Análisis estadístico de la incidencia del aprendizaje cooperativo en comprensión lectora en inglés

 

Statistical analysis of the incidence of cooperative learning in reading comprehension in English

 

Análise Análise estatística da incidência da aprendizagem cooperativa na compreensão de leitura em inglês

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correspondencia: sandra.porras@espoch.edu.ec

 

 

 

 

Ciencias de la Educación   

Artículo de Investigación

  

* Recibido: 23 de junio de 2022 *Aceptado: 12 de julio de 2022 * Publicado: 09 de agosto de 2022

 

         I.            Maestría en Desarrollo de la Inteligencia y Educación., Maestría en la Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera, Licenciado en Ciencias de la Educación, Profesora de Idioma Inglés, Grupo de investigación RITESP, Docente en la Escuela Superior Politécnica Chimborazo, Carrera de Ingeniería Automotriz, Riobamba, Ecuador.

       II.            Magíster en Informática Educativa, Ingeniera en Sistemas Informáticos, Analista en Sistemas Informáticos, Grupo de investigación Ciencia del Mantenimiento, Docente en la Escuela Superior Politécnica Chimborazo, Carrera de Ingeniería Automotriz, Riobamba, Ecuador.

Resumen

El objetivo del estudio fue realizar un análisis estadístico de la relación entre el aprendizaje cooperativo y el aprendizaje integral en las clases de inglés con estudiantes de la Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo. Para ello se consideró un estudio experimental con un enfoque cuantitativo. La población equivale a una demostración intencional de 120 alumnos A2 divididos en dos grupos: control y experimental. La investigación fue tanto bibliográfica como de campo, pues se realizó a través de la lectura de numerosos libros y artículos en relación a cada variable como parte de la estrategia de intervención. Se utilizó una herramienta de recolección de datos, que permitió a los investigadores evaluar los niveles de comprensión de la exposición de la investigación. La evaluación se utilizó tanto antes como después del desarrollo de la estrategia de aprendizaje. Los datos recolectados fueron tabulados, analizados, interpretados y sometidos a una prueba estadística para comparar los resultados, lo que permitió confirmar la hipótesis; es decir, se concluyó que el aprendizaje cooperativo mejoró significativamente la comprensión de los estudiantes del Centro de Idiomas en el nivel A2.

Palabras claves: Aprendizaje Cooperativo; Lectura comprensiva; Niveles de Lectura Comprensiva; Nivel Literal; Nivel Inferencial; Nivel Crítico o Evaluativo;PET; MCE; Actividades de aprendizaje cooperativo; Jigsaw; Think Pair Share; Learning Together; Scripted Cooperation.

 

Abstract

The objective of the study was to perform a statistical analysis of the relationship between cooperative learning and comprehensive learning in English classes with students from the Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo. For this, an experimental study with a quantitative approach was considered. The population is equivalent to an intentional demonstration of 120 A2 students divided into two groups: control and experimental. The research was both bibliographic and field, as it was carried out through the reading of numerous books and articles in relation to each variable as part of the intervention strategy. A data collection tool was used, which allowed the researchers to assess the levels of understanding of the research presentation. The assessment was used both before and after the development of the learning strategy. The data collected was tabulated, analyzed, interpreted and subjected to a statistical test to compare the results, which allowed confirming the hypothesis; that is, it was concluded that cooperative learning significantly improved the understanding of the students of the Language Center at the A2 level.

Keywords: Cooperative Learning; Comprehensive reading; Comprehensive Reading Levels; Literal level; Inferential Level; Critical or Evaluative Level; PET; MCE; cooperative learning activities; puzzle; Think Pair Share; Learning Together; Scripted Cooperation.

 

Resumo

O objetivo do estudo foi realizar uma análise estatística da relação entre aprendizagem cooperativa e aprendizagem abrangente em aulas de inglês com alunos da Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo. Para isso, considerou-se um estudo experimental com abordagem quantitativa. A população equivale a uma demonstração intencional de 120 alunos A2 divididos em dois grupos: controle e experimental. A pesquisa foi tanto bibliográfica quanto de campo, pois foi realizada por meio da leitura de inúmeros livros e artigos em relação a cada variável como parte da estratégia de intervenção. Foi utilizado um instrumento de coleta de dados, que permitiu aos pesquisadores avaliar os níveis de compreensão da apresentação da pesquisa. A avaliação foi utilizada antes e depois do desenvolvimento da estratégia de aprendizagem. Os dados coletados foram tabulados, analisados, interpretados e submetidos a um teste estatístico para comparação dos resultados, o que permitiu confirmar a hipótese; ou seja, concluiu-se que a aprendizagem cooperativa melhorou significativamente a compreensão dos alunos do Centro de Idiomas do nível A2.

Palavras-chave: Aprendizagem Cooperativa; Leitura abrangente; Níveis de leitura abrangentes; Nível literal; Nível Inferencial; Nível Crítico ou Avaliativo PET; MCE; atividades de aprendizagem cooperativa; quebra-cabeça; Pense Par Par; Aprendendo Juntos; Cooperação com script.

 

Introducción

This research is feasible and viable, as it has the support of the ESPOCH administration and educators and can be conducted economically. It is long-term because the outcomes will mentor coming generations of teachers who want to use collaborative learning to improve English reading comprehension. The students have a high disposition participating in groups, sharing new experiences, and working on reading skills. The authorities provide facilities for the projects’ development that aid in the improvement of the English learning process.

The Department of Elementary School Teacher Education (2015) researched the reading skills of students who participated in Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC), Jigsaw, and Student Team Achievement Division (STAD); the population was Central Java fifth-grade elementary school students. Random sampling was used to select students. The data was collected and presented in tables and graphs for variable analysis. This study concluded that students who participated in CIRC outperformed those who participated in STAD and Jigsaw. In my opinion, the use of the cooperative learning model and the language-logic ability is efficient resulting from interactions demonstrating learning effectiveness.

In the context of Ecuador, studies have been conducted in classrooms where English is taught as a foreign language. For example, Zamora (2017) analyzed the significance of cooperative work in developing fifth- and sixth-grade students' reading comprehension at Unidad Educativa San Martin. According to this study, the primary issue with reading comprehension in the English language teaching process is individual work. The socio-educational approach was highlighted in the methodology. It was descriptive applied research. After analyzing the data, it was determined that group activities enhanced the reading comprehension of 79 cooperative groups. As a result, the researcher devised a Didactic Manual of group activities for enhancing reading comprehension as an alternative to a productive work environment.

Orna (2016) also performed a study about collaborative learning for student's motivation. In addition to observing the methods used in the classroom and their impact on student motivation, the purpose of this study is to assess the outcomes of cooperative learning activities. The population consisted of 36 students. This research was exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory. Observation was applied to statistical tables for data analysis. Students lacked motivation in English classes as a result of monotonous teaching methods. After implementing cooperative learning, however, students' motivation increased and improved throughout all four English skills: listening, reading, speaking, and writing. Students engaged in a successful learning process as a result of the participation in class activities.

Pinta & Cushpa (2015) conducted research on the influence of cooperative methods in the teaching learning process of English as a foreign language in listening skill. In this study, a cooperative method of teaching English was used to improve the listening skills of ninth-year Basic Education students. Because the collected data was analyzed, this was a field and applied research. As a result, the researchers concluded that the cooperative method positively influenced student confidence and meaningful participation in activities. In addition, a positive attitude and a desire to collaborate enhance the ability to listen well. Cooperative Learning, as it is noticed, is an excellent English-learning tool.

The objective of Bolükbaş, Funda, and Mustafa's (2011) study was to determine the efficacy and implications of cooperative learning techniques on the reading skills of 40 students learning Turkish as a second language at the Istanbul University Language Center. The experimental research design was used. First, the experimental group was instructed using Ask Together - Learn Together, whereas the control group was instructed using conventional methods. This research demonstrated that cooperative learning is more accurate than conventional teaching methods for enhancing reading comprehension. This research is supported by these findings because the proper methodology assists students in enhancing reading comprehension.

The application of a new strategy known as Cooperative Learning facilitates the assimilation of Reading Comprehension, vocabulary, and new grammatical structures. To further improve this skill, engross young students in reading throughout a range of activities and work groups. As a result, this research overcomes the issues experienced in English reading by aiming to completely dismiss traditionalism and introduce new alternatives such as Cooperative Learning. It aids in the development of this skill by implementing a process of Cooperative Learning in which all students advantage from the knowledge directly and indirectly, to give opinions, listen to others, read together, and take ownership of the strengths offered by this new strategy.

Education's core is the teaching-learning process, which is dependent on the achievement of goals. It is the most effective educational tool for causing desired changes in students. Teaching - learning process are similar concepts, as are teacher, student, and curriculum, which are structured to achieve a predetermined objective (Stones, 1972). It is well known that learning is the result of teaching, and that teaching is intended to facilitate learning.

Both teachers and students' conceptions of teaching and learning are influenced by their perceptions of the context of the educational process being carried out, giving these conceptions a relational nature (Ntwistle, Mccune , & Hounsell, 2002). This context consists of the social, cultural, and political contexts in addition to the specific educational establishments in which they study or work, as well as factors such as organization, targets, contents, relationship dynamics among teachers and students, as well as between peers and evaluation.

The principal components of the learning process are the students' linguistic and cultural background, personal experiences, and their involvement and connection in class. The addition of opportunities for sharing in scaffolding reinforces EFL learning (Forman, 2008). If teachers identify suitable strategies that contribute to students' cultural experiences, students will relate class themes and contents with real-life experiences, which will provide great significance. As a consequence, students acquire more knowledge through their memories and life experiences. In the EFL learning process, it is crucial to assess the students' values and culture as interesting information to share to their peers.

Reading is an essential component of English language study.It  can be challenging and difficult for the majority of students when employing the incorrect strategies or none at all (Bedel, 2012). Providing exciting Cooperative Learning activities is a way to engage students in EFL reading, thereby enhancing Reading Comprehension. The primary objective is to promote students' interactions in every class.

Schumaker & Deshler (2006) define learning strategy as an assignment that encompasses how an individual plans, executes, and performs a learning activity and its outcomes. Actually, learning strategies connect expertise and procedure.

Teachers may find it challenging to select a useful, well-considered learning strategy to engage students in the task, not just for a moment but in any situation (Weden, 1991). Inside the teaching and learning process, students experience challenges that teachers must address efficaciously. Moreover, solutions occur when students master certain problem-solving strategies that allow them to choose the optimal option independently. For instance, project-based learning is an effective method for teaching students how to manage and find solutions based on their prior knowledge.

Learning strategies are perceived as a significant tool for achieving goals that bring value to learning behavior improvements and successfully integrate new knowledge (SDERA, 2013). It is critical to connect learning strategies to activities that aim to improve students' values, attitudes, and beliefs. The following essential activities are based on real-life situations and are intended to promote student participation and success.

 

Strategies

 

Figure 1: Strategies

Source: Foundation Teaching and learning strategies. SDERA, (2013).

Author: Porras, S (2017)

 

Cooperative learning is an important area of education theory, research, and practice. It is the process of acquiring new knowledge through an interconnected system of elements and current activities that permit questioning, answering, transmitting information, and evaluating the new information. In addition, it is an approach for both teachers and students (Slavin, 1990).

Cooperative learning is based on teamwork, in which students collaborate in the execution of tasks to achieve common goals that lead to the final product.

There is widespread agreement that Cooperative Learning promotes learning through the progress of each student in solving a problem, evolving an assignment, or achieving a similar aim. Cooperative Learning seems to as a cross-curricular learning objective throughout the English curriculum, and it enhances a dedication to collaborate and responsibility toward the group.

Cooperative Learning tasks permit leading students' participation in group work activities with the objective of acquiring significant knowledge based on training and right approach. The activities included in learning processes produce effective outcomes since they allow for the management of data and the elaboration of content; moreover, these activities contribute to the Cooperative Learning's achievement.

 

Cooperative learning activities

 

 

Figure 2: Cooperative Learning Activities

Source: Kagan (1992)

Author: Porras, S,(2017)

 

Reading strategies

 

Figure 3: Reading Strategies

R.eading Strategies	Levels of Reading Comprehension.	Description
Skimming	Literal Level	The Global understanding is reduced to partial reading, looking for data around main ideas in their first paragraphs
Scanning	Literal Level	Scan the text with the purpose of looking only for a specific fact or a part of the information, without reading all the text
Making Predictions	Inferential Level	It is a foretaste of what will happen according to the analysis of existing conditions based on pictures, headings and subtitles.
Inferring	Inferential Level	To get meaning from the text by resolving writer’s opinion, feeling words, register, grammar or style is about a topic
Summarizing	Critical or Evaluative Level	Reducing long texts on important ideas
Paraphrasing		Re-stating text incorporating the ideas of the writer in the own production

Source: (First Steps team of The Department of Education WA, 2013)

Author: Porras, S.(2017)

 

Methodology

The study method is quali-quantitative, implementing and tabulating teachers and students’ surveys. Moreover, it allows quantitative information (numbers) and qualifications to be included and validated by teachers and students through Cooperative Learning in Reading Comprehension. Based on a mixed approach, this study provides a complete and adaptable standpoint.

It was documentary research since academic documents such as educational series, books, and journals were used to support the study. Different authors permit to learn about, relate, and develop various theories and concepts related to Cooperative Learning in Reading Comprehension. A literature review was used to create the theoretical framework.

It was field research since the researcher would be immersed in the problem’s reality. This investigation was conducted at Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, where the researcher has direct interaction with students. As a result, the researcher was immersed in the teaching – learning process and was consistently interacting with students.

A study of variables was created by the interpretation of Cooperative Learning’s results in Reading Comprehension. In addition, both the experimental and control groups were evaluated. In the experimental group, Cooperative Learning was developed. Finally, pre- and post-testing were employed.

The research was descriptive because it was conducted with first semester’s students at ESPOCH to improve the potential application of Cooperative Learning. Before that, statistical data were collected, allowing a phenomena and facts description based on the established indicators, followed by an explanation of the causes and relevant guidelines to enhance Reading comprehension.

This investigation was correlational since the researcher measured and observed the relationship between the two variables, Cooperative Learning in Reading Comprehension.

This study was explanatory because it explained the causes of teamwork and the connection between Cooperative Learning in Reading Comprehension and the phenomenon conditions that occur in the classroom.

The population for this study was 120 A2 students from the Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, in Riobamba. As a result, the control group includes 60 students, while the experimental group includes 60 students.

 

Figure 4: Population

Source: Population

Author: Porras, S (2018)

 

Given that the Experimental Group has a population of 60 students, this study was conducted with the overall population. Participants in the Experimental group were chosen at random.

To collect the data, it was essential to handle a validated pre-test and a post-test comprising a sample of the Reading Comprehension PET test from the Cambridge website. A rubric based on Cambridge parameters was conducted to evaluate the reading production. It was held for one-hundred twenty A2 students from the Language Center at Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo. Cooperative Learning was applied for a month.

 

Figure 5: Method of Data Collection

Source: Data Collection

Author: Porras, S (2018)

 

Following the application of the instruments, it was necessary to:

• Tabulate the information gathered

• Examine and analyze the results

 

Results

Experimental Group Pre- and Post-Test Results

Based on Reading Comprehension analysis and measurement, some Cooperative Learning activities were enhanced whereas considering the PET rubric to provide a meaningful method for evaluating students in the multiple reading comprehension stages: Literal, Inferential, Critical, or Evaluative.

 

Data interpretation

 

Literal level

Figure 6: Literal level

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Experimental Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Experimental Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 7: Literal Level

 

Analysis and Interpretation

 The results from table 6 for the Pre-test of Literal level were 1.72 and the results from the Post-test were 3.52. It suggests that the number rises as a result of the implementation of Cooperative Learning.

Considering Literal Level is the first level of reading comprehension, which consists on recognizing and reminding the central idea, relevant information, secondary information, and cause-and-effect connections on the reading test. Clearly, the application of Cooperative Learning led to an improvement in the students group performance, who demonstrated a high level of control over the first level of reading comprehension.

 

Inferential level

 

Figure 8: Inferential Level

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Experimental Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Experimental Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 9: Inferential Level

 

Analysis and Interpretation

Table 7 illustrates that the average score on the pre-test was 6.25, while the results of the post-test indicate an increase, resulting in a final score of 9.02.

The second level of reading comprehension is Inferential. It refers to comprehending specific aspects of a text to infer its meaning. As demonstrated, students' performance improved as a result of cooperative assignments accomplished through Cooperative Learning. The students' progress demonstrated the use of contextual clues, which encouraged students to derive a meaning from the context.

 

Evaluative level

Figure 10: Evaluative Level

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Experimental Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Experimental Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 11: Evaluative Level

 

Analysis and Interpretation

Table 8 shows that the pre-test score was 1.55 and the post-test score was 3.2. There was a significant increase between both the pre-test and post-test. Given that the expected average was 5.

Reading Comprehension performance was tested at the evaluative level because it is an essential factor to consider in reading achievement. Moreover, it is clear that the students handled the assigned tasks responsibly. As a result, they read the text in small groups before integrating and analyzing it with their classmates in a wider group. The cooperative method, as highlighted, results to a Reading Comprehension analysis, criticality, and reflection process.

 

Levels of Reading Comprehension Pre – post test Experimental Group

 

Figure 12: Levels of Reading comprehension final scores Pre – post test

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Experimental Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

 

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Experimental Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 13: Levels of Reading comprehension.

 

Analysis and Interpretation

The results of the comparison between the three levels of Reading Comprehension based on PET are presented in Table 9. The score for Literal Level rises from 1.72 to 3.52. There was a significant increase from 6.25 to 9.02 for the Inferential level. According to the evidence in the table, the Evaluative level increased from 1.55 to 3.2.

Based on previous outcomes, the three levels of Reading Comprehension progress significantly. It results from the use of Cooperative Learning to improve Reading Comprehension. During this time, students develop the cooperative skills necessary for their improvement.

 

Reading comprehension Final Scores Pre – Post test Experimental Group

 

Figure 14: Levels of Reading Comprehension scores Pre – post test

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Experimental Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Experimental Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 15: Levels of Reading Comprehension scores Pre – post test

 

Analysis and Interpretation

Table 10 reveals that there was a substantial growth in the final scores of the Reading comprehension levels. The average score on the pre-test was 9.52, and the final score on the post-test was 15.74.

This project's primary goal was to enhance Reading Comprehension, as measured by a comparison of the pre-test and post-test. Students' performance improves after the implementation of Cooperative Learning since cooperative activities were incorporated into lesson plans.

 

Pre-test and Post-test Results Control Group

The PET rubric was developed based on an analysis of the reading comprehension levels to properly assess students. As a result, the Literal, Inferential, Critical, and Evaluative levels were considered in reading comprehension.

 

Literal level

 

 

 

Figure 16: Literal Level

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 17: Literal Level

 

Analysis and Interpretation

Table 11 revealed that the score on the pre-test was 2.47, while the score on the post-test was 2.68.

Since it recognizes information that is explicit in the text, the literal level was deemed the level with the least complexity. As was observed, there was a little variability in the results because Cooperative Learning was not implemented in this group. Students demonstrated limited ability to determine the precise location of scenarios, characters, and dates.

 

Inferential level

 

Figure 18: Inferential Level

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 19: Inferential Level

 

Analysis and Interpretation

The students in the Control Group had a pre-test score of 7.1 and a post-test score of 8.03, as shown in Table 12.

One of the levels assessed for Reading Comprehension was the Inferential, with the goal of deriving new information from the text's implicit information. Despite the regular classes, this level's performance has not improved significantly. There were some issues in detecting hidden messages in the responses.

 

Evaluative level

 

Figure 20: Evaluative Level

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 21: Evaluative Level

 

Analysis and Interpretation

The result in table 12 demonstrate that the Control Group students scored 7.1 on the pre-test and 8.03 on the post-test.

One of the levels assessed for Reading Comprehension was the Inferential, with the goal of deriving new information from the text's implicit information. Despite the regular classes, this level's performance has not improved significantly. There were some issues in detecting hidden messages in the responses.

 

Evaluative Level

 

Figure 22: Evaluative Level

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 23: Evaluative Level

 

Analysis and Interpretation

According to table 13, the final score in the evaluative or critical level was 1.55, and the results after applying the post - test increased to 2.02. There is some progress.

The third level of Reading Comprehension is Evaluative or Critical, and it is linked to the ability to reason in the text. As seen in the Evaluative Level, this level includes processes such as analysis and synthesis. The results showed a slight improvement.

 

Levels of Reading Comprehension Pre – post test Control Group

 

Figure 24: Levels of Reading comprehension final scores Pre – post test.

Source: Pre and Post test scores – Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

 

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores – Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 25: Levels of Reading comprehension.

 

Analysis and Interpretation

Reading comprehension data from the pre- and post-tests of the control group are presented in Table 14. It was observed that the final Literal Level scores increased from 2.47 to 2.68. Additionally, the final average for Inferential Level increased slightly from 7.13 to 8.03. Finally, the range of final scores for the Evaluative or Critical level was 1.55 to 2.02.

Reading comprehension improvement demonstrates a slight increase across all levels, based on prior results. Therefore, it is essential to understand and implement new strategies for motivating students to enhance reading comprehension ability.

 

Reading comprehension Final Scores Pre – Post test Control Group

 

Figure 26: Levels of Reading Comprehension scores Pre – post test

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 27:  Levels of Reading Comprehension scores Pre – post test

 

Analysis and Interpretation

The data collected from the final Reading Comprehension results demonstrated that students scored 11,15 in the pre-test and 12,73 in the post-test. It was revealed that the results in the pre and post-test were minimal since it was only 1,58.

This research aimed to enhance Reading comprehension. However, because those students did not engage in cooperative learning, there was not a significant improvement. It is crucial to promote activities that improve reading comprehension skills.

 

Reading Comprehension Pre – Post Test Test - Comparison Experimental and Control Group

 

Figure 28: Reading Comprehension – Experimental and Control Group

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 29: Reading Comprehension - Experimental and Control Group

 

Analysis and Interpretation

 In experimental group the scores range differ from 1.72 to 3.52 on the Literal Level, from 6.25 to 9.02 on the Inferential Level, and from 1.55 to 3.2 on the Evaluative or Critical Level. The Control group was assessed using PET criteria. The Literal Level score ranged from 2.47 to 2.68. The level of inference from 7.13 to 8.04. Finally, the Evaluative or Critical score ranged between 1.55 and 2.02

According to this information, there is an improvement in the Experimental Group when comparing the final scores of the pre and post tests after the application of Cooperative Learning in Reading comprehension. However, the results in the Control group were not as good as expected.

 

Reading  Comprehension  final  results  Pre  – post  Test  -  Comparison Experimental and Control Group

 

Figure 30:  Reading  Comprehension  final  results  Pre  –  post  Test  Experimental and Control Group

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

Source: Pre and Post test scores - Control Group

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 31: Reading  Comprehension  final  scores  Pre  –  post  Test  – Experimental and Control Group

 

Analysis and Interpretation

The data collected from contrasting the Pre and Post Tests of the Experimental and Control Groups revealed that the Control Group's Pre – test result was 11.15 while the Post – test result was 12.73.

After analyzing and interpreting the final results of the Pre- and Post-Test comparison between the Experimental and Control Group, it was determined that the Experimental Group's data in percentage form increased. It indicates that Cooperative Learning influences significantly higher Reading Comprehension achievement among students. In contrast, the results of the Control Group indicate a low percentage of improvement.

 

Hypothesis verification

 

Wilcoxon signed rank test ranks

 

Figure 32: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test

Source: Hypothesis Verification

Author: Porras, S (2018)

 

a. Post- Test < Pre-Test b. Post-Test > Pre-Test c. Post- Test = Pre-Test

The Wilcoxon signed Rank Test demonstrates that the Post-test is lower than the Pre-test in the Negative Rank. And the outcome equals zero (0). The Positive ranks where Post-test is higher than Pre-test yield a total of 57 and a tie for third place. The conclusion is that the experiment yielded favorable results. Therefore, Cooperative Learning improves Reading Comprehension.

Testa Statistics

 

Figure 33: Testa Statistics

Source: Hypothesis verification }

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

 

a.                  Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test b. It is based on negative ranks.

The Z value in the Statistic Test is based on the parameters that have been established. The estimated average was -6.573. It means that if the p(value) is less than 0.05, the Null hypothesis is rejected and the Alternative Hypothesis is accepted.

H1. Cooperative learning improves Reading Comprehension in students at Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, it is concluded.

 

 

Source: Hypothesis Verification

Author: Porras, S. (2018)

Figure 34: Difference Test

 

Figure 18 depicts the symmetrical distribution of the final parameter of the data distribution. The data are therefore appropriate for result presentation.

 

Conclusions

• The results of the PET reading diagnostic test lower standard of Reading Comprehension because teachers frequently overlook the importance of motivation in the English language learning process. The results indicate that students possess poor reading habits, as they read very little and even less English-language materials. The majority of students are unwilling to read due to issues such as a lack of motivation or interest, boredom, and anxiety.

• Cooperative learning emphasizes active interaction between students of diverse reading abilities in the learning process through Jigsaw, Think-Pair-Share, Learning Together, Co-op, co-op and Scripted Cooperation and integrating Literal, Inferential and Critical or Evaluative Reading Comprehension levels that work appropriately from the simple to the complex by creating a learning environment that fosters academic, personal, and social development. Reading Comprehension is influenced by a climate of care and support from peers and the teacher.

• Reading Comprehension was evaluated using pre- and post-tests based on the PET rubric. Students' Literal Level scores increased from 1.72 to 3.52 as a result, demonstrating a significant improvement. The Pre-test Inferential level was 6.25 and the Post-test level was 9.02. In terms of the Critical or Evaluative level, the Pre-test score was 1.55 and the Post-test score was 3.2. The Alternative-hypothesis was able to obtain a significance level of 0.5, excluding the Null Hypothesis.

 

Referencias

1. Ahmad,  S.  (2015).  Improving Students Skills in Translations by Using

 

2. StudentsTeams. Al-Ta'Lim Journal, 1-10.

 

3. Alliende, F., & Condemarín, M. (2002). La lectura: teoría, evaluación y desarrollo. Chile: Andrés Bello.
4. Aronso, E. (2008). The Jigsaw classroom. Nueva York: Sage Publications.

 

5. Beale, A. (2013). Skimming and Scanning: Two Important Strategies for

 

6. Speeding up your reading. How to learn, 1 - 3.

 

7. Bedel,  O.  (2012,  March  23).  www.academia.edu.  Retrieved  from https://www.academia.edu/9387758/Literature_Circles_collaborative_lea rning_in_the_EFL_classroom_-
8. _See_more_at_http_iatefl.britishcouncil.org_2012_sessions_2012-03-

 

9. 23_literature-circles-collaborative-learning-efl- classroom_sthash.uN6nffAe.dpuf
10. Cassany, D. (2004). Aprendizaje cooperativo para ELE, en actas del programa deformación para el profesoradode español como lengua extranjera. Alemania: Instituto Cervantes de Munich.
11. Da Silva, H., & Signoret, A. (2005). Temas sobre la adquisición de una segunda lengua. (2ª. ed.). México: Trillas.
12. Dubois, M. (1997). Educar en la lengua escrita, educar por la lengua escrita.

 

13. Lectura y Vida, 02-11.

 

14. EDUCAR ECUADOR. (2017, Diciembre 18). Educar Ecuador. Comunidad

 

15. Educativa en Línea. Retrieved from https://www.educarecuador.gob.ec/

 

16. El Comercio. (2012, December 14). Ambato es una de las ciudades con el más alto índice de lectura. El Comercio, p. 1 .
17. English, C. A. (2018, February). http://www.cambridgeenglish.org. Retrieved August    2018,    from    Cambridge    Assessment    English: http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/168150-cambridge-english- preliminary-teachers-handbook.pdf
18. First Steps team of The Department of Education WA. (2013). Reading Map of development. Western Australia: Government Publications.

 

19. Flood, A. (2016, March 11). Finland ranked world's most literate nation. The

 

20. Guardian, pp. 1 - 2.

 

21. Forman, R. (2008). Using Notions of Scaffolding and Intertextuality in Bilingual Teaching of English in Thailand. Linguistics and Education, 19. www.sciencedirect.com, 319 - 322.
22. INEC. (2012, Octubre). Hábitos de Lectura en Ecuador. Retrieved from http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec: http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec//wp- content/descargas/presentacion_habitos.pdf
23. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone: cooperation, competition and individualization. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
24. Johnson, David W; Johnson, Roger T. (1989). Cooperation and Competitions

 

25. Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

 

26. Johnson, David W; Johnson, Roger T; Smith, Karl A. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Improving University Instruction By Basing Practice On Validated Theory. Edina: MN: Interaction.
27. Jouini, K. (2005). ESTRATEGIAS INFERENCIALES EN LA COMPRENSIÓN LECTORA. GLOSAS DIDÁCTICAS, 98 - 99.
28. Kachru, B. B. (1985). tandards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk, & H. Widdowson, English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11 - 30). Cambridge Press.
29. Kagan., S. (1985). Dimensions of cooperative classroom structures. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hert-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck, Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 65-98). New York: Plenun Press.
30. Kispal, A. (2008). Effective Teaching of Inference Skills for reading. ERIC Institute of Education Sciences, 11.
31. Klingner , J., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Collaborative Strategic Reading: Strategies for Improving Comprehension.
32. Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., O'Donnell, A., Hythecker, V., Lambiotte, J. G.,

 

33. & Rocklin, T. R. (1984). Verbal Ability and Cooperative Learning: Transfer of Effects. Sage Journals, 1 - 7.
34. Lobato, F. C. (1998). El trabajo en grupo. Aprendizaje cooperativo en secundaria. Bilbao: Servicio Editorial Universidad del País Vasco.
35. Lyman, F. (1981). The Inclusion of All Students. Maryland: College Park, MD. Northrup, D. (2013). How English Became the Global Language. Basingstoke,
36. United Kingdom,: Palgrave Macmillan. Porras, S. (1980). Lenguaje. Riobamba: Cambridge.
37. Richards,  J.  (2014).  Approaches  and  Methods  in  Language  Teaching.

 

38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

39. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Roman Perez, M., & Diez Lopez, E. (2014). Aprendizaje y curriculum: didáctica socio-cognitiva aplicada. Madrid: Libros Ambigú.
41. Rué, J. (1998). El aula: un espacio para la cooperación. In J. M. Casteleiro, T.

 

42. Castelló, I. Cirera, M. T. García, A. Jorba, M. Leciñeña, et al., Cooperar en la esculea. La responsabilidad de educar parala democaracia (pp. 16

-          50). Barcelona: Graó.

 

43. Sánchez, C. (2012). Expresión y comunicación . México: Grupo industrial de

 

44. Artes Gráficas Ibersaf Industrial S.L.

 

45. Sánchez, C. (2012). Expresión y comunicación. México: Ibersaf Industrial S.L. Sánchez, E. M. (1993). Los textos expositivos. Estrategias para mejorar su
46. compresión. España: Santillana.

 

47. Santillana. (2009). Lectura y animación. Quito: Equipo Editorial Santillana S.A. SDERA.  (2013).  https://www.sdera.wa.edu.au/.  Retrieved  from  SDERA
48. Educating            for            Smarter            Choices: https://www.sdera.wa.edu.au/media/1235/teaching-and-learning- strategies.pdf
49. Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and ppractice. New

 

50. Jersey: Prentice Hall.

 

51. Solé, I. (1998). Estrategias de Lectura. Barcelona: Graó.

 

52. Torres, M. (2008). Basic Methodology for teaching English. Riobamba: Rio- Impresiones.
53. Weden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. UK: Prentice

 

54. Hall.

 

 

 

 

© 2022 por los autores. Este artículo es de acceso abierto y distribuido según los términos y condiciones de la licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).