Using collaborative learning to enhance oral production on the EFL context
22
0
0
Texto completo
(2) Abstract This meta-research investigated the effects of collaborative learning on enhancing students’ oral production on English as Foreign Language (EFL) context. The sources of data included a range of educational research focussed on this issue, which were taken as primary source of analysis. From the analysis of these studies, it can be suggested that the use of collaborative learning has the potential to be a successful strategy to enhance students’ oral production. Across the studies, it was apparent collaborative learning meant that students demonstrated lessen levels of anxiety, were more engaged in the learning activities and the strategy fostered a welcoming environment to those less participative students.. Keywords: Collaborative Learning, oral production, learning, Teaching English as Foreign Language,.
(3) Introduction. Being able to communicate orally has always represented a challenge on the foreign language teaching; developing the skills to convey meaning in another language implies that you can understand and perform the language. However, it is an issue that is frequently seen on EFL classrooms; whether for younger or older students, trying to produce language it is not easy. According to Littlewood (2004), there are six factors that hinder the participation of students on the production of L2 in the EFL context. These are: 1) tiredness, 2) fear of being wrong, 3) insufficient interest in the class, 4) insufficient knowledge in the subject, 5) shyness and 6) insufficient time to formulate ideas. During the three years of experience on classrooms, many issues have arisen, however the most significant are linked to the students’ development of oral production. In classroom observations and practicums, it was a frequently occurance that reading or listening did not imply greater effort for students to manage, yet when it came to speaking activities, students were mostly reluctant to speak, most of them seemed uncomfortable and averse to reading aloud or answering short questions posed by the teacher. Other issues that aroused further interest on student's oral production were related to the teacher’s view regarding speaking activities which were mostly negative. They described these as pointless and disruptive since students did not manage to take turns, did not participate according to the instructions or only interacted on the L1, which after a while, derived on loud and messy lessons. Lastly, the speaking activities were not focused on the students’ interests and as a result, the participation and engagement decreased as the activities were lacking relevance. Bearing this in mind, the idea of finding successful strategies to develop oral production lead to focus on the use of collaborative learning as one of the main learning.
(4) approaches to help students enhance their oral production. In particular, this investigation sought to address the following research question: “Can collaborative learning strategies enhance students’ oral production in an EFL context?” Firstly, in order to have a better understanding of the purpose of this metaresearch study, it is necessary to define key terms such as oral production and collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is defined by Smith and MacGreggor (1992), as different educational approaches that primarily imply the collective participation of students in the search for understanding, meaning or creation of tasks. Furthermore, it is suggested that collaborative work necessitates the development of social interactions, as well as aspects of living in community, since it is built on the student exchanges of understandings, as well as engaging their abilities to resolve differences and agreements. Hence, collaborative learning can provide diverse strategies to enhance oral production on the EFL context. Oral production is conceived by Hymes (1972) as “the capacity to communicate effectively within a particular speech community that wants to accomplish its purposes.” According to Byrne (1991), oral production involves speaking and listening as a two-way process where responding is an expected dimension. That is to say, oral production can be described as a communicative competence that involves two skills in order to receive and produce a message. Investigating the use of collaborative learning on the oral production can be a benefit for teachers to develop new strategies and activities to apply to their own students while having in mind their language level, context and interests. What is more, investigating the relevance of collaborative learning in oral production can help teachers comprehend the importance of developing speaking skills and how these can be.
(5) promoted and implemented on a regular basis, through the use of collaborative activities or tasks. Methodology According to Bangert-Drowns & Rudner (1991), a “meta-analysis is a synthesis of a research project, including a summary of the results of other studies in a meaningful connected display that enables the derivation of general conclusions.”(p.2). In the field of education, the use of meta-research is applied to summarize results of findings on issues or topics of interest. This meta-research project focuses on synthesising different findings across a range of qualitative research and supportive quantitative analyses, in order to determine the most relevant aspects of the use of collaborative learning to enhance oral production, as well as to identify what implications or benefits can collaborative learning bring to students’ oral performance. The research selected for this meta-analysis includes seven papers, which were chosen according to the following criteria: Firstly, the studies provided empirical evidence which could provide along with real interventions and most importantly, with results derived from applied strategies or methods regarding the topic of collaborative learning and oral production. Five of the seven final selected research studies were formed as Action Research projects, whilst in addition to two quantitative research studies (which were applied as secondary data to provide useful secondary evidence on the research topic) were reviewed. Secondly, the use of qualitative papers as source of primary data had as primary purpose the application of data triangulation, as following this method can provide reliability in the qualitative research just as the findings on meta-research. Thirdly, research was selected for its specific focus on an English as a Foreign Language context, as this was the context for this meta-research study. Among the.
(6) research studies, four came from a Latin American context (such as Colombia and Argentina), whilst other research was undertaken in Iran, Portugal and Hong Kong.. To analyse the studies, the key issues identified from the research question were the following: 1) Can collaborative learning be applied on large classrooms, such as those in the Chilean context? 2) Are collaborative strategies possible to apply on context where there are more than thirty students in the classroom? And 3) How could collaborative learning help students minimize levels of anxiety and shyness? Being able to recognize the patterns and themes across each of the findings of these research studies facilitated the analysis on the meta-research process. Thematic coding is directly related to qualitative research, where it is employed to retrieve information from one or more sources of data which are linked to the same thematic idea based on the constant of patterns identified. Incorporating thematic coding to the process of meta-research implies analyzing the findings and most crucial outcomes from the primary data. To analyze the primary data, two techniques were employed: conceptdriven coding and data-driven coding, which according to Gibbs (2007) are not exclusive from each other, since both can contribute to the development of more sophisticated theories. The first step is the application of the data-driven coding which according to Gibbs (2007) implies “reading the texts and tease out what is happening”. (p12). The application of this technique was mainly in order to identify the common patterns on each research, likewise to identify the possible similarities or differences that might exist from each other. Later on, applying concept-driven coding facilitated the narrowing process of selecting the key themes regarding the research question..
(7) From the common patterns, it was possible to identify five key themes on the research topic. Throughout the two quantitative research studies the use of thematic coding was equally used. The analyses of quantitative research was undertaken from a qualitative perspective, which means that the statictical data was less important than the. Findings Through the process of analysis it was possible to establish five key themes regarding the use of collaborative learning to enhance the students’ oral production. These key themes will be presented in order of influence and importance owing the research focus. The first key finding emerging from the primary-data analysis was the influence that collaborative learning had on the students’ meta-cognition. For instance, Prieto’s (2007) action research study suggested that students could recognize the impact of the collaborative activities on their oral performance. Students revealed through the diaries that, “they understood that one way to improve speaking is practicing with others and learning from others” (p.83). What is more, according to the research, the students observed in their diaries that each member of the group “had something to share and something to be valued from.”(p.83) Furthermore, findings from Devia, and Garcia-Cruz, (2017) suggested that students were able to notice their errors (linguistic and communicative) through the planning processes of collaborative tasks. Similarly Luchini and Rosello (2007) found that students perceived their improvements in their oral communication abilities. In addition, the study found that group work techniques were an important ingredient in their classes, where the aim was to develop their language abilities. Finally, the researchers concluded that different task-types helped the students’ development of oral skills, as well as creating awareness on how the language works. Finally, supportive.
(8) data from the quantitative research by Tabatabaei, Afzali & Mehrabi (2015) indicated that more than half of the students thought that collaborative learning had led to improvement of their speaking ability. However, less than the half indicated that they thought the process of collaborative learning is a good way for the improvement of their oral performance. A second key theme that arose from the analysis of the primary data related to the activities that were implemented in collaboration. Some of these activities enhanced the participation of students and at the same time prompted the students’ engagement and motivation towards the activities. Through her action research investigation, Prieto (2007) adapted interactive activities in small group of students, which throughout the intervention proved to be beneficial their oral production. What is more, through the analysis of the data applied, students explained that the topics of the sections allowed them to discuss and relate issues to their own life. Hence, students found reason to express and share their thoughts. Owing the importance of activities on the students’ interaction and oral production, Devia, and Garcia-Cruz (2017), suggested that the use of a technological tool, such as podcasting, was a suitable tool to help students improve their oral skill. Through their work, it is stated that podcasting can capture and share voices in an effort to communicate, create and share ideas. (p.37) Similarly, Couvaneiro and Pedro (2015) investigated the effects of the “Collaborative Learning Using Tables in EFL to develop Oral Communication”. Through their investigation, they perceived that students were involved in the activities and as a matter of fact, on the students’ questionnaire it was observed that they showed a preference for music related learning, television and theatre which were topics applied on the collaborative project. From this perspective it can be.
(9) implied that technological tools can become an effective technique to promote collaborative learning. The third key finding that emerged from the analysis was that the environment that collaborative learning can effectively foster student development in speaking activities. During the process students, stated that they felt comfortable when participating, which enhanced the oral competence using the collaborative strategies. According to Prieto (2007), post the implementation of the collaborative activities, students’ diaries suggested that they felt more comfortable using English in class. Likewise, they declared that by means of the collaborative activities, their oral interaction was more fluent as there was less direct pressure of assessment from the teacher. Other quantitative supportive studies have suggested that collaborative strategies also benefited the students that were more reluctant to speak. For instance, Couvaneiro and Pedro (2015) observed that after the research intervention, teachers identified that timid students increased their participation because there was a more spontaneous and inviting environment. At the same time, Tabatabaei, Afzali & Mehrabi (2015) indicated that students feel more stressed when they are exposed to individual tasks, rather than speaking activities. According to Luchini and Rosello (2007), the use of collaborative learning had a positive influence on students’ anxiety levels, since group work techniques provided a safe classroom environment. Likewise, it was observed that short-term learners increased their motivation. However, Ling (2013) reported findings which had different results from these studies. Students’ interviews revealed that half of the students did not agree that the group setting could provide them with a comfortable atmosphere since they encountered difficulties when collaborating with their group members..
(10) The fourth key finding of the meta-analysis was in regards of the influence that pair work had on the students’ oral production. Across the studies, it was possible to observe that those interventions that applied group work of three or more students had significant differences in comparison to those who used pair-based work. Agudelo (2013) discovered that applying pair work activities provided more opportunities for participation among students, since they could negotiate meanings and take turns. These findings are in contrast with Ling’s (2013) research, where students expressed that working with other some classmates was troublesome. The researcher, exemplified indicating that two of the participants quarrelled, and had to be swapped from the group and they were reluctant to accept each other’s views. From these results, some researchers claimed that in further research, the grouping arrangement should be taken into account in order to fully achieve participation from the students. It is important to note that only in these two studies compared the students oral production with both pair work and group work dynamics. One of the last key finding that could be identified from the analysis of primary data is in regards of the teacher’s influence, input on the students’ oral development and personal views on the use of collaborative learning and speaking activities. The teacher’s role is essential for the students’ oral performance, as well as their perceptions of speaking activities. Across the range of research reported here, the influence of the teachers’ strategies were essential for the students speaking process. Prieto (2007), described on her findings that there were four cases where the students did not practice speaking during the intervention, three of the cases pointed directly towards the teacher’s influence. The lack of attractive and appropriate activities to motivate students to express themselves, and also the fact that there was no sufficient input to produce.
(11) language on the activities. Despite these limitations, the feedback that the teacher provided during the implementation, helped students to maintain fluency on the tasks. Overall, studies found that teachers play an essential role on the students language production due to their role as the facilitators on the communication process. For instance, Agudelo (2013) found that on the oral production activities teachers need to provide sufficient input during each stage, from the beginning of the class, and it is emphasized that it should be prior activities commencements.. Implications The implication of the findings previously described suggested that there are several characteristics that have to be taken into consideration in order to apply collaborative learning effectively in the EFL classroom. Collaborative learning can be useful but it needs to be carefully designed to achieve positive results if it requires to be applied on the EFL context. Some of the steps that could be recognized after the analysis were the following. Firstly, teachers need to provide enough input for students to produce sufficient language on the activities. Further, teachers need to appreciate that students are eager to participate if the activities are engaging, that is to say, there are topics that students can relate to in order to participate without the pressure of assessment. In an EFL context, it is essential to understand that for students to produce the desired output there should be some elements to ensure their language. According to Luchini and Rosello (2017), learners should be provided with enough opportunities in their classrooms to use linguistic resources, at the same time, they argued that the combination of output practice with focus on form seemed to be essential to enable learners’ integration of language knowledge..
(12) Secondly, group work and pair work are functional arrangement strategies for collaborative learning; however both can provide different results on the students’ oral production. For instance, pair work provides students with more opportunities for participation, since they could negotiate meaning, and take turns for speaking. Through pair work, teachers can manage the process of the lesson with more authority. On the other hand, group work can provide more authentic language production, since students are actively involved in their own learning process. In other words, students that rely less on the teachers’ feedback have more opportunities to think critically and explore autonomously. Collaborative learning and group work have a strong potential to be applied in the Chilean classroom, however, the process might be hindered by the number of students on the classroom. Applying group work can become, in some opportunities, a disruptive strategy on large classrooms, since there is no control from the teacher on the students’ interaction. This could lead to possible classroom management problems. Thirdly, collaborating learning can be applied in conjunction with other materials or strategies in order to promote students’ oral production. The use of technological and innovative tools, such as podcasting or tablets, can stimulate students’ oral output. However, due to the school budgets, it is not always possible to have these sorts of devices. School realities vary depending on the school nature, some of these, such as private schools, are able to afford the materials, yet this only applies again to the economic situation of each. Lastly, the findings revealed that collaborative activities fostered a more friendly and inclusive environment for students to share and produce language. In regards to this implication, it is relevant to remember two factors that hindered students’ participation on the production of L2, which were: the fear of being wrong and the shyness. For.
(13) instance, Couvaneiro and Pedro (2015) suggest that teachers could identify that shy students increased their participation due to the fact that there was a more spontaneous and inviting environment. Some results, such as the quantitative research, revealed that students could reduce their anxiety levels while speaking in groups or pairs.. Conclusion Taking into account the primary data studies, collaborative learning enhances students’ oral production, however, teachers should bear in mind the students’ classroom setting, physical and social environment, engagement, language level and the anxiety that foreign language can produce on the students. The use of technological tools can help students develop a larger range of skills, not only regarding their language performance, but also on the technology field. Technological tools such as iPads can help students develop autonomous collaborative work, independence from the teacher input and creative production of tasks and projects. According to Huber (2012), “active and interactive participation will lead to a more meaningful learning of the English language, and particularly emphasized the appropriateness of using the iPad in combination with different apps.” (p.140). It can be concluded from this meta-research study that throughout several different contexts, collaborative learning is an strategy that can be productively implemented on classrooms, especially on EFL backgrounds. However, further investigation should be carried out in order to gather a deeper understanding of the implications that collaborative learning could have in an Chilean context..
(14) References. Agudelo. J (2013) Pair Work Oral Production Activities in The English Classroom. Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana (Thesis). Bogotá Colombia. Byrne, D. (1991). Teaching Oral English. London: McGill University. Devia, M .and Smith, A. (2017) Oral Skills Development Through the Use of Language Learning Strategies, Podcasting and Collaborative Work. El desarrollo de la habilidad oral a través del uso de estrategias de aprendizaje de lengua, los podcasts y el trabajo colaborativo (Thesis). Universidad del Tolima, Colombia.. Gibbs, G.R. (2007) Thematic Coding and Categorizing, Analyzing Qualitative Data. 4 Thematic coding. and categorizing. SAGE Publications Ltd., London.. Golub, J. (Ed). Focus on Collaborative. Learning. Urbana, IL: National. Council of Teachers of English, 1988. Huber, S., (2012). iPads in the classroom - A development of a taxonomy for the use of tablets in. schools. Doctoral Thesis in Information Systems and Computer. Media. Graz: University of. Technology.. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Duranti, A. Linguistic anthropology:A reader. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers. Ip, L. (2013). Second-language learners' perceptions of collaborative learning in enhancing oral communication in English lessons. (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. Littlewood, W. (2004). Students’ perspectives on interactive learning. In O.Kwo, T.Moore & J. Jones (Eds). Developing Environments in higher education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press..
(15) Luchini, P. & Rosello, A. (2007). Developing Learners’ Oral Communicative Language Abilities: A. Collaborative Action Research Project in Argentina (Thesis).. THE JOURNAL OF ASIA TEFL.. Mar del Plata, Argentina.. Prieto, C (2007). Improving Eleventh Graders' Oral Production in English Class through Cooperative Learning Strategies (Thesis). Universidad Nacional de C olombia & Colegio de Bachillerato Patria. Bogotá, Colombia. Roda, S. & Pedro, N (2015) Collaborative Learning using tablets in EFL to develop Oral Communication (Thesis). Institute of Education University of Lisbon Alameda da. Universidade. Porto, Portugal.. Savaşçı, M.(2013) Why are some students reluctant to use L2 in EFL speaking classes? An action research at tertiary level. (Thesis) Yeditepe University, School of Education,. Department of English Language Teaching, Istanbul, Turkey.. Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning. Olympia, WA: Washington. Center for Undergraduate Education, The Evergreen State. College. Smith, B.L., and J.MacGregor.(1992). Collaborative learning: A source book for Higher Education.. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching,. Learning, and Assessment. (NCTLA). Tabatabaei, O. Afzali, M. Mehrabi, M. (2015) The Effect of Collaborative Work on Improving Speaking Ability and Decreasing Stress of Iranian EFL Learners. Mediterranean Journal of Social. Sciences MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy. Department of English, Faculty of Humanities, Azad University, Najafabad, Isfahan, Iran. Najafabad Branch, Islamic.
(16) Appendix.
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
Documento similar
