Using the STAD Model of Instruction to Enhance Learners’ General Achievement and Creativity
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
َAbolhassan Nazari
1
,
امید طباطبایی
2
,
Mohammad Ali Heidari Shahreza
3
1 - Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza, Iran
2 - گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد نجف آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف آباد، ایران
3 - Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza, Iran
کلید واژه: Creativity, Cooperative learning, achievement, STAD,
چکیده مقاله :
This study was an endeavor to investigate the impact of Student Team Achievement Divisions (STAD) on Iranian secondary school EFL learners’ overall achievements and creativity. To fulfill the purpose of the study, 142 EFL students were selected based on their performance on the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT). The students were divided into experimental groups receiving treatment through the STAD model of cooperative learning and the control group devoid of the stated treatment. To recognize the entry behavior pretests were run. The same educational content was taught to both EG and CG during an educational term. To disclose the effect of treatment, a creativity posttest similar to pretest but in reshuffled order in options and items, and also an achievement posttest within the content taught were administered to the students in both groups at the end of the instruction. Furthermore, the mean scores of achievement and creativity tests were compared through an independent samples t-test, and one-way ANCOVA respectively. The outcomes showed the rejection of the both null hypothesis consequently concluding that cooperative learning had a significant effect on the overall achievement of Iranian EFL learners, and creativity.
این مطالعه تلاشی برای بررسی تأثیر بخش‌های پیشرفت تیم دانش‌آموزی (STAD) بر دستاوردها و خلاقیت کلی زبان‌آموزان زبان انگلیسی دوره متوسطه ایرانی بود. برای تحقق هدف این مطالعه، 142 دانشجوی زبان انگلیسی بر اساس عملکردشان در آزمون قرار دادن سریع آکسفورد (OQPT) انتخاب شدند. دانش‌آموزان به دو گروه آزمایشی دریافت‌کننده درمان از طریق الگوی یادگیری مشارکتی STAD و گروه کنترل بدون درمان بیان شده تقسیم شدند. برای تشخیص رفتار ورودی، پیش آزمون اجرا شد. در طول یک ترم آموزشی، همان محتوای آموزشی به EG و CG آموزش داده شد. برای افشای تأثیر درمان، یک پس آزمون خلاقیت مشابه پیش آزمون اما به ترتیب تغییر در گزینه ها و آیتم ها و همچنین یک پس آزمون پیشرفت در محتوای آموزش داده شده برای دانش آموزان هر دو گروه در پایان آموزش اجرا شد. همچنین میانگین نمرات آزمون‌های پیشرفت و خلاقیت به‌ترتیب از طریق آزمون t نمونه‌های مستقل و ANCOVA یک‌طرفه مقایسه شد. نتایج نشان داد که هر دو فرضیه صفر رد می شود و در نتیجه نتیجه گیری می شود که یادگیری مشارکتی تأثیر معناداری بر پیشرفت کلی زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی و خلاقیت دارد.
Ahangari, S. &Samadian, Z. (2014). The effect of cooperative learning activities on writing skills of Iranian EFL learners. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 2(4), pp. 121-130.
Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition in interest processes. Educational Psychology Review,18(4), 391-405. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9033-0
Balfakih, M. A. N. (2003). The effectiveness of students-team achievement division (STAD) for teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 605-642.
Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A resource for college faculty, 2nd Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, A., &Campione, J. (2002). Communities of learning and thinking, or context by any other name. In P. Woods (Ed.), Contemporary issues in teaching and learning (pp. 120 –126). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12-18. doi: 10.1080/00091383.1995.9937722.
Chan, M. (2020). A multilevel SEM study of classroom talk on cooperative learning and academic achievement: Does cooperative scaffolding matter?. International Journal of Educational Research. Vol(101), 2020, 101564
Chim, H. (2015). Literature review of the cooperative learning strategy– student team achievement division (STAD). International Journal of Education, 7(1), 29-43.
Chi, M. T. (2009). Active‐constructive‐interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), pp. 73-105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x.
Damon, W. (1984). Peer Education: The Untapped Potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 5(33), pp. 343. 1984.
Davidson, N., Major, C. H., &Michaelsen, L. K. (2014). Small-group learning in higher education— cooperative, collaborative, problem-based, and team-based learning: an introduction by the guest editors. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), pp. 1-6.
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (2006). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Eysenck, M. W. (1996). Anxiety, processing efficiency theory, and performance. In W. Battmann& S. Dutke (Eds.), Processes of the molar regulation of behavior (p. 91–104).
Ghaith, G. (2001). Learners' perceptions of their STAD cooperative experience. System, 29(2), pp. 289-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00016-1
Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and instruction, 14(2), pp. 197-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00068-9
Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative Learning: Review of Research and Practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3
Gull, F., Shehzad, S. (2015). Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 9(3) pp-246-255.
Gunawan, et al. (2018) J. Phys: Conf. Ser. 1006 012016. doi :10.1088/1742-6596/1006/1/012016.
Hadley, A. O. (2003). Teaching language in con-text (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle&Heinle.
Hennessy, D., & Evans, R. (2006). Small-group learning in the community college classroom. Community College Enterprise, 12(1), pp.93-110.
Hmelo, C. Silver, E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), pp. 235-266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Hossaib, A,. Tarmiz, R. (2013). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Achievement and Attitudes in Secondary Mathematics. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93. Pp. 473 – 477.
John, E. B., Meera, K. P. (2014). Effect of Cooperative Learning Strategy on the Creative Thinking Skills of Secondary School Students of Kozhikode District. Journal Of Humanities And Social Science 19, 11, PP. 70-74.
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. Creativity and collaborative learning. Retrieved from http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us/staffdev/mcdonald_j/downloads/21st/co
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
Kaptan, F,. Korkmaz, H. (2019). The Effects of Cooperative Problem Solving Approach on Creativity in Science Course. A Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 328. 1990.
Khansir, A., &Alipour, T. (2015).The impact of students team achievement divisions (STAD) on Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), pp. 1710-1715.
Lavasani, et al. (2011). Cooperative Learning and Social skills. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences,4 , 186-193
Marashi, H., &Baygzadeh, L. (2010). Using cooperative learning to enhance EFL learners’ overall achievement. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), pp. 73-98.
Marashi, H., &Baygzadeh, L. (2010). Using cooperative learning to enhance EFL learners’ overall achievement. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), pp. 73-98.
Marashi, H., &Dibah, P. (2013). The comparative effect of using competitive and cooperative learning on the oral proficiency of Iranian introvert and extrovert EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), pp. 545-555.
Marashi, H., & Khatami, H. (2017). Using cooperative learning to boost creativity and motivation in language learning. Journal of Language and Translation, 7(1), 43-58.
Mehdizadeh, S., Nojabaee, S., &Asgari, M. H. (2013). The effect of cooperative learning on math anxiety, help seeking behaviour. Journal of Basic and Applied Science Research, 3, pp. 1185-1190.Milne, A. A. (1961). Winnie-the-Pooh. Methuen Publishing ltd.
Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 339-350). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Michalko, M. (1998). Thinking like a genius: Eight strategies used by the super creative, from Aristotle and Leonardo to Einstein and Edison. The Futurist, 32(4), p. 21.
Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 225-241.
Norman, D. G. (2005). Using STAD in an EFL elementary school classroom in South Korea: Effects on student achievement, motivation, and attitudes toward cooperative learning. Asian EFL Journal, 35(3), pp. 419-454.
Piaget, J. (1951). The child's conception of the world . London, England: Rowman& Littlefield
Razavi, S. A., Nakhle, M., &Naghavi, M. (2012). The effect of cooperative learning strategy of student teams achievement divisions (STAD) on developing oral communication skills of Iranian EFL learners. Iranian EFL Journal, 8(5), 114-129.
RimaniNikou, F., Bonyadi, A., &Ebrahimi, K. (2014).The effect of student team achievement division (STAD) on language achievement of Iranian EFL students across gender. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 3, 936-949.
Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), pp. 209-229.
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sambo, A. (2003). Lecture on Research methods in education. Personal Collection of A.A. Sambo, AbubakarTafawaBalewa University, Bauchi.
Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding & overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58(2), pp. 52-57. doi:10.1080/87567550903418594
Slavin, R. E. (2010). Cooperative learning. In E. Baker, P. Peterson, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Slavin, R. (2013). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. In W. Reynolds, G. Miller, & I. Weiner (Eds.) Handbook of psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp.199-212.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), pp. 21-51. doi:10.3102/00346543069001021
Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), pp. 44-58. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1046
Suciu, T. (2014). The importance of creativity in education. Economic Sciences, 7 (56) , p. 151.
Thurston, A., Tymms, P., Merrell, C., &Conlin, N. (2012). Improving achievement across a whole district with peer tutoring. Better: Evidence-based Education, 22(3) pp. 18-19.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language, Revised edition. (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Boston, MA: The MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds, 14th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
