1
Promoting Reading Comprehension via Cooperative Reading Activities: A Classroom Investigation
Prinya Keuanoon Janpha Thadphoothon
English Department, Language Institute,
DhurakijPunditUniversity
This paper describes a classroom collaborative researchconducted from November 2006 to February 2007. We appplied cooperative learning principles in an attempt to enhance 106 students’ reading comprehension. Data were collected from the questionnaires, classroom observations, and interviews. The findings suggest that students were in favor of blending reading comprehension with cooperative learning activities, reasoning they promoted meaningful interaction and provided them more opportunities to practice using English.
1. Background
The benefits of combining reading comprehension with student-student interaction have been documented in the ESL/EFL context (for example, Jacobs Gallo, 2002). Numerous benefits have been cited. Some of the key benefits include greater autonomy and enhanced learning achievement.
As EFL teachers, we strongly believe that, as far as Thai EFL learners are concerned, reading in isolation is less rewarding than readingplus discussion or reading in small groups. This shared conviction brought us together. After many informal meetings, we decided to carry out a classroom study to investigate the effects of combining reading with cooperative learning activities. We conducted this study to validate our conviction and to share our practice with other English teachers.
This paper describes our classroom investigation where the students’ reading comprehension was facilitated by cooperative learning activities.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
In traditional reading approaches, students often read alone without peer interaction before or after reading.Reading is thus a lonely pursuit. One of its obvious short comings is its lack of interaction, a vital element for effective language learning (Long, 1983). This has led second language educators to seek ways to promote more interaction among language learners when they read. One way to increase student-student interaction is to ask them to form groups where meaningful interaction and interactive moments can occur.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of supplementing a reading program with cooperative reading activities. We did so by investigating students’ atttitudes toward the cooperative reading activities, observing their interactions, and asking them about their learning experiences.
1.3 Research Questions
The main questionwe asked was:What are the strengths and weaknesses of supplementing a reading program with cooperative reading activities?
Specifically, we sought to address the following questions:
-What are students’ attitudes toward supplementing a reading program with cooperative reading activities?
-What are students’ perceptions of benefits?
-What are their perceptions of shortcomings?
2. Review of the Literature
In this section, we review the literature on the benefits of reading programs, cooperative learning, and the literature on the benefits of combining reading instruction with cooperative learning activities.
2.1 Benefits of Reading
The literature on second language instruction shows many benefits of reading (Green & Oxford, 1995; Day & Bamford, 1998; Jacobs & Gallo, 2002; Ono, Day, and Harsch, 2004). The reading program reported in this study was similar to an extensive reading program, a reading instruction where students read a large mount of texts in order to gain a general understanding of what is read. Some of its aims, according to Richards & Schmidt (2002), are “to develop good reading habits, to build up good knowledge of vocabulary and structure, and to encourage a liking for reading” (p. 193-194). In the literature, extensive reading has been cited as a useful reading approach. Some of its benefits are as follows.
Brown (2001) puts extensive reading or reading a large amount of texts in the indirect approach to language teaching, as opposed to the direct approach to teaching. Similarly, Krashen (1993) believes that extensive reading is a key to student gains in reading ability, vocabulary, spelling, and writing.
Green and Oxford (1995) say that reading for pleasure and reading without looking up all the unknown words were both highly correlated with overall language proficiency.
The literature also supports the use of intensive reading as a means to enhance language learning. Unlike extensive reading, intensive reading is reading texts “ at a slower speed with a higher degree of understanding than extensive reading (Richards & Schmidt, 2002, p. 194).In intensive reading instruction, the students carefully read short, complex texts for detailed understanding and skills practice. In sum, the literature tells us that reading, intensive or extensive, among other benefits, is a means to promote language learning.
The real issue of reading instruction lies in the howit is implemented. We realized that reading strategies such as reading for main ideas, skimming and scanning skills are helpful for the students, but felt something was missing. In our context, we felt that reading plus discussion --- reading and sharing ideas and opinions with others --- would be more beneficial to the students than asking them to use reading strategies and do their reading alone. We decided to supplement reading with cooperative learning activities.
2.2 Benefits of Cooperative Learning Activities
The literature also shows the benefits of cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson define cooperation as “working together to accomplish shared goals,” and cooperative learning as “the instructional use of small groups through which students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning” (1994:4). Along with cooperative learning are two collocations: (1) individualistic learning or learning alone and competitive learning. Cooperative learning offers an alternative to both approaches.
In cooperative learning, learners must work together in order to succeed and personal success only springs from group success. In competitive learning, in order to succeed, other learners must fail. Research has claimed that cooperative learning is more effective than competitive learning (for example, Johnson and Johnson, 1994).
In this paper, cooperative learning is defined as a learning method that has four principles proposed by Kagan (1994). The four basic principles are: (1)Positive Interdependence, (2) Individual Accountability, (3) Equal Participation, and (4) Simultaneous Interaction. Kaganuses the acronym PIES to represent the four principles.
Following are some of the benefits:
Oxford (1990)summarized several benefits of cooperative learning strategies: “better student and teacher satisfaction, stronger language learning motivation, more language practice opportunities, more feedback about language errors, and greater use of different language functions” (p. 146).
Jacobs and Hall (1994) pointed out that cooperative learning activities promote mutual healpfulness and equal and active participation.
Jacobs and Gallo (2002) reported that cooperative learning, among other things, enhanced the students’ reading comprehension. They also noted that it was a an enjoyable experience for the students to read and share wha they have read with others.
Boon-Long (2007) compared cooperative and non-cooperative learning contexts and found that the students received higher scores in the cooperative learning context.
2.3 Benefits of Cobining Cooperative Learning with Reading Activities
The literature shows that there are benefits of combining a reading program with cooperative learning. Combining reading with cooperative learning activities has been encouraged as a means to enhance comprehension and motivation.
Jacobs (2000) statedthat supplementing extensive reading programs with cooperative learning activities helps facilitate reading comprehension and increase reading motivation.
Vichadee (2005) conducted a classroom experiment on the effects of cooperative learning on the students’ reading achievement. She found that the cooperative reading activities enhanced the students’ reading scores.
In summary, the literature suggests shows that combining reading programs with cooperative learning activities have several benefits. In the next section, we talked about our subjects, instruments, and data collection.
3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
The participants were 106 first year English majors of the Language Institute of Dhurakij Pundit University, a private university in Bangkok, Thailand. All the participants were Thai, non-native speakers of English. In total, there were 106 of them. There were 19 male and the rest were female.
There were three classes or groups of students.Each group took the required courseReading and Writing (EN 302). The first group, 01, had better English language skills than the other two groups, 02, and 03. Group 03 was the weakest group. The subject, EN 302, aimed to help students develop their skills in reading and writing. It also focuses on improving both vocabulary and grammatical structures. Students are encouraged to adopt strategies in order to read effectively.
The course lasted for 15 weeks. The classes were taught by the instructors had more than 15 years of EFL teaching experiences. Each week had two sessions, and each session was 1.5 hours. Altogether, the course lasted for 45 hours.
3.2 The Intervention
The intervention referred to our intervention in supplementing the normal reading activity with the cooperative reading activity. In the normal reading activity, the students read It was planned ahead by the teachers before the mid-term exammination. The CL activity was implemented the week after the mid-term examination.
At the beginning of December 2006, the intervention was inplemented. It lasted for two months. It ended in the last week of January 2007.
3.3 The Procedure
At week 8, the students were informed about the required reading activity. They were required to form a group of four, and together, they would read their chosen story. They were to choose a work of fiction from the self-study center of the Language Institute. They then had to draw pictures to tell aboutthe story they had read.
The reading took place outside of the classroom. Each group chose a story appropriate for their levels (Level 4 or above). Each group was given about a month to read. After reading, they had to draw pictures summarizing the story. They got ready for the classroom activities.
During this time, the students were given opportunities to observe the demonstration of the activities, including the process and steps. Two handouts were given to each student (See Appendices Band C).
Week 14 was when each group did the activity in the classroom. The presentation went on step-by-step, as planned.
The steps were the following:
Initially, we planned to follow two schemes or plans of actions: group and individual schemes. .
In this scheme, to enhance greater interaction, the students were put in groups of four. The four of them then read the same book. The time given for reading the book was three weeks. Each group then got together to discuss the book they read. The steps were as follws:
- Students were in group of four.
- One at a time, moving around the group in a clockwise direction, each student stood, showed their picture to the group, and describe it in relation to the book.
- The student to the speaker’s right asked a question or made a comment.
A group of four students was preferred to other forms of grouping. Our experience has it that this was the best number for cooperative learning. Watcyn-Jones (2000), for example, has written that: “ …From experience, I have found this [groups of four students] to be the optimum number since it allows each student to particpate fully and there is less risk of some students either dominating the group or being silent and contributing very little (p. iv).”
Another important element of the intervention was the teaching of reading strategies to the students. The students were explicitly taught basic reading strategies. We explained to them the importance of those strategies. Then, we showed them how to apply those reading strategies, followed by detailed explanation. The thinking aloud method was also introduced to the students. After the demonstration and explanation, the students did their own practice. Every class session, the students were reminded and encouraged to use reading strategies. Also, we would go over the previously taught strategies as a review.
We kept reminding the students about the importance and benefits of the reading strategie. This meant that the teaching of the strategies was part of the classroom routines.
3.4Data Collection
The data were collected from the subjects via questionaires, interviews, and classroom observation.
3.4.1. The Questionnaire
Students’ Attitudes towards the combination of extensive reading and cooperative reading activities was developed by the researchers (see Appendix A). It is a questionnaire that includes a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 5, “Strongly Agree”, to 1, “Strongly Disagree”, where a higher average score reflects higher positive attitudes towards the program.
The questionnaires were given to the students during the second session of week 15. 23 student participants answered the questionnaires.
3.4.2. The Interview
Interviews with students were conducted informally at the end of the project by both researchers. Below were the guilding interview questions.
-In general, what do you think about the activity?
-What to you was the main purpose of the intervention?
-Was there anything/aspect about the activity that you really liked?
-Was there anything that you did not like?
In our attempt to obtain representative responses from the student population, we selected three pairs of students. Each pair was intentionally selected to represent each of the three levels of the students’ English ability: (1) higher ability, (2) average ability, and (3) lower ability. In total, we interviewed 6 students and from the three groups. The interviews were conducted after the end of the course.
3.4.3. The Informal Classroom Observation
In addition to the questionnaires and the interviews, We also informally observed the students in action in the classrooms.On a regular basis, we met and shared our ideas and opinions on what we have observed.
4. Results
Data were collected from three sources: (1) students’ responses to the questionnaire, (2) student interviews, and (3) classroom observation.
4.1 Results from the Questionnaire
By the end of the course, we asked 34 students to answer the questionnaire. Their responses were collected and analyzed. It was found that, on average, the students had positive attitudes towards the learning experience (M=3.95).
Below are some interesting fidings from the analysis of the data from the questionnaires.
Figure 1: Most agreed that the program helped them to read English better.
Figure 1 shows that most students strongly agreed or agreed with the statement: The program helped me to read English better. The arithmetic mean for this item is as high as 4.47.
Figure 2: Most students agreed that the program encouraged them to better express their ideas and feelings in English.
Figure 2 shows that most students agreed that the program encouraged them to better express their ideas and feelings in English (M = 4.26). Only two of them were undecided.
Figure 3: Most students felt nervous using English in class.
Figure 3 shows that most students reported that they felt nervous using English with their classmates in class. The mean is 3.44.
Figure 4: Most students said the program helped them better understand what they have read.
The above figure shows that most students said the program helped them to better understand what they have read (M= 4.41).
4.2 Results from the Student Interviews
After the end of the course, we interviewed six students for their opinion on the learning activity. Their responses were summarized as follows:
In general, across the three groups, the interviewed students had positive attitudes toward the learning activity, the CL activity where they read, drew pictures, and talked about the book they had read. They said the activityhelped them to practice using English, providing them opportunities to summarize English passages.In their opinion, most students were given ample opportunities to practice using English. In generak, most of them said the activity was an enjoyable one.
All six students we interviewed said they have learned how to work in groups.They thought the activity dealt with reading comprehension where they had to interpret what we understood by working together and drawing pictures to demonstrate their comprehension. Telling a story through a picture in a group and to the whole class were cited by being the two useful aspects of the activity.
When asked about their opinion on the pictures, most of them said that the pictures were a means for them to practice using English e.g. summarizing the reading passages. The act of drawing itself was perceived to be an enjoyable pursuit. One student, enjoying drawing so much, said: “I enjoyed drawing so much. The last time I drew anything was years ago…when I was in high school”. Another student said that she and her team members helped each other drawing pictures. She said, “ In our team, we drew pictures together”.
In sum, the data from the interviews support data from the questionnaires --- the students found the learning activities useful. They had positive attitudes toward the intervention.
4.3 Results from the Classroom Observation
The students acknowledged this kind of grouping --- working in groups of four.They seemed to have no objection.
From our observations, it was obvious that the students in Group 01 were quick learners. They felt easy and happy to study. They understood the lessons faster. Most students usually attended class. There were very few students who were absent or tardy. Some students asked us when they did not understand. They also answered our questions. Most students worked in class seriously and attentively. Very few students were not serious about studying. Some students talkedin class. There were two kinds of students who talked in class. The first group would talk when they finished their class work. We walked around in order to urge them to work in groups.