1. The Effect of Ability Grouping on Students’ Reading Strategy use and Reading Comprehension in the EFL ClassroomTemplate Presenter: York Chi Advisor: Dr. Chin-Ling Lee Date: December 31, 2009
2. Content 2 1 Introduction 2 Literature Review 3 Methodology
4. Background of the Study Reading is perhaps the most important skill for learner of English who desire to achieve success in English (Anderson, 2006) 4
5. Background of the Study Reading is the essential means for learning new information and it has been the potential of opening new ways of viewing the world and transforming the world . (Grabe & Sroller, 2001; Hudelson, 1994) 5
6. Statement of Problem Teachers give little attention to students’ prior knowledge, usage of reading strategies, andmeta-cognitive abilities. (Chiu, 1998; Lee, 2003) 6
7. Statement of Problem The teacher-center teaching method does not involve all students with their learning since some students are likely not care about what is taught. (Chen, 1998) 7
8. Purpose of the Study To investigate the effect of ability grouping on students’ reading achievement To investigate whether ability grouping drew out significant differences on students reading strategy use and learning motivation in an EFL cooperating classroom 8
9. Research Questions 9 Are there any differences on the reading strategy use between the two grouping condition? Are there any significant differences on the achievement outcome on reading comprehension between the two grouping condition? 1 2
10. Research Questions 10 What are students’ learning motivation toward English learning in a cooperative learning group? 3
12. Cooperative Learning Cooperative learning is a way for students to help each other maximize their learning by the instructional use of small groups. (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, 1994) 12
13. Cooperative Learning Increase students’ intrinsic motivation Build students’ self-confidence Add Your Text Add Your Text Create concern an altruistic relationships Decrease anxiety and prejudice Add Your Text Add Your Text (Oxford , 1997)
14. Cooperative Learning 2 1 3 4 Offers an embracing affective climate Generates interactive language Group work Promotes learner responsibility and autonomy A step toward individualizing instruction (Brown, 2001)
15. Cooperative Learning Individual Accountability Social and Small Group Skill Positive Interdependence 2 3 1 Cooperative Learning Face to Face Interaction 4 Group Processing 5
16. Reading Strategies Reading strategies refers to the deliberate mental operations or actions that readers take voluntarilyandpurposefullyto develop an understanding of what they read. (Pritchard, 1990) 16
17. Indirect Strategies Direct Strategies Reading Strategies Memory Metacognitive SILL SILL Affective Cognitive Compensation Social (Oxford, 1990)
18. Learning Motivation Motivation determines the extent of individual learners’ involvement in L2 learning (Oxford & Shearin, 1994) 18
19. Learning Motivation Motivation is a key factor that influences the extent to which learners are ready to learn autonomously. (Spratt et al, 2002) 19
20. Homogeneous Ability Grouping Homogeneous ability grouping allows teachers to apply different instruction to the need of students of different academic levels, with an opportunity to offer high achieve more difficult material and to provide low achievers more support. (Feldhusen, 1989) 20
21. Heterogeneous Ability Grouping High ability students participate and learn as least as well as in heterogeneous group and seem to benefit from working with people of diverse ability. (Johnson & Johnson, 1985) 21
23. Participants Participants 30 undergraduate students from NTIT English reading class International Trade 19-26 years old
24. Procedure of the Study Pilot study Formal study Heterogeneous group Homogeneous group Pre-test Reading test SILL questionnaire Learning motivation questionnaire Pre-test Reading test SILL questionnaire Learning motivation questionnaire
25. Procedure of the Study 25 Heterogeneous group Homogeneous group Reading instruction Reading instruction Post-test Reading test at post-test SILL questionnaire Learning motivation questionnaire Post-test Reading at post-test SILL questionnaire Learning motivation questionnaire
26. Experimental Designed Englishreading Classroom Heterogeneous groups 15 participants One semester Same material Same instructor Homogeneous groups 15 participants One semester Same material Same instructor Fuzzy C mean Excel
27. Instruments GEPT reading test (Basic level) Strategy Inventory For Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire 1 Learning Motivation 3 2
28. Questionnaire 28 1 5 2 3 4 Strongly agree Strongly disagree Personal information Part 1 Part 2 Strategy Inventory for Language Learning( Oxford, 1990) Part 3 The Motivation questionnaire (Clement et al, 1994)
29. Questionnaire 29 Memory Items 1 to 9 Cognitive Items 10 to 23 Compensation Items 24 to 29 Metacogitive Items 30 to 38 Affective Items 39 to 44 Social Items 45 to 50
34. Data Analysis 34 SPSS version 13.0 To exam the difference on group, gender, andachieverto students’ performance and strategy use Independent T test To exam the relationship between strategy use and learning motivation Pearson Correlation To exam the reliability of the two questionnaires Cronbach’s alpha
