listening comprehension ability might be improved by CL. Students’ opinions were also quoted to fortify the quantitative result.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
Chapter 4 presents the statistical analysis to answer the two research questions in this study. The former part of the analysis shows the comparison of the post-test of the Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale between the two groups; the latter part exhibits the findings of the listening comprehension test. Additionally, verbal results from the questionnaire are stated to fortify the statistical results. The outcomes concerning whether listening anxiety decreases and listening comprehension ability improves in the experimental group are demonstrated both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The Post-test of Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale (FLLAS) The decrease in listening anxiety can be observed by the comparison from the post-test of FLLAS between the two groups. Participants in the control group took traditional English listening drills. They learned knowledge from lessons in the main textbook and did listening comprehension practices in the listening textbook. After the practices, the teacher gave them answers and provided them with necessary explanations. In contrast, participants in the experimental group discussed and decided the answers of listening comprehension practices under the ambience of cooperative learning (CL). Teacher was only a helper who paid attention to the operation of every group. The result was calculated by means of an independent-samples t-test and it reached significant differences (t = - 2.155, p < .05, df = 52). In this study, the approach of CL to teach listening comprehension could reduce more listening anxiety than the traditional way of teaching listening
‧
comprehension. That is to say, the mode of CL does lower listening anxiety in this study. Table 4.1 shows the result of the post-test of FLLAS between the control group and the experimental group.
Table 4.1 Comparison of the Post-test of FLLAS between the Two Groups
Group N M SD t p df
Control Group 27 119.1111 23.07902
- 2.155 .036* 52 Experimental Group 27 106.9259 18.17421
Note: * p < .05 (2-tailed)
Table 4.2 offers a complete overview of all the thirty-three items with statistics.
Among the thirty-three items on FLLAS, most scores of the post-test in the experimental group are lower than the ones in the control group. On Items 3, 16, 17, 19, 23, 25, 29, and 32, significant differences are attained. This indicates that the CL specifically works on these occasions of these items. According to the result of listening anxiety, the use of CL in listening drills may reduce the tension and worries from inadequate background knowledge on some topics (Item 16), from the uncertain information gotten from the listening process (Item 23), from listening to an English speech (Item 25), and from new and unfamiliar English information (Item 29). In addition, the use of CL in listening drills also reduce the lack of confidence from unfamiliar accent and intonation (Item 3), from confused thoughts in listening to important information in English (Item 17), from ending up translating word by word but the listener does not understand what these words mean (Item 19), and from a listener’s incomplete understanding of the spoken discourse though the listener can understand every word (Item 32). As Kim (2000) mentioned, FLLAS was designed on the basis of the two factors: Tension and worry over English listening as well as lack
‧
of confidence in listening. The use of CL is able to overcome some difficulties of the two factors in this study. The outcome of this study can support the idea that CL can reduce listening anxiety.
Table 4.2 Comparison of All the Items of FLLAS in the Post-test between the
Table 4.2 Comparison of All the Items of FLLAS in the Post-test between the