BAHLOUL, AMEL (2007) An Analogy between Collaborative and Traditional Learning Approaches with Reference to the Relationship between Learning Types and Achievement : The Case of First Year Students of English at Batna University. Doctoral thesis, Université de Batna 2.
|
Text
le_Bahloul Amel.pdf Download (5MB) | Preview |
Abstract
The present study was conducted with First year (EFL) learners at Batna University during the academic year (2003-2004) . Action research was used to study the benefits of Group investigation (GI) as a collaborative learning technique, by comparing students' linguistic achievement, taking into account their learning types . In this study , we looked at : · students linguistic achievement, taking into account their personal learning types as well as the teaching approach used in their class, · the teacher's and the students' opinions as far as the students' achievement, their learning type and the teaching approach are concerned , and · the benefits of using a collaborative learning approach at the university level. We based our research questions on the findings that collaborative learning enhances students' motivation to learn (Slavin, 2000; Sharan & Sharan, 1992), and that students' participation in pair and small-group work following collaborative learning principles facilitates Foreign language acquisition along with subject-matter mastery(McGroarty,1991; Swain, 1988). We conducted our research in both groups and taught them concurrently using both approaches : the (GI) approach with one group and the traditional teaching approach (TT) with the other. (GI) involved self directed student groups researching and presenting topics. The underlying teaching strategy of the courses was communicative and used a content-based instructional approach in the sense that it used content (the country of England) to develop English language proficiency. To achieve our goal qualitative and quantitative data collection were undertaken . We used several instruments measuring students' linguistic achievement, their learning types, and their responses to teaching approaches used. The Learning Preference Scale developed by Owens and Straton (1980) was used. The students' linguistic achievement was analyzed by oral and written testing of their use of English interrogatives both at the beginning and at the end of the course. The students' and the teacher's reflections and opinions were analyzed through journals, interviews and course evaluations. Based on comparing the scores obtained at the beginning of the course with those of the end of the course, both groups showed a significant gain in their use of oral yes-no questions, and yes-no and wh-questions combined. The TT group showed also a significant gain in their use of written yes-no questions. Overall, neither group improved more than the other, linguistically. According to the teacher's observations, the collaborative learning approach was effective in EFL classes at the university level, although collaborative learning necessitated to orient students to this new manner of learning . Meanwhile, the GI group gained skills that the TT group did not, specifically with respect to working together. Even though many students were ill-prepared to learn under the collaborative model, their views revealed their strong motivation relative to the content of the course, yet, they generally did not recognize their linguistic improvement. Based on the findings, it was difficult to say whether any new approach used in the teaching / learning process is any more successful than another. It was hence recommended that university EFL courses should integrate both the collaborative learning and the Traditional Teaching approaches to benefit all learners.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Subjects: | Lettres et langues étrangères > Langue anglaise |
| Divisions: | Faculté des lettres et langues étrangères > Département de langue anglaise |
| Date Deposited: | 16 Mar 2017 09:35 |
| Last Modified: | 16 Mar 2017 09:35 |
| URI: | http://eprints.univ-batna2.dz/id/eprint/526 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
