United Arab Emirates University
Scholarworks@UAEU
Theses
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
5-2011
The Effect of Homogeneous Grouping versus
Heterogeneous Grouping on High School
Students’ EFL Writing Achievement
Ihab Abd Elazim Mohamed Mahmoud
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uaeu.ac.ae/all_theses
Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons
Recommended Citation
Mohamed Mahmoud, Ihab Abd Elazim, "The Effect of Homogeneous Grouping versus Heterogeneous Grouping on High School
Students’ EFL Writing Achievement" (2011). Theses. Paper 149.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at Scholarworks@UAEU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarworks@UAEU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
lmEU
Faculty of
Education
•
t�� Q))'ioJl �J.SUI ulJLaYI futo�
'Y!!!I United Arab Emirates University
United Arab Emirate Univer ity
Faculty of Education
Department of Curriculum and Instruct jon
THE EFFCET OF HOMOGENEOUS GROUPING VERSUS
HETEROGENOUS GROUPING ON HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS'EFL WRI TING ACHIEVEMENT
the i submitted
By
Ihab Abdel Azim
(200850020)
in Partial F u l fi l lment
o f the Requirements
for the Degree o f
M aster o f Education
Academic Supervi
2011
or
Abdurra h m an Gbaleb Al mekJ1 lafi
Associate Professor of E d ucational Technol ogy
E lementary E d ucation Program Coordinator
Appro al Page and Committee Page
upervlsor
Assoc i ate Professor of Educational Technology
bdurrahm(ll1
aleb A l mekh l afi
Comm i ttee members:
1.
Associate Professor of curri c u l um & i nstruction
Dr. Hamed M ubarak AI-Awidi
2.
�
Assistant pro fessor of E ng l ish l anguage Education
Dr. Sadiq I sm a i l
II
Ackno\\ ledgement
r would like to express 111. gratitude to In) ad\i or Dr,
[or h i s
bdurrahman A l mekhl a fi
i nccre support, pat icnce and valuable directions. I wo u l d l i ke a l so t o
expres m y thanks t o Dr. Hamed AI-A\va i d i and D r ad iq fsm a i l for h e l p i n g and
supporting me in this work .
1 deepl
thank Protes
r A bdcl Monei m A hmad Hassan for h i s support and
as i stance. A l so I would l i ke to thank Professor Mohanl med Abdel Dayem the
head o f the program [or all the e fforts he showed to make o ur work successfu l .
I a l so thank
and
11'.
10ham med Daadoa the student's coord i nator for being h e l pful
upport i ve.
hould al 0 thank Dr. Chr i s Morro\ for his h e l p and v a l u a b l e ad ice.
am al 0 gratefu l to M rs . Kul u m M unsh i , A D EC ad i sor of Engl i sh l anguage
for her suppoli and he l p in proofread i ng t h i s report.
I a l so would l i ke to thank M r . A l i H usei n H ayder and Mr. A l i Abdul l a h Al Qudah
Engl i sh Language teach ers in Al Dahmaa Model School for t h e i r h e l p and support.
F i na l l y I would l ike to t h an k everybody who supported me \: h e n work i n g i n t h i s
study a n d i n study ing for my master ' s degree.
III
Ded ication
To My fa m i l y
To my
T
\\
i fe
my c h i l d ren
To my friends
To my students
W h o a l l be l i e e
IV
111
me.
B
I'M
T
1 h i5 5tud) is an attempt to i n ve l i gate the e ffecti enes of homogeneous grou p i n g
\ cr us heterogeneou gro u p i n g on students' EFL ac h i e ement i n \ r i t i ng.
post te-t design \\ a u
pretest
d to ansv er the re earch q uestions about the e ffecti veness of
gro u p i n g tude nts homogencou I)' \ ersu heterogeneou I ) ' .
for the st ud ) . One c I a
\\ as a s i gned for heterogeneou gro u p i n g i n \\ h ic h h igh
a c h i e \ e rs were i n group o f four or Ie s and 10\ achie\ ers ", e re i n groups o f four or
Ie
.
1 h e eco nd c I a s \\ a a s i gned for h eterogeneous grou p i n g \ here students o f
d i fferent abi l i ties h i gh and low ac h i ever were i n groups o f four o r l ess. The fi n d i ngs
of the ,tudy su gge ted that there i s a d i fference between homogeneous gro u p i n g and
hetcrogeneou gro u p i n g . The anal) sis of the resu l ts o f the study showed that there was
a i g n i fi cant d i ffe rence between the cores o f the students i n homogeneou group and
the heterogeneou group in favour of the homoge neous group.
However, there
as
no ign i ficant d i fference i n the ach ievement o f between h i gh ac h i evers and low
a c h i e \ e rs in the two group . Based on the conc l usions and d i cuss ions o f the study it
v. a recom mended that teac hers may group stude n ts homogeneously based on
tudent
.
le\ e l s and accord i ng to their needs. F i n a l l y recom mendations and
uggest ion for fut u re research w ere made.
v
Ta b l e of co n t e n t
A c k no\ v Ic dgm c nt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1
Ded ication
b �tract
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . .
Table of content
1-
..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
h a p t e rl l n t rod u c t ion
rhe i 'ue
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . .
r the writing sk i l l i n EFL c i a
IV
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.V
VI
.I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
rhe imp rtance o f us ing cooperat i e l ea rn i n g i n teac h i ng writing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Thl.'! u e or homogeneous grouping and heterogeneous grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
'tatement of the probkm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
tatement of the purpo e
i g n i fieance o f the ,ludy
Ope rat ion n ] d e fi n i t i n
Re earch Question
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
.
.
. . . . . . . . . �
..
. . . . .
..
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
2 - C h a p t e r II Rev iew of li ter"a t u re
Homoge neous group i n g
. . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . .
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
.
. . .
.
.
. . . .
. . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
tatement of H) pothe es
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
. . .
. . .
. . .
5
5
. 6
.
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
.
. . . . . . .
. .
.
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
. 9
. .
Hete roge neous groupi n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Coopera t i v e l earn i n g .
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
H i gh ae h i e ers and 10\ \ ach ieve rs i n homogeneou s and heterogeneous
group
. . . . . . . .
.
. . .
.
. . . . . . . . . .
.
. . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
Process \\ rit i ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
Peer ed i t i ng
. . . . . . . �
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical framework
3-
. . . . .
..
. . . . .
.. .
.
.
. . . .
. .
.
. . .
.
. �
. .
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
.
. . . . .
.
.
. . . . . . . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
25
. 27
C h a p t e r III M et h od o logy .........................................................3 0
Part i c i pants
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1
Procedu res
. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. .
.
. � � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
. .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....
. . . .
32
I n strument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
The t reatment
Data analysis
. . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI
.
.
. . . . . .
.
.
. . . . . . . .
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
38
4-
h a p t e r IV Re u l t a n d Fi n d i n g
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . .
39
Q u e t i on one: the m a i n e ffect of gro u p i n g ( heterogeneously
) on tuden ts' ach iev ement
cr u homogeneousl
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.4I
Que t ion t'>\ O : The m a i n effect o f grouping students ac ord i n g
t o their levels ( h igh e r us low achiev i ng ) tudents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 42
ue t ion three: The m a i n effect o f the i n teraction betvv een gro u p i n g students
accord i n g to their level and accord i n g to homogene i ty and
heterogeneity
. . . . . . . .
, u m mary o f t he resu lt
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5- C h a p t e r V- D i c u sion , conclu s i o n a n d reco m m e n d a t i o n
R e fe r e n ce
Append i x
43
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . .
.
45
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ..
.46
........ . . . ..
59
66
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Li t of t a b l es
Table 3 . 1 : The n u m ber o f h i g h and low achievers
. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 4 . 1 : The t t e t fo r homogeneou a n d heterogeneous group
Table 4 . 2 t te t o f the scores of the heterogeneou group .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 4 . 5 De cripti e
. . . . . . .
.
39
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tab l e 4.3 Tab le 4.2 t test of the scores o f the homogeneous gr up
Table 4.4 Levene's Te t of Equal ity o f E rror Variances
.
33
.40
.40
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.4 1
tat istics o f the effect ( heterogeneousl)
homoge neously )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AI
Table 4,6 The e ffec t of grouping of group i ng
( heterogeneously
v
.
homogeneou I. )
. . . . .
.
.42
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 4 . 7 The m a i n effec t of group i n g students accord i n g to t h e i r
leve l s ( h igh v . l o w ac h i e v i n g students )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ta ble 4 . 8 The m a i n effect of the i n teract ion between gro u p i n g
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 4.9 Desc riptive Stat i st i c s of the main effect o f the i n teraction
Table 4. 1 0 Com pari n g t h e cel l means o f h i gh and 10'>\ ac h i e ers
Li t o f a p p e n d ix:
VII
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.42
.43
. 44
. .44
.
A p pen d i x (
) cOring rubric [or rat i n g
\
riting
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ppen d i x (8) Graphic o rgan izer for brainstorm i ng
ppend i
(
) : The caffo l d i ng heets fo r writing
A p pe nd i x ( D) Peer ed i t i ng heet
A ppen d i x (F) Proofread i ng heel .
68
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ppe n d i x (E) Peer ed i t i n g chec k l ist .
66
71
78
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ppend i x ( G ) e l f ed i t i ng chec k l i s t .
80
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A ppend i x ( H ) de c r i ptors [or design i ng peer ed i t i ng sheets
App n d i x ( I ) J u ry o [ referee of the study i nstruments
VIII
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
81
83
86
C11 PT R O
J
E
T R O D CT l O
Cooperat i \ e learn i ng h a become a n i nevi table prac t i ce i n our c l assrooms.
EFL Teacher are encouraged to i m o l ve students in cooperati e l earn i ng as a
st rateg)- that hel ps the teachers get the m st out of thei r students. H o we er
teac her o ften find a chal lenge i n the wa
they hould group the i r t ude n ts .
orne
teacher!:> prefer to gr up t h e i r stud nts in m i xed abi l i ty groups or hete rogeneous
groups in \\ h i c h tudents of d i fferent abi l i t i e share each others the i r lea rn i ng
e x periences. fhe) t r to make use of h igh a h i e ers' abi l it ies i n support i ng and
ass i t i ng 10\ ach ic\ er and at the sam e t i me they guarantee a h igher type o f
retention a n d a max i m u m port ion of l earn i ng for the h igh ach i evers themse l ves.
Other teacher pre fer abi I i ty grou ps or homogeneou groups i n wh ich learners o f
th .ame abi l i t i e share their learn i ng experiences. In thi way the teac hers can
pro\ ide certa i n l earn i ng experiences to the students accord i ng to t he i r levels.
T h e i s s u e o f t h e w r i t i n g s k i ll i n E FL cia s ro o m
E F L teacher are concerned about two m a i n i ssues i n l a nguage learn i ng.
The fi r t i
ue addre ses the sk i l l s students shou l d acq u i re i n E FL c l asses as a
re u l t o f the teach i ng and l earn i n g experiences. S uch sk i l l s a re often measured by
students' ach ievement. The second issue is the strategies EFL teache rs use to help
students acq u i re s ll c h sk i l l s , and in t u m i nc rease t h e i r ach i evement.
In add i t ion, w ri t i ng i s a ski l l which req u i res e fforts from both the student
and teach ers. Wri t i ng is a s k i l l wh ich is g i ven emphasis i n second l anguage
l earn i n g because the learn e rs need to m aster it to meet the i r secondary school
graduation req u i rements ( Panofsky et a l 2 00 5 ) . Through wri t i ng courses, students
l earn d i fferent gen res of w ri t i ng l i k e descri pt i ve, ex posi tory, recount and n a rrat i ve.
1
or hese genres are inc l uded i n the prescri bed s) l Iabus provided to the schoo l s
(Becket &Gonza l c s 2004). onsequent l): stude n ts need upport from the ineachers
and i nstructors to fac i litate their learning and to become able to deal the diffi c u l ties
they might encounter.
More i m portant I. support i n g students' writ i n g i n v o l ves providing some
'
fonn of ass i stance that he lps them go through one or more processes w h i l e they
a re carr 'ing out a n ) \-Hi ting task. Thi a s i slance may incl ude, for example.
structuring hov. students carryout a raliic u lar wri t i ng process, ha i ng peers help
each others
\ \ hile
compo i n g
a
piece of wri t i ng , provid i n g students w i t h
feedback on their perfo rmance i n a certa i n task, focu s i n g studen ts' atte n tion o n
certa i n a pect o f t h e t asks in hand , a n d fi n a l l y provid i ng studen ts with mode l s
t hat m i ght show w h a t the e n d product shou l d look l i ke (Graham & Pe r i n 200 7).
The i m port a n c e o f u s i n g coo pera t ive lea rn i n g to support teach i n g w ri t i n g
M oreover, tuden ts' writ i ng abi l i ties are affected b y t h e type of i nstructions
the teac hers lise
\
ith i n their c lassroom prac t i ces. Wh i l e l eaming writing, students
can get i nvolved in many act i v i t ies which can enable them to prod uce a p i ece of
\ \ riting
at the end. They are often en gaged, for exam p l e, in c l as d i scussions, in
ro l e p l aying or get i nv o lved in peer editing ( Hensen, 200 5 ) . A l so in writ i n g c l asses,
when students are engaged in c lassroom activ i t ies wh ich a l low cooperat ion, they
construct on thei r exper ie nces of writ i n g and t h i s then
\
i l l h e l p them u l t imately
produce good q ua l i ty w ri t ing.
On the other hand, in teach i n g wri t i n g teachers strive hard to fi n d strategies
that fac i litate i n c reasi n g studen ts' ach ievement.
uch strate gies are su pposed to be
connected to the c l assroom sett ing and students' d iverse abi lit ies in carrying out
2
the target task . . There are man) meth d adopted by the teac hers in tea h i ng E F L
\\ riting i n t h e la srooms.
ne o f the method recomm ended i n teach ing ",r i t i n g i
the i ncorporat ion o f cooperat ive learn i n g ( K agan 2 002 ) . l n cooperative l earn i ng,
<;tudents can be gr uped in a v ariety o f more flex i bl e '.vays,
<;OI11C port ion
f a school da
0
that they pend
i n hete rogeneous groups and ome port ion i n
homoge neous group .
F U l1hermo re . i n man)
-
F L c l as e . some learners perfornl h i gher than
grade le\ el \\ h i le other are st i l l strugg l i n g " ith the target language, at the ame
t i me the majority o f the students are some\\ here i n between . In order to meet the
needs o f su h a d i \ er e tudent
.
context. teac her tend to assign pa i r and group
\\ r,", lor students of d i fferent Ie e l
the a
_
i gned act i v it ies.
0
a t o prov ide
v
ays to i n volve a l l students i n
uch ways somet i mes i n c l ude commun icat i ve and
cooperat i \ e task to a l low e ffect i e scaffo l d i ng for lower level stude nts . In t h i s
c i a sroom en v i ron ment, h i gher Ie e l student perfo rm a s a bri dge t o fac i l i tate the
l earn i n g proce
\\ hereas l ovv er level student ex pres the i r w i l l ingness to c ross
that bri dge ( ean. 2002 ) as c i ted in Panofsky et a l ( 2005 ). Genera l l . i t is m ore
rea l i st i c no\\ to a) that c l assroom hannony m i ght be ac h i eved i n a group o f
mot ivated t udents w ho can take part and cooperate.
The u e of h o m og e n e o u s g ro u p i n g and h et e roge n eo u s g ro u p i n g
One o f t h e practice E F L teac hers use i n s i d e t h e c i a sroom i s re l ated to the
'.\ a) the) are gro u p i n g their students w h i l e they are en gaged i n writing task s. Some
teac her pre fer to fonn team s o f students who are o f the ame abi l i t i e s w h i l e others
tend to group the i r students i n m i xed abi l ity groups i n w h i c h d iverse students s i t
together as h i gh a n d l ow ach ievers. W hen grouping students homogeneo usly
3
espec i a l l y i n wri t i ng classes. the teac hers be l i e\ e that they can provide cert a i n
ta ks for eac h le\ e l accord i ng t o their abi l it ies a n d the i r need . A l
0
the teac hers
be l i e\ e that they can i nc rease the pace of teac h i ng for the h i gh ability students
\\ h i le 10\ abi l it) students st i l l can enj o
th
indi idual attention n eeded to
fa i l itate their learn i ng. I n t h i \\ a)' h i gh ach iever are prov ided v. ith a d an ced
m ater i a l \ \h i h can h e l p i m pro\ e the i r level w h i l e low ac h ie e rs are supported
w i t h i m pler and Jess compl icated material
r acti ities that w i l l a l
0
help them
i m pro\ e and l ea rn .
O n t h e other hand, more teacher prefer t o ass i g n gro u ps o f m i xed abi l i t i e
i n \ \h i h tude nts o f d if ferent abi l ities s i t together. W hen do i ng t h i s, teachers o fte n
h a \ e the as u m ption t h a t t h e ) c a n prov ide a lea rn i n g e n v i ronment for students t o
Jearn from eac h others. H i gh abi l ity
tudents w i l l be i n v o l ved in support i ng low
ach i ever and then their Ie e l m i ght i m prove due to the i n c rease in the retention
Ie el. Low ach i ever w i l l feel the) are su ppOlied a l l the t i me by their peer d u ri n g
the ta ks h a n d l ed . A l so the i n v ol ement o f the learners i n peer ed i t i n g act i v i t ies i n
\Hit i ng has p roven to be more uccessfu l i n i n c rea i ng student ' learn ing. H igh and
lov. ach i e es in the same group o ften learn by ed i t i ng eac h other ' s writing
act i v i ties. The h i gh ac h i e\ ers' w ri t i ng can often be thought o f as a mode l for 1m
ach i ever .
S t a te m e n t of t h e p ro b l e m
Teac her as \\ e l l as educ ators i n the U n i ted A rab Em i rate in genera l and i n
the E m i rate o f Abu Dhabi seem to h a e struggled t o fi nd a n wer t o q uest i o n s
about h eterogeneous and homogeneous gro u p i n g : A re t h e y o f cert a i n ben e fi t s for
l earners? Do they h a rm a nyone? W ho gets t h e benefit or the harm the most? A n d
4
why? The an swer to uch que t ion are not a l wa) c l ear-c ut and often depend on
\
hom you a k and what l eam i n g outcomes are con idered i m portant. To man
educator , gro u p i n g i an appropriate a nswer to academ ic d i ersity. To othe rs, the
pract ice h a harm fu l u n i ntended conseq uence and should be a bandoned (
n a lone
& M en g 2006). In add i t i o n , teacher somet ime hav e to dec ide or adopt a way for
gro u p i n g their tudent w ho are o ften d i verse e pec i a l l
i n h i gh schools.
n eed to c hoo e a way for grouping them e i ther homogenou I
0 the
\\ hen students of the
ame I e cl it together or heterogeneou I . w hen ludents o f d i ffe rent abi l it ies s i t
together. Teac her t h e n n eed t o fi nd o u t w h i c h met hod of gro u p i n g " ould h e l p t h e
h i gh c hool tudent i m pro e i n writ i ng ac h i evement.
Sta t e m e n t of t h e p u r pose
Th i study a i m s to in est igate the effect of homogeneous gro u p i n g e rsus
heterogeneous group i ng on E F L h i gh school students ' ac h i evement in w r i t i ng. I t
a l so a i m a t i nvestigat i n g the e ffect o f these t\ 0 types o f gro u p i n g o n the
ach i evem e n t o f h igh ach i evers and low achievers so as to fi n d out wh ich type of
gro u p i n g u i ts each l evel.
S i g n i fica n ce of t h e s t u d y
I t i s benefi c i a l for teac hers a n d educators t o ident i fy the type of gro u p i n g
t h a t may s u i t the d i e rse students i n our c l as room.
omet i m e teachers work i n
c l asses i n wh ich the m ajority o f the students are h i gh o r 10\\ ac h ievers and
so met i m e they work in c lasses of m i xed ab i l ities with a l most equal n u m ber.
the teach ers have to make a dec i sion about w h i c h type o f grou p i n g is better for
their students. Actua l ly, t hese dec i ions m i ght affect tudents' performance,
att itude and i nv o l vement in the c l ass.
5
0
O p e ra t io n a l defin i t i o n
I he operat ional defi n i t i ons i n t h i study
v.
i l l b e a s fo l l ow s.
I . I I mogeneous groupi n g can be defined a gro u p i n g tudent i n to sm a l l groups
v.. h i ch i nc l ude student of the ame abi l i ty or level "h i gh ach ie ers together and
10\\ ach ic\ e rs together'".
2. Wh i le heterogeneous gr u p i n g can be d e fi ned as gro u p i n g students i nto groups
t hat i n c l ude m i ed or d i ffe rent Ie e l s, h i gh and low achievers toget her.
3.
c h i e \ emcnt can be d e fi ned a s students' i m pro ement i n writ i n g a fter certain
treat ment o r obj ect i ve
4 . H i gh ac h i ever can be defined as tudents whose wri t i ng ac h i evement i s above
the grade le\ e l of other stude nts. In t h i s study the
are students who ach i e ed I I
and more i n the p l acement test.
5 . Low ac h i e vers can be defined as students whose writ i n g ach ievement lowers
than the grade l evel of other students i n the same c l ass. I n t h i s study they are
student w ho ac h i eved 1 0 and less in the p l acement test.
Re earch Q u es t i o n
The research q ue t i o n wh ich t h i s study t r i e d to answer were:
I . What i the effect o f gro u p i n g homogeneously versus heterogeneou s l y on
students' ac h i evement in wri t i ng?
2. W hat is the e ffect o f gro u p i n g students accord i ng to t h e i r level as h i gh ach ievers
and l ov.. achieve rs i n the homogenous group and the heterogamous group on
stude nts' ach iev ement i n w r i t i n g?
6
3 . Vv hat i s the e ffect o f the i nterac tion between gro u p i ng tudents accord i ng to
homogeneity and het roge nei ty. and grouping them accord ing to their l e v e l s as
h igh ac h i e v ers and 1 0\\ ac h ie er ?
Sta tem e n t of H y po t h e c
onseq uen t l y the n u l l hypot hese i n t h i
1. There i s n
tud
are :
i gn i fi c3nt d i fference between the e ffect o f homogen us grouping
and hete rogcneoll gr u p i ng on EFL tudents' ac h ievement i n writ i ng.
2 . There i s no s i gn i ficant d i fference between Grouping students accord ing to the i r
Ie e l s a h igh ac h i ev er and l o\-\ achi evers \ - i t h i n the heterogeneous and
homogcneoLl on tlldents' ach ievement i n wri t i ng .
3. There i
no i gn i ficant e ffect o f the i nteraction of gro u p i n g students accord i ng to
homogen e i t; and heteroge neity and gro u p i n g them accord ing to t he i r l e v e l s as
h igh ac h i evers and l o\-\- ach iever .
7
CH
PTE R Tv 0
R E V I E W OF LlTER A T RE
Tcac h i n g \\ rit i n g i a complex endeavor \\ h i ch req u i re certain e ffort from
thc tcac hers . When people t h i n k of writi ng, they o ften consider the text or t h i n k o f
t h e \\ ritten p i ecc. ) l owcver, under tand i n g w hat \ riters do, i n
th i n!.- i n g o f the fi n i shed text . K no\\ Iedge of writing is o n l
Iv es n o t j u st
comp lete w i t h
under tand i n g t h e trategic writer u e t o fi n i sh \ ith a sat i s factory e n d product. I t
al
0
i m o l \ es the 'tep w h i c h writers learn through extended pract ices over ears
of r u t i n c \\ or!.-. The rea
n for t h i is that w ri t i n g i n 01 es a nu mber of steps to be
comprehcnded before e n d i n g
\
ith the target wri t i n g ta k . There is a gradation from
i m p l e to o m pl x w i th foc u s on target objecti ves accord i n g to the students' needs
and Icvels.
tudents norm a l ly tart by learn i n g letters, words then sentences and
fi na lly \\ f i t i n g a w hole paragraph.
uch tages need to be instructed to students
\\ i t h i n the i r chool c u rr i c ul u m s along w i t h teac h i n g other sk ills.
I n EFL and E S L cia sroom s teac hers are i nterested in develo p i ng the fou r
k i l l s of I i ten i ng, peak i ng, read i n g and wri t i ng. A l tho ugh writ i ng i s at the e n d of
this most common u sed order, i t i s not the least i m pol1ant k i ll. W r i t i n g as a skill is
as i m po rtant a any other k i ll i f not more i m portant for m any. I t i s a ski ll w h i ch is
g i ven emphasi es pec i a l l y i n the h i gh school stages as it i s a very i m portant
req u i rement for both grad uat ions from h i gh school and ad m i ssion to the u n i versity.
(Mandai .2009)
I n add i t i on, w r i t i n g as a process has a spec i fi c n at ure as it consists of three
m a i n cog n i t i ve processes or strategies. These proc esses are pla n n i ng, tran s l a t i n g
a n d rev iew i n g . However, pla n n i ng has three m a i n parts generat i n g i deas,
organ iz ing, and fi n a l l y goal -sett i n g . Moreover, t rans l a t i n g i s the act of com pos i n g
8
the ",,, r it i ng p i ece. I t take p l ace v, hen the \Hi ter change the i r i deas i nto the [onn of
v isual l etter and \\ ords. The t h i rd t rateg} \\ hich i s re\ ie\\ ing i nc l udes read i n g
and ed i t i ng. (Ch ien, 2007)
ooperat i \ e leam i n g strateg ies can be used d u r i n g the process of w ri t i ng to
i m pro \ e the prod uct or\H i l i n g at the end.
tudent can be engaged i n cooperative
act i \ itie \\ h i l e p l a n n i ng, dra ft i n g, ed i t i ng and fi n a l l y \".ri t i ng their end prod uct
H o m og e n eo u s g ro u p i ng
H omogenous g ro u p i n g a "v e i l as heterogeneous gro u p i n g both spri ngs
from cooperat i v e l earn i n g \\ h i ch has been regarded as a n i m po rtant part i n
i n truct i o n . To start \\ i th , homogeneou group i ng has been considered a s a
po s i b l e so l ut i on fo r meet i n g the needs o f the m i xed ab i l i ty c l asse . I t has a l so
been i m p lemented ro r the ame reason, uggest i ng that students w i th d i ffe ren t
abi l i t ies m i ght b e fonned i n groups o f the same abi l i t a i m i n g a t fac i l itat i ng
i n struct ion ( la\ in. 1987). Gro u p i n g i n t h i s way i s based on a pedagog ical be l i e f
that t h e teac hers have t h e a d an tage o f d i rect i ng m ore i n struct ion at t h e l e v e l o f a l l
tudents i n cert a i n groups (An sa lone, 2000 ) .
A b i l i t) g ro u p i n g or homogeneous grouping refe rs t o t h e process of
teac h i n g students in groups that are c l ass i fied by ach i evement, sk i l l , or abi l i ty
levels (l\1 cCoac h . O ' Co n n e l , & Lev in, 2006 ) . H omogeneous gro u p i n g pro v i des
opportun i t ies for students to l earn at the i r own pace and ab i l i ty . Th i s type of
gro u p i n g is freque n t l y used in c l assrooms and sc hools t o i n c rease stude nts'
ach i e ement. I n homogeneous groups, students learn at t h e i r own pace and abi l ity.
Ed iger ( 200 I ) argued that tal ented students receive more h igh q u a l i ty i nstruction in
a homogeneous sett i n g . ) suggested that this type o f gro u p i n g does not demand
9
greater k i l l s on the part o f the teac her, making it easier to teac h certai n concept
and sk i l l s . A n ad antage o f t h i approac h is i ts nex i b i l ity ( H a l lam , 2002).
in h mogeneou group can progre
tudents
and mo\ e rrom one abi l i ty level to the next
w hen foc u s i set on t he i r abi l i t) of concern . Tieso (200 3 ) uggested that when
abi l i ty gro u p i n g i u t i l ized i n a Oex i b l e and tem porary manner s i gn i ficant
a h ie emcnt gains can be rea l i zed .
I lowever. there ha a l w ay
been c:\ten ive concern that a b i l ity gro u p i n g i s
s c i a l l) d i, i s i ve, prov i d i ng achievement ror few er tudents a t t h e expen e of the
re t of the c i a
(Lyle, 1999 ) .
tudenls g r u ped homogeneous l y are aware o f v hat
ab i l it) level they are grou ped w i t h and w here the) fa l l in the Ie e l s or educat ion i n
the c i a s room o r the choo l . I n homogeneous group . students d o not obt a i n the
opportunit) to oc i a l ize w i th their peers .
(2002) tated that gro u p i n g
Ioreo er, M eijnen and G u l demond
t udents i n homogeneou group den ies t h e m the
opport u n i t to l earn h o w to hand l e variation i n soc ial conduct caused b y
d i fference i n pe rfo rmance.
Tie 0 (200 3 ) tated that a b i l ity gro u p i n g al one w i l l not lead to s i g n i ficant
I m pro ement i n students' ach ievement u n l e s i t is combi ned w i th t he c u rri c u l um s
t hat ha e been created based on student ' learn ing s t les. interests, a n d ab i l i t ies.
Homogeneous grou p i n g ma
not a l way be the an wer to i n c rea s i n g student
ac h i e vement.
In homogeneous grou ps. tudent can experience t h i ngs i n both negat ive
and pos i t i v e ,\.a) s . In hom ogeneous grou ps, teachers can i nd i v idual ize the pace,
process, and p roduct req u i red of students ( Sh i e l ds, 2002). Students who are i n
homogeneo us gi fted c l asses, for example, reported that t h e i r teachers ex pected
10
mor o f them than of tudent i n the regular c las ( h ie lds, 2002).
h i e l d U002)
further reported that teac her of homogeneous c l asses for g i fted student tend to
requ i re students to engage i n l onger tenn, re earch sty l e assignmen ts, rather than
frequent. l o\\ er Ie el cogn i t i e a
i gnments general!
gi en to a regu lar c lass.
B a ler, B row n , and v i l l i am (2000) found i n the i r study or n i ne to e l even
) car- old learners that tudents who w ere grouped accord i n g to their abi l i ti es
w orked at the pa e of the part icular abi l i ty group i n wh ich they were p l aced .
0
the i r perfo rmance matched the i r teac hers' e 'pectations. \ h i le for some of the
student , the pace of \\ ork i n g was ver
s l ow, caus i n g d i sa ffec t i o n . Whereas , fo r
others i t was too fast, resu l t i ng i n anxiety ( Boaler et a I . , 2000) . Both re ponses led
to l ower Ie els of ach i e ement than wou l d have been expected, g i ven the tudents'
atta i n ment on entry i nto schoo l ( Boaler et a I ., 2000). Dav ies, 11a l lam, and I reson
(2004) conc luded that h i gh abi l i ty l earn ers in h i g her groups tend to accept the
schoo l ' s demand as a nonn ative defi n i t ion of behav ior, whereas low grouped
tudents res i sted the schoo l' rules and attem pted to chal l en ge them. A b i l ity
group i n g becomes more o f a task for some tudents who are grouped
homogeneousl , resu l t i ng in frustration and lower achievement.
Moreover, exten sive research has been conducted on abi l ity grouping
suggesting that academ ical ly, h i gh-ach i e v i n g students ach ieve and learn more
\\ hen they are grouped w i th other high - ach i e v i n g students (Gen try & Owens,
2002; G rossen, 1996; Ho l l i fied, 1987 and Page and Keith, 1996). In m ixed-abi l ity
grouping i t i s d i fficult to prov ide an adequate env i ronment for teac h i n g to
everyone.
i nc e students d i ffer i n knowledge, sk i l l s , developmental stage, and
l earn i n g rate, one l esson m i ght be ea ier for some students and more d i fficult for
the others ( l av i n 1987). In abi l ity groupi n g, h i gh-ach i e v i n g students v i ew their
11
o\\ n abi l i t ies more rea l i t i ca l l ) and fee l that the) are appropriatel
chal l en ged with
their peer ( Fiedler. Lange, & Wine-Brenner, 2002).
I n add it ion, it i
ugge ted that teac her of abi l i ty c l asses can raise the Ie e l
o r in. truction for h i gher abi l i ty learner and boost the pace o f teac h i ng and
l earn i n g v"h i le l ower Ie el tudenl
an have i n d i v idual attention . For t h i s reason
advanced learners can learn more d i ffi cu lt concepts w h i l e lower Ie e l tudents can
hand l e s i m pler and fev" er t h i ngs.
i t is an out tan d i n g mean
d ocate of homogeneous group i n g suggest that
f i nd i v idual izing i nstruct i o n . They be l i eve that
a h ie\ ement \- \ i l l increase s i nce the teacher \ ou l d chan ge the pace of i nstruct ion
accord i n g to student ' needs ( la in 1990).
Moreover, Mul key et a l (2005) uggested that same a b i l i ty group i n g
benefi t s both h igh a n d l o w level tudents. M a rsh ( 1987) a l so em phasizes
homogen eous grouping as a lIccessful tech n i que to cope w i t h m i xed abi l i ty
c l asses uggest i ng that group i n g learners homogeneous ly causes those w i t h l ower
abi l i ty to p rofit fro m t he i r se l f-ev a luat ion b
peers. Ku l i k and Ku l i k ( 1982) and
be i n g detached from t h e i r h i gher level
lav i n (1987), suggest that both l o w abi l i ty
student and h i gher level ones p l aced i n separate groups, benefited from
d i fferentiation accord i n g to each l earner ' s leve l . The ad ocates of homogeneous
group i ng conc lude that research has fai l ed to suggest t hat homogeneous group i n g
does not accom p l i sh anyt h i ng ( Loveless, 1998).
On the contra ry, W e i ner and M i cke l son (2000) proposed that low a b i l i ty
students are ex posed to l owered expectat ions, reduced resources and rote l earn i n g
a s a resul t of i n v o l i n g t h e m i n abi l i ty group i n g . They a l so be l ieve t h a t abi l ity
group i n g may slow down their acade m i c progress. A n salone (200 1) and H a l l i nan
12
( 1994) a l so uggested that tudent , who are a
i gned to lower abi l i t groups, are
e.·po ed to narrov" cd and more i m p l ifi ed \ ersi ons of the curriculum w h i l e h i gh
abi l ity groups co er broader and more chal lenging materi a l . Oake
\992) and
Whee lock (2005) a l so a rgued that educat ional benefi t s in m i xed a b i l ity c l asses
have not been prO\ ided by homogeneous grouping but rather by a more
c ha l l e n g i n g curriculum and h i gher expectation .
H et e roge n eo u s g ro u p i n g
Ilctcrogeneous group i n g w h i c h means gathe r i n g students of d i fferen t
abi l i tie i n the same groups ha been proposed by many researc hers as an effect i ve
v. a
to U ppOrl a ade m i c gro w 1h o f tudents'V i l h d i verse background k now l edge
and abi l i t ies. One such study by Bri m fie ld, M asc i and Defiore (2002) suggests
that a l l students deser e a chal l e n g i n g curriculum . Consequently, the goa l of
teac hers i to fi nd the \ Va
to engage a l l tudents o f the m i xed a b i l ities i n the lesson
in spite of their abi l i t i e .
Man
researchers suggest that when we form m i xed­
a b i l i ty group , we end a certa i n message that everybody should and is ex pected
t o work at the h i ghest level s i nce h igh and low abi l ity students deal w i th the same
chal lenges.
Johnson and Johnson ( 1989) recommended assign i n g c h i l dren o f m i xed
abi l i t ies, h i gh and l ow ach ievers in the same group. They suggested that
heterogeneous group i n g pro v i des students with access to more learn i n g
opportun i t i es . Furthermore, accord i n g t o M an l ove a n d Baker ( 1995) t h i s type o f
d i vers i ty " ith i n the ame group may generate an e ffect ive learn i n g sett i n g and
pro v i des learn i n g opportun i t ies for lower level student as we l l as opportun i t ies to
more advan ced l ea rners to prov ide explanations to others and so rev i se, conso l i date
13
and use t h i ngs the} have experienced beforehand. They al 0 ugge ted that
lea hers can use cooperati e task among more advanced and l ower ach i e v ers of
m i xed abi l i ty groups or pa i r i n order to el evate ta k engagement of a l l tuden ts i n
the m i cd a b i l ity c i a s s i nce ad'v anced students can prov ide expl anat ions and
guidan e in carry i n g out a ta k.
y got k} ( ) 98 6 ) and
and I \\ ac h i e \ cr .
lav i n ( 1 996) va lued cooperal i e tasks among h i gh
ygot ky a l so proposed that learner , " ho are exposed to
booJ.-s and other e perience out of scho I aspect V\ h i c h contribute to the i r
I i ngu i t i c d e \ e l opment spec i fica ) ) y prior k nO\ l edge o f E ng l i sh from cert a i n
i n st i tutional i nstruct i on, are be l ie e d to have a l ready run th rough a large part of
their Zone o f PI' . i m a l De e l opment. Zone of Pro x i m a l De e lopment refers to the
d i fferen e o f level betw een \ hat a Icarner can do a l one and what he or she can do
\\ ith 'upport ive col laborat ion and scaffo l d i n g ( Vygotsky 1 9 8 6 ) .
On the other
hand l earners ,\ ith less l i teracy opportun i t i es or those w ithout prior knowledge of
E n g l i h ma
possess a larger Zone o f Prox i m a l Development ( Van der Veer and
Val i ner. ) 99 1 ) .
\\ h i ch i
s a resu l t , they may benefi t much more from peer i nterac tion
l i ke l y to h e l p 10V\ er le\ el l earners reach h i gher l ev e l s and h i gher
perfo rmance.
In add i t ion M ize, Ladd and Price ( 1 9 85 ), Webb ( 1 989), J acob et a l ( 1 99 6 )
and
l a in ( 1 996) a l so em phas ized the ro le o f peer lea rn i n g as contri but i n g to
language development. Rogoff ( 1 993 ) uggested that when l earn ers part ic i pate i n
col lect i \ e tasks, they gui de each other' s effo rts. Tudge and W i nterho ff ( ) 993 ) a l so
proposed that advanced c h i l d ren prov ide steady feedback dur i n g conversat i on
forc i n g peers to work harder to reach h i gher leve l s of performance.
14
iVloreo\ cr, P i c a and Doughty( 1 98 5 ), Porter ( 1 986). and Cattera l l ( 1 990)
recommend thai learners of d i fferent ab i l i t ies are more product i e in m ixed ab i l ity
pair and group \\ ork a the) h e l p one another to overcome cogn i t i e obstac les.
'[ h i s conc lu ' i oll malche
r/ua ' s ( 1 98 7 ) fi n d i n g that the m i xed abi l i ty tudents
arpeared to hav e de\ e l oped a en e o f power i n the language through work i n g
\ \ith t ru<;ted peers t
be prec i se i n d raft i n g, w r i t i n g and rev i 1 I1g.
\tl o rc i m po rta n t l y , the benefi ts of cooperative learn ing are more touc hable
\\ hen i t comes to \\ ritten v.. ork. O' Donne l l el a l ( 1 98 5 ) found that the invol vement
in
C
operat i v e rairs i m prov e s the qua l it
act i \ i t ) . \\ ea ker l Lldents
o f stude nts' performance on a written
f m i xed abi l i t c l as e can use the i r more advanced
peer as ,>ource o f i n fo rmat ion, critiquing and comment i ng on each other' s d rafts
in both ora l l y and w ri t ten format ( L iu and H an en, 200 2 ) . Huot ( 2 002 ) and I noue
( 2005 ) and Cottera l l and Cohen ( 2 003 ) favored peer rev i ev groups and showed the
more pos i t i \ e e ffects of caffo l d i n g i n m i xed a b i l i ty c i a ses .
M i xed abi l i t ) grouping or heterogeneous group i n g i s " hen students o f
d i fferent a b i l it) l e v e l s are ass igned t o s i t together i n t h e c l ass sett i n g . I n t h i s type
of group i n g ,
tudent ha e the chance to learn i n a variety of educational sett i ngs
and \\ ith d i fferent people ( R ic hardson & H i nes, 2002 ) . Ho\v ever there are
advantages and d i sadv antage to heterogeneous grouping.
Group i n g hete rogeneou I y comes with a lot o f benefi t s for students. One o f
the advan tages to heterogeneous grouping i s t h a t students can l e a rn from each
other and slo\ \e r ac h i evers can learn from the h i gher ac h i evers . I n heterogeneous
groupi ng. stude nts are encouraged to use each other as a resource. and i t a l so
a l l ows the teachers to d i rect t h e i r attent i on where i t i s most needed ( E l baum,
15
oody, &
tudent
chumm, 1 999 ) . Ed iger further stated that i n heterogeneou grouping,
hould ac h i e e h i gh tandard . regard le
o f abi l i ty or talent, and not be
held back from opt i m a l ach i e ement.
Lyle ( 1 999) argued that through inte rac t i ons "" ith their peers, studcnt
be l i e ed they had l earncd ne\\ l i teracy sk i l l s and nCv. \\i ays o f engag i n g in l i terate
prac t i ces. L y l e a l
ind ic ated that the soc ial e x perience of col l aboration affects the
cour e of de e lopment regar d l es of the stude nts' abi l i t i e s . l l eterogonous group i n g
a l lows stude nt to become bot h teac hers a n d leamers f)r their group . T h i s type o f
group i n g a l so p r \ ides o pportun i t i e ' for peer tuto ring a n d ad v i i n g . Moreover i n
the l o n g run. heterogeneou grouping pro ides students w i t h soc i a l sk i l l s that they
\\ i l l need both l ater in schoo l and i n the career they choose ( L y l e . 1 999).
P roponents of heterogeneou groupings argue that the backgrounds and
experience of a l l stude nts are i m portant for enrich i n g leam i n g in the c l assroo m .
Joh nson et a! . ( 1 99 1 ), Kagan ( 1 99 5 ). and M i l l i s a n d Cotte l l ( 1 99 8 ) encourage
heterogen eous groups for re n cting
aried learn i n g abi l i ties.
i m i larly,
pear
( 1 992 ) supports group i n g pract ices that a l low for " broad peer i nteractions to a l low
students to soc i a l ize
\
ith, mode l , and adjust to a variety of peer i n fluences" ( p .
2 5 7 ) . Moreo e r, perce i ved benefi ts to low - a n d m i dd le-ab i l i ty students are o ften a
mot i vation for i m p lemen t i ng the pract ice. I n deed, most cooperative learn i n g
groups o f m ixed abi l i t ies suggest a composit ion o f o n e l o w abi l i ty student, t wo
m ed ium-ab i l i ty students, and one h i gh-ach i e v i n g ludent ( S pear, ] 992 ) .
On the other hand, heterogeneous group i n g has o m e d rawbac k s . For
exa m p l e ,opponents o f heterogeneous grou p i n g argue that i n grou p i n g stud ents
heterogeneously, h i gh ab i l i ty students m i ght fee l the t roub l e o f be i n g c h a l l enged .
16
Ed iger ( 2 00 I ) argued that the g i fted and talented ludent are not pro i ded for
adequate l y i n heterogeneous groups, mak i n g the opport u n i t
uneq u a l .
for ach ievement
lower a c h i e e rs may feel i n ferior ,-", hen com pared t o those a t a h i gher
Ie el taught in the same c l as room .
I so accord i ng t o Ed i ger. research has fu rther
i nd i cated that heterogeneous gro u p i n g prov ide better pro fi ts for low ab i l i t y
student , a n d h i gh ac h i e ers are left t o c h a l l enge themsel ves
Joh nson and John on ( 1 999) said that students i n heterogeneous groups are
a s igned to work toget her even i f the
have no i n tere t i n doing so, and they w i l l
b e evaluated b ) being ran ked from the h i ghest perfo rmer t o the l owest perfom1er.
Th i s end up l eading to com pet i t ion because tudent see each other as r i v a l s and
,-", ou l d ach i e e better i f they were work i n g alone. Ed i ger ( 200 I ) a l so argued that
heterogeneou gro u p i n g benefits low ac h i evers, leav i n g beh i n d the h i gh ach ievers.
ccord i n g to Ed i ger, i t i s more d i ffi c u lt to teach a m i x ed ach i e vement g roup of
learners than a more u n i fo rm set o f ach i ev ers .
tudent e x perience many d i fferent t h i n gs when grou ped heterogeneo usly.
In a tudy cond ucted with fi ft h grade students, results showed that students i n the
heterogeneolls c l ass demonst rated greater academic se l f- con fidence ( Sh ields,
2 00 2 ) .
h i e l ds a l so con c l uded t hat students i n heterogeneoll s c l asses repo rted
100'\ er teacher ex pectations, less academ i c l ea rn i n g t i me, l ess homework and less
teac her feed bac k .
S i m i larly, E l baum e t a I . , ( 1 999) su ggested that a majority o f general and
spec i a l educat i o n teachers be l i eve t hat when students w i t h a range of abi l ities are
p l aced together i n the same group, lower a b i l ity students can learn from h i gher
abi l ity students and a l l students w i l l benefi t from work i n g cooperat i v e l y . Lyle
17
( 1 999) found that a l l the h i ld ren agreed that the} had been o ffered and rece ived
ass i stance from others in the m i ed abi l ity group and con idered t h i s h e l p to be
i gn i ficant in the devel opment of the i r read i n g and ""' ri t i ng. In t h i s type o f
groupi ng, 10\ \ abi l i t
slUdent c on t i n ua l l y look towards h i gh abi l ity students for
gu idance and acceptance. For exam ple, students fe l t that their learn i ng was
i mprov i n g when they w ere h e l ped by others in t he i r group. Through the
col l aborative process, the contri bution of each c h i l d can be ex tended, chal le nged,
or mod i fi ed by the contributions of others in the group ( Lyle, 1 999).
nother rea on for favoring heterogeneous gro u p i n g i s that it max i m izes
o pport u n i t ies for pee r i nteract ion, peer tutoring and peer su pport ( K agan, 1 99 5 ) .
Johnson a n d Joh nson ( 1 98 9 ) ment i oned some ben e fi ts i nc l u d i n g increased soc i a l
b e h a \ i o u r a n d i m pro ed e l f-esteem, att itudes to ard schoo l and acceptance o f
d i ffe rence .
tudent tend to have h i gher se l f-efficac
about t he i r chances o f be i n g
uccessfu l . ( Johnson a n d Joh nson , 1 989).
F i n a l ! , c ooperat i e tasks i n heterogeneous g roups such as gro up
i nvest i gations, w i l l probabl
espec i a l l y
\\
give con fidence to shy and low perfo rm i ng l ea rners
hen they have the advant age of req u i ri ng the part i c i pation o f a l l the
group o r the pa i r mem bers to do a ta k , al l ow i n g a l l the mem bers to do somet h i ng
accord i n g to eac h one's abi l i t i e ( Ro l l i n son, 2005 ).
Coopera t iv e l ea rn i n g
F i r t. a n u m ber o f st u d i es exa m i ned the effects o f cooperat ive learn i n g
tec h n iques o n student learn i n g. H umphreys, J ohnson, a n d Johnson ( 1 9 8 2 )
com pared cooperati e, compet i t i ve, a n d ind i v idua l i st i c strategi es a n d con c l uded
that students who were taught by cooperat i v e methods l earned and reta i n ed
18
s i gn i ficant l y more i n format ion than tudents taught b) the other two methods.
l hey a l 0 found that tudents study i n g in a cooperative learn i n g treatment group
rated marc po i t i v e l ) i n their lea rn i n g experience than d i d students i n com pet i t i e
and i n d i v idua l i t i c treatment group .
fi nd i n gs i n a tud
herman and Thomas ( 1 9 8 6 ) reac hed s i m i lar
which i n v Iv ed h i gh school students taught by cooperative and
indi idua l i sl i c method .
John on and
h l gren ( 1 9 7 6 ) a l 0 i n vest i gated the re l at i o n h i ps between
students' att i tude t \Yard cooperation. com pet it ion, and att i tudes toward educat ion .
The re u l ts o f the study showed that student cooperat i veness, rat her than
com pct i t i v ne s. \ as po it ivel) re l ated to be i n g moti vated to learn. In a study
i n v o l \ i n g e l ementar and econdary tudents W odars k i , et a I . , ( 1 980) concl uded
that 95% of the elem entary student enjoyed the cooperat ive learn i n g act i v i ti es and
that they had l earned a lot about the ubject.
F u rthenl1o re. cooperative learn i n g groups appear to be e ffect i ve i n many
ways. F i r t . student work as an i n fl uential part o f the group when they bel ieve
the i r effo rts w i l l add to the success o f the group ( Baker & Campbe l l , 2005 ) .
econd ly, students a re successfu l and learn i n cooperat i v e learn i n g groups because
the) learn better by d o i n g rather than l i sten ing ( Payne. M o n k -Turner, and
m i th.200 6 ) . Th ey are a l so act i ely using the material and i n folll1at i on ( Z i m bardo,
Butler & W o l fe, 2003 ) . I n add i t ion cooperat ive l ea rn i n g can teach students that
knO\\ l edge can or shou l d be shared with fe l l ow tudents; that d i fferences i n
op i n ion can b e rat ion a l l y negot i ated even under cond i t ions of test pressures; and
that cooperat i v e l earn i n g proced ures can be enjoyable and productive ( Z i m bardo et
a i , 2003 ) .
19
H ig h a c h icHr a n d low a c h iever i n h o m ogeneou
a n d h eteroge n eo u
g ro u p
A n u m ber oj stud i e com pared ach ievement o f h i gh a b i l it) students and
10\-\ achie\ crs i n hcterogencou and homogeneolls groups. In the majorit o f these
tud ies, h igh achie\ er, pe rfo rmed equa l l y w e l l in ac h i evement te ts a fter work i n g
e i ther i n homogcneou group or heterogeneou group . ( e . g . , Gal loawy &
rmstrong, J 99-l :
7111 i t i a , J 9 8 8 ;
. 1 99 1 ; Jone & Carter , 1 99-l
;
arte rand Jone
M e i ser , 1 999
,
1 994; H ooper and H an n a fi a
herman & K le i n 1 995 and Skon ;
John �on & Johnson , 1 9 8 J ). The remai n i ng tud ies found that h igh ach ievers
perfo rmed better in homogeneous group than in heterogeneou group ( e . g . Baron
I 99-l : F u hs. F uchs. Ham lett & Karns 1 99 8 ; K n u fer 1 993 ) . H owe er, Webb J 980
ugge ted oppos i te li n d i n g a he c l a i med that h i gh ach ievers learned more in
heterogeneous group than in homogeneous groups as, accord i n g to Webb, in
homogene u� group h i gh ach iev ers exchange re lat i ely few explanations because
the) a sume that e e ryone cou l d ma tel' the materi a l w i thout h e l p .
O n the other hand m uch research h a s found out t h a t l o w ac h i evers ga i n
more fro m vv ork i n g i n heterogeneous gro ups than from homogeneous group and
i n d i \ idual l ) as they are a s i sted and suppo rted by the h i gh ac h i evers in the i r
cia
e . ( \\ ebb & Pa l in csar 1 996 )
I n add i t i on, there ha been i n fl uential debate on how students hould be
grouped i n a h i gh and low ach i evers. P roponents of cooperat i v e learn such as
Johnson & J oh n son, 1 989:
l a i n, 1 987. 1 990, recommended heterogeneous
gro u p i n g for sma l l g roup � ork. They supposed that in heteroge neou gro u p i ng,
l ow ac h i evers can be assi sted, encouraged and s t i m u l ated by h i gh ach i evers;
20
whereas high ach iev ers can posi t i v e l y i m p ro\e their cogn i t i \ e abi l i t i e s and
pre entation k i l l s as they explain and e l a borate concept to lov" ac h i evers.
nother study by Webb ( 1 98 2 ) suggested that both h i gh ach i evers and low
ac h i ever can benefit efCec t i v e l ) from heterogeneous gro u p i n g . The c l a i m was that,
the i ntera tion or the h i gh ach iever \\ ould be les effecti e when grouping them
homogcne usl) a they assumed that ev eryone in t he group shou l d have
understood the material . M reover when 10'V ach i e v i n g student were grouped
hOll1ogeneou I ) , t he i r abi l i t i e ,\ ould be in u ffic ient to help each other to learn .
A long v. i t h these argument , there ha\ e been ome stud i e w h i c h showed that h i gh
and 10\ \ ach iev e r gai ned eq ual bene fits i n heterogeneous gro u p i n g ( S tevens &
I n i n, 1 99 5 ) .
On t h e other hand, not a l l stud i es uppo rted the ad vantage of heterogeneous
gro u p i n g fo r 10\,,, ach ievers and h i gh achiever . For exa mple, R o b i n son ( 1 990)
found that w h i l e lov" ac h i e ers ben e fi ted from heterogeneous groupi ng, h i gh
ac h i evers d i d not. F uchs, Fuchs, H a m lett, and Karns ( 1 99 8 ) a l so su ggested that
h i gh ach i e v er c o l l a borated Ie
effec t i \ e l y and prod uced
'V
ork o f l ower q u a l ity
\\ hen the) worked i n heterogeneou rat her than i n homogeneous pairs or groups.
The same fi n d i ngs
v.
e re propo ed b) . Hooper and H an na fi n ( 1 98 8 ) when t hey
ind icated that ach ievement of h i gh ac h i e e rs in ho mogeneous groups increased
com pared v. ith h i gh ach ievers in heterogeneou groups . I n contrast of t h i s, the
ach i evement of low ac h i evers in h eterogeneous group i n c reased com pared w i th
l ow ach i e \ e rs i n hom ogeneous groups. A fu rther study by H ooper and
Hannafi n ( ] 99 ] ) a l so found that h igh ach i evers performed i n tasks more e ffi c i ently
i n homogeneous than i n h eterogeneous grou ps, w h i Ie low achi evers had more
21
i nteract i on and com p l eted their learn i n g ta ks more effi c i e n t l ) i n heterogen eous
rat her than in homogeneous group .
i m i l ar find i ng have been reported b
Saer ( 200 " ) found that i n col lege c i a
ome researcher , too. For example
room w i th rather
v.
ide range of tudents'
ab i l ity, homogeneou group i n g cou ld resu l t in i gn i fi cant ach ievement ga i n s
a m o n g a \ erage a n d h i gh ach i evers,
\i
h i l e no harm wa found to the ach ievement of
low ac h i e\ e r .
Furt he mlore, a meta-an al s i s by Lou et a l . ( ) 996 ) analyzed 20 i n de pendent
fi nd i ngs from 1 2 stud ies that d i rectly compa red hom ogeneou group i n g v.. i t h
heterogeneous group i n g . T h e resu lts s pec i fi ed a sma l l advantage o f homogeneou
grou p i n g over heterogeneous group i n g . H owe e r, the uperiority of hom ogeneous
group i ng wa i ncon i tent among tudent w i t h d i fferent leve l s of abi l ity. The
conc lusion w as that 10\ ac ll i e e rs performed better in heterogeneou than i n
homogeneous group
and h i gh achi evers perfo rmed equa l l y we l l in e i ther
homogeneous or heterogeneou groups. ( Lou et a l . 1 996)
F i n a l l y an advantage o f heterogeneous grou p i n g re l ated to h i gh ac h ie v i n g
tudents i s a l so that through the i r ex p l a i n i n g of t h e target material t o the i r low
ac h i e v ers, they w i l l att a i n h i gher- level proces i ng of the subject mater i a l
themse l ve and rem ember it l on ger. Th i s i s k n o w n as cogn i t i v e rehearsa l a n d i t i s
a l so coherent w i t h Vygot sky ' s theory where he e x p l a i ned that the a \ dev e l o pment
a the transfornlat i on o f soc i a l l y shared act i v it i e s i n to i nternal ized processes
( Wood fo l k, 200 1 ) .
22
P roces W r i t i n g
Teac h i ng \Hi t i n g began t o change \\ h e n teachers found more h o i i st ic
approac hes to teac h i n g w r i t i n g ( M c arthey, H o ffman.
table, E l l i ott, Ore sman, &
bbott, 1 994). Due to the nced for i n no at ive i n truction and pedagogies, w e
\\ itne sed the appearance o f new practices that moved beyond rote repet i t ion and
conv ent ional teach i n g . Consequentl , \ r i t i n g was taught as a veh i c l e for c reat i v e
c\.pre
ion and cri t ical thought . I nstead of focus i n g on spe l l i ng, grammar, and
other
r i t i n g ru les. proce
\\f i t i ng trategies em phas ize on writing as a p rocess i n
'.\ h i ch '.\fite rs have t h e opportun i ty to p l a n , d ra ft, ed it, a n d rev i se t h e i r work .
(l Jill
ks, 1 98 7 and M urray, 1 98 2 ) . The writer i s taught to rev iew and rev i se
c \ eral d rafts,
hich enables and encourage new ideas. G rammatical changes and
conventional ed i t i n g occur duri n g the rev i s ion or ed i t i ng stage ( Ba l lator, Famum ,
& Kap l an , 1 999 and F lower & H ayes, 1 98 1 ) .
V r i t i ng i s consi dered an i n d i v i dual task and the ame i n d i v i dual m ay even
u e d i fferent methods to e xpress h i m or herse l f. A ctua l l y, in process wri t i ng there
are m a n
stages t o write a n d t hese stages are fluid a n d overlap p i n g (Bere iter &
cardama l ia, 1 9 8 3 ; F l ower & H ayes, 1 980; M U ITay, 1 9 8 2 ) . H owever, researchers
and educators ident i fi ed several l ogical steps that most wri ters go through, for
exam p l e pre-wri t i n g , d ra ft i ng and \ r i t i ng, sharing and respond i n g, re i s i ng and
ed i t i ng and fi n a l l y pub l i s h i ng .
R esearc h to date h a s i n d i cated that process w r i t i n g i s o n e e ffect i v e w a y to
teach tudents to be good w ri ters. ( F lower & H ayes . 1 9 8 1 ; Greenwald, Persky,
Campbe l l , & Mazzeo, 1 999; U n ger & F l e i schman, 2004 ) . Students are taught how
23
to share and ommun i cate their i dea . In c l as rooms, the can hare their work
\\ ith peer through \\ r i t i n g work hops and peer ed i t i ng. (Gra \ es, 1 983).
I n p re-'Miti ng, student start plann i n g out \\ h a t i s go i n g t o b e w r i tten. This
i s an essen t i a l step i n the wri t i ng proces w h i c h m i ght account for 70 pe rcent of the
\\ f i t i n g t i me ( lurray . 1 982). R esearc h ha i n d i cated that sk i l led writer may pend
i gn i fican t l y more t i m e in organ i 7 i n g and plan n i n g � r the i r w r i t i n g ( H i l l ocks
1 986). \: h i l e i n re -\\ r i t i n g tudents have the chance to rev i se and rev i i t their goa l s
a n d p lan, and a l so to have i nto account new ideas and thoughts ( Bere i ter et a l .
1 982).
I n add i t i o n . t h e r e earch fi n d i ngs ind icate that when
the tep
tudents go through
f o b er i n g and w r i t i n g it woul d have greater i m pact on the qua l ity o f
\ \ rit i n g than i n trad itional teac h i n g o f wri t i n g . M oreover, consistent w it h earl ier
re earch. H i \ l ocks ( 1 982 ) found that study i n g model writi n gs or prese n t i n g to
student good p i ece o f ", r i t i n g was s i g n i ficantly more effect i v e i n i m prov i n g the
qual it
o f \\ f i t i n g than teac h i n g grammar and other con entional methods of
writ i ng. ( H i l l ocks 1 982).
The proce s approach treats a l l writ i n g as a c reat i v e task w h i c h requires
t i me and posi t i v e feedback to be done we l l . I n process writi ng, the teacher ro l e
ch anges from be i n g omeone w ho sets students a wri t i ng topic and rec e i ves the
fi nal product for correct ion with no i ntervention in the w r i t i n g p rocess at a l l . W h i te
and A mtd ( 1 993 ) suggest that focus i n g on l anguage e rrors does not i m prove
grammatical accuracy nor writ i n g fluency They i n stead suggest that paying
attention to what the students say shows i m provement i n writ i n g . ( W h ite & A mtd
1 993)
24
Moreo \. er. accord i ng to H edgcock ( 2005 ), proce s'Mi t i n g i an approach to
i n tegrate \<\ ri t i n g sk i l l s from the very beg i n n i n g of lhe Engl i h l earning process. I t
e m phas izes o n a l low ing ludents and young l earners to
err r . Wri t i n g correction beg i n,
\.
rite w i th more space for
10\<\ ly, and tu dents are encouraged to
c m m u n i cate \ h i l e \<\ r i t i n g regard Ie s of their k. now ledge or pro fi c i ency of
grammar or structure . Resear h a l o has hown that feedback i more usefu l w h i l e
d ra ft i n g , not vv hen t h e p i ece of writing i done a t t h e e n d o f the task after the
student hand in the i r v. ril i n g
\. ,
to be marked. Corrections written on st udents'
rit i ng and then returned to the t udent after the proce s has fi n i shed seemed to
do l i ttle i m provement i n the overa l l \ rit i n g o f the students ( H udelson, 200 5 ) .
F i n a l l , the research m a i n tains that plan n i ng c l ear ly su pports the flo w i n g
production of m ean i n g fu l t e x t . Feedback a n d assoc i ated rev i s i ons are other key
a pe ts of the w r i t i n g process. Researcher ha e l ooked at how and
v
hen second
language \\fiter sho u l d receive feedbac k , w h i c h types are best e.g. ( content vs.
fonn ), where thi feedback may come from teac her, peer or se l f, and what
i n fl uence t h i s feedback has on the qual ity of the wri tten p roducts ( Panofsky,et a l
P e e r ed i t i n g
Peer Response, or peer ed i t i ng can b e d e fi ned a s t h e use o f learn ers as
ources of i n fonnat ion, and i nteraction w i t h each others in a way w h i c h makes
l ea rn ers assu m e they ha e roles and respons i b i l i t ies nonn a l l y taken by t h e i r
teac hers i n com ment i ng on a n d crit i q u i n g d rafts i n both wri tten a n d oral fonn ats i n
t h e process of wri t i ng ( Hansen ,2002 ) .
25
L i kc teac her' fcedba k , peer respon e i s h i gh l y upported b y many
proponents a � e l l as a rap i d l y i n c rea i ng number of deta i led stud i e o n i ts n ature
and i n fluence ( Ferri & l l edgcock, 2005 ) .
d
cates d raw the attention to the way
in \\ h i h peer response act i v ities can be u ed throughout the \\ .fi t i ng proce s. They
bc l i e v e that they are in accord \\ ith the
ygot k ia n theory that cogn i t i v e
de\ e l opll1cnt re u l t from soc i a l i nteraction, and t h a t i nteraction is i m portant for
secon d language dc\ e lopment. Peer re ponse can he l p student writers understand
read er ex pectat ion and the c l a rit)
f the i r ow n wri t i ng as wel l as bu i l d e rro r
ana l ) s i and ed i t i ng sk i l l s . ( Panofskyet a L 2005 ) .
tud i e that exam i ned t h e e ffects o f pee r- ed i t i ng i n t h e fore ign language
and second l anguage \\ r i t i n g i nc luded stud ies compari n g the e ffects of tra i ned to
untra i n ed peer-ed i t i ng and the e ffect of peer ed i t i ng to teachers' ed i t i ng on
\\r i t i n g qual i t y o f rev i sed drafts. Berg ( 1 999) , Pau lus ( 1 99 9 ) and M i n (2005),
reported some deve lopment in students' wri t i n g and rev i sed d ra fts a fter rece i v i ng
t ra i n i ng i n peer-ed i t i ng . Berg ( 1 999) com pared e x peri men tal and contro l groups to
determ i ne the e ffect of tra i ned peer ed i t i ng on the qua l ity o f L2 essay rev i s ions.
That tud) conc luded that the qua l i t) of re v i s i o n s made by the tra i ned group o n
peer ed i t i ng \ \ a better t h a n t hat v\ h i ch wa d o n e b y the untra i ned group. However,
Berg d i d not rev eal whether peer feedback or se l f- feedback brought about by
teacher i n struction i n ed i t i ng was respo n s i b l e fo r the i m p roved rev i s i on s .
O n the other hand, Paulus ( J 999) exam i ned t h e e ffect o f tra i ned peer
feedback a \\ e l l as teac her feedback on students essay rev i s ions. The study
conc luded that stude nts made changes in the content and l an guage as a resul t o f
both peer a n d teac her feedback a n d that these changes s i g n i ficantly i m proved
stude nts' fi n a l d ra ft . H owever, the study d i d not trace the effects of each type o f
26
feedback separatel, ( Paulus 1 999). On l ) J\ 1 i n ' s L2 study ( M i n 2 006 ), i n ..\ h ic h
tudents rece i \ ed pee r a n d teac her feedback. compared the effects o f trai ned and
untrained peer feedback on students' e say rev i i ons and traced the ource and
num ber of e
ay re\ isions. Th
tud conc luded that t ra i ned peer-ed i t i ng resul ted
i n better es 'a)' qual it) than untra i ned pee r ed i t i ng. H owe er, the study d i d not
report the e ffect of e l f-ed it i ng on student ' v. r i t i ng development.
{ oreover, the benefit of peer re pon e and peer ed i t i ng ha e been " idely
d i scus ed i n theor anti practice ( Ro l l i n on, 2005 ) . Teac her as \ e l l as researchers
i n fa or of peer re, ponse em pha izc the abi l i ty to apply it at a l l stages of process
v. r i t i ng.
1 0reover, it \V a
upported for being re l ated to c o l la bora t i e learn i n g and
more focus on the i m portance of i nteraction for second language
and fore ign
l anguage de\ elopment. They c l a i m that peer feedback act i v i t i e s i n the c l assroom
o ffer numerous ad an tages fo r exa m p l e students' act ive ro l e i n the i r ow n
learn i n g ; re-conce ptua l i zation o f the i r ow n i deas: a l ess t h reaten i n g env i ronment;
feedback fro m aut hentic readers: and bu i l d i ng of critical t h i n k i n g sk i l l s . I t i s
poss i b le that col l aborative and com mun icat ive ett i n gs can b e rea l ized th rough
work i n g in pa i rs or group i n peer ed i t i ng, a l l ow i n g students more i n te raction and
m ot i \ at ion ( Kondo. Y. & Gardner,
. , 200 7 ) .
T h eo re t i ca l Fra m ew o r k
There are t v. 0 cogn i t i v e theories t h a t are d i rect l y appl ied t o c ooperative
l ea rn i n g , the devel opmental and the e l aborat i on theories ( S lav i n , 1 9 8 7 ) . The
deve l opmental theories presume that i n teract ion among students around
appropriate tasks i nc reases students' m astery of critical concept ions ( Damon,
1 984 ) . W hen students i n teract w i t h one another, they n eed to e x p l a i n and d i scuss
27
eac h other' per pec t i v e
wh ich lead t o more reten tion a n d greater u nderstan d i n g
o f learning targets . A l 0 t udents ' effort t o r e o l v e potent i a l confl i ts \\ i t h i n the
cIa sroom ooperat ive acti i t i e develop h i gher level of under tan d i n g ( la i n ,
1 990).
I so from the developmental theori t
fro m one another becau e in their d i scu
v. i l l appear, i nadeq uate reaso n i ng
I
po i n t o f v i evv , t udents v. i l l l earn
ion o f the c n lent. cogn i t ive arguments
i l l be ho\\ n, and h i gher q ua l ity under tandi ngs
\\ i l l ari e ( Cohen, 1 994 ) .
The econd theory i s t h e e laboration theory w h i c h a l 0 proposes that one o f
t h e mo t e ffect i ve mean o f learning i s
v. hen
tudent
e x p l a i n the material or the
u bjcct matter to someone el e. Cooperative learn ing act i v it ies eit her i n
heterogeneou o r homogeneou grouping i m prove e l aborat i v e t h i n k i ng, M o reover
accord i ng to Joh nson. J o h nson, & H o l u bec, ( 1 986) , the frequency of g i v i ng and
rece i v i n g e x p lanat ions i n c reases the depth of under SIan d i ng. the qual ity of
rea o n i ng, and the acc u racy of long term retent i o n . Thu , the use of cooperat ive
learn i n g methods by gro u p i n g students heterogeneously and hom ogeneo u s l y
hould lead t o the i m pro e m e n t of students' learn i n g and retention fro m bot h the
deve l opmental and cogn i t i e theoret i c a l perspect i ves. M o reo er. a major e l ement
of cooperative learn ing is pos i t i ve i nterdependence.
tudents perceive that t he i r
success o r fa i l ure depends on work ing together a s a team ( J o h n on, Joh nson, &
H o l u bec, 1 986).
In add i t i on , research i n cogn i t i ve psyc hol ogy has sugge ted that i f
i n form at i on i s t o be reta i ned i n long term memory the l earners need to engage i n
some sort o f cogn i t i v e restructuring o r e l aboration o f the material w i th the process
of re lating it to i n fo rmation a l ready found in the i r memory; ( Dan e reau, 1 9 8 5 ) . I n
fact, a n u m ber o f cogn i t i v e theorists have su ggested that cooperat i v e lea rn i n g can
28
be an i m portant e lement of cogn i t ive appren t i cesh i p (Brown & Cam pione, J 986).
This type o f apprent icesh i p i m o l e i n i t i a l in truction and mode ls, coach i n g,
scaffo l d i ng \ \h i ch inc l ude prom pt and uppo rt and fi na l l y fad i n g . In cogn i t i e
apprentice - h i p, tudent gradu a l l y take more respon s i b i l i t ies as the cogn i t i ve
upp rt i dec rea ed ( Bro"" n & Camp ione 1 986).
In coopcrati e learn ing sett i ngs, peers upply each other with
encouragement and as i stancc. They e x p l a i n strateg ies to each other u s i n g their
o\vn vv ords, \v h i ch h e l p them i n the mastery o f c o m p l ex cogn i t i ve act i v ity
( Wo d\v ard, 1 99 5 ) . Moreo er, ob erv i n g and pract i c ing in cogn i t i ve task he l p the
learner i n ternal ize the cogn i t i v e fu nctions they a re t ry i n g to master ( Vygosty,
1 97 7 , c i ted i n
l a i n , 1 990). Cooperat ive a c t i ity encourages t h e l earners t o reOect
upon their kno\ l edge 0 a to make genera l izat ions, w h i c h they can transm it, to
t h e i r peer (
l a v i ns, & Farn i h 1 99 )
Accord i ngly_ t h e theoret i ca l framework for t h i s study i s t h a t students'
ach ie v ement i m prov es when t hey are i n v o l ed i n group act i v i t i e s . Students are
more l i k e l t o h e l p one another w i th their tasks s o thei r academ i c performance and
ach i e v ement w i l l i m prove . Students in homogeneous gro u p i n g and heterogeneous
gro u p i n g w i l l have the respon s i b i l i ty of ex p l a i n i n g c e rta i n tasks and g i v e examples
or study them . When they are i n v o l ved i n support i n g each other they w i l l have the
w i l l t ry to l earn what they are supposed to teac h . They w i l l a l so prov i de each
others w i th mod e l of the target act i i t ies. A s a res u l t the i r s i ze of retention w i l l
i n c rease and the i r learn i n g w i l l a l so develop a s they prac t i ce more wri t i n g
a c t i i t ies than j u st rece i v i n g them .
29
H A PT E R T H RE E
1 E T H O DO L O G Y
Pa r t i c i pa n t
rhe �ubject o f t h i stuJy \ ere 4 4 e l eventh E m i rat i graders const i t u t i ng
tw
c i a:;
c
l anguage i s
in
I Dahmaa 10del
rabi
and
v
choo l . They w ere male students who e nat i e
ho learn Engl i sh as a fore ign language. The schoo l
context i nc l uded tudents of the ame oci econo m i c bac kground.
1 h e student
i n t h i s age group are known to be d i ver e in terms of
academ i c content know ledge, l earn i n g tyles and m u l t i p l e i n te l l i gences and a l so
e A perient i a l bac kground kno\'v ledge . Th i
tage i categorized as the form a l
operations stage i n " h i c h logical rea on i n g processes are app l ied to abstract i deas
a we l l a to con rete object ( O rm rod, 200 8 ). The students i n t h i s age grou p a l so
eAperience operat ional egocentrism i n w h i c h t h ey do not separate t h e i r own
ab tract k I1 0\\ l edge from the perspect i es of oth ers and from practical
con i de rat ions. They how concern about the .. orld pro b l e m s and g loba l concern s .
T h e tw o c l asses are m ade up of d i er e students i n abi l i t i es . S o m e of them are h i gh
ac h i evers i n Engl i s h wh i l e other are low ach i e ers. T h e i r c u rrent level of
pro fi c iency and ach ievement i n Engl i sh i s i dent i fied by the conti nuous assessment
te ts, fi nal exams and external as essment te t l i ke t h e Extern a l M easurement of
tudents' A c h i evement E M A. There a re no s pec i a l needs students i n any of the
t w o c l asses.
tudents i n mod e l schools are ex posed to cond i t ions d i fferen t fro m other
governmental sc h oo l s. The nature o f t h i s type of schoo l i ng is ind icated in t h e
desc ription o f the A b u Dhabi Education Counc i l ( A D E C ) as a d i stingu ished type
30
o f c h oo l i n g. fhe program i n t h i s t) pe o f choo l i ng focu e on increased
expen d i tures per ludent in the i m p lementation of cun-jcu lum standard . The
sch
I i prov i ded ,,\. ith a remarkable ty pe of upgraded IT i n frastructure. The
program a l so is tructured around a student centered model of del i" er) . Ten
periods o f 40 m i nutes eac h , are a l located for teac h i ng Engl i sh as a fo re ign
l anguage fo r ea h c lass a wee k .
fu l l t i me Eng l i h native peak i n g a d i sor " orks
in the sc hoo l accord ing to A D EC ch o l i n g s
tem .
Dc i g n
nonequ i v a l e n l prete t - p o ttest design \: a u cd due to the l ack of
ra ndom amp l e e l ect ion. T"" o i ntact c l asses were random ly assigned one for
homogeneou grouping and one for h eterogeneous grouping i n the c l ass sett ing.
The s i ze o f eac h c l as \: as twent two . In t h i s way there was no contro l group as
the tud) \\-ou l d mea u re the e ffect of the sett ing on each group and i n vest i gate the
d i fferellce bet\.\ een both types o f group i ng. The d i fferen ce i n the ach ievement o f
t h e student a fter t h e treatment w h i c h both c l asses w i l l get equa l l y, wou l d te l l the
d i fference bet"" een the e ffects. Both groups were adm i n i stered a pretest and had
the ame treatment but in d i fferent design concern i n g the i r way of grouping. The
e x. i stence of the pretest po nest design woul d reduce the threats of i nternal v a l i d i ty
a both groups h ad the same test. The th reat o f test i n g e ffects wou l d be a l so
contro l led becau e i f the pretest l eads to h i gher scores i n the posttest i t wou l d
appear i n both groups. M o reover, as the treatment w a s adm i n i stered for bot h
group equa l ly, the t h reat o f the i n te raction between the pretest and the treatment
wou l d be reduced . The data col lected were analyzed to answer the research
quest ions regard i n g the effect i veness of the type of grouping assign ed for eac h
cla s.
31
P roced u re
G rouping tudent<;
"1 0 i dent i fy
tudent' s level as h igh ac h i e ers and low ac h i ever for t h i s
study t h e re earcher prepared a test for t h i purpo e a n d used i t as a p l acement test .
"I h i s te t \\ as corre lated to the fo l l ovv ing: ( a) tudents' resu l ts i n the pre v i o u s
semester i n \\r i t i ng, ( b) the teacher' s c l assroom record .
A t t he beg i n n i ng of the stud) t h e st udents a t for t h e p l acement i n w h i c h
t he) \\ ere i m o l \ cd in a \\ r i t i n g t a k a n d \ ere asked t o write an essay about the
topic o f ( H ea l t h y Ii i n g ) . Th i tOpic had been taught to the students during the
p rev ious semester as t he main theme. A fter s i t t i n g for the test, students' essays
\\ er
marked and anal yzed so as to ident i fy h i gh and lov ac h ievers.
ru bric h ad been designed and adapted a fter using a d i agnost i c test and
a fter analyz i n g tudents' wri t i ngs to d i agnose the types o f weaknesses students
m i gh t have. The analysis of student s '
\\ rit i ng
i n the p i lot test revea l ed that
student ' \\ r i t i n g had cert a i n problems. F i rst. many students m ade several m i stakes
per l i ne. they d i d not use an
punctuat i on marks at all and they cou ld not cap ital ize
\'v ords. The) a l so had d i ffi c u l ty i n expressing the i dea or use the correct words
and \\ ord form s . M o reo er, there were man
p roblems re l ated to logical
equenc i n g and paragraph i ng . Most o f the writ ings were i n the shape of one
paragraph with no i nt rod uction, body and conc l u s i o n . M any students m i sused or
did not ha e a vari ety o f vocabu l a ry i tems needed for com mon wri t ing. M an y
se n tences conta ined gra m matical errors w h i c h somet i mes h i ndered or obscu red the
m ean Il1g.
32
A rter ana l ) L i n g the data of the p l acement te t the re earcher as i gned the
groups. I n one c i a
. t h e tudent \ \c re grouped hom ogeneou I ) . I n t h i c lass
tudent \.\ ho got the core of I l out of 20 and above in the teac her's w ri t i ng test
at t gether in groups
and Ie
f fouf and les . W hereas tudents \\ ho got the score of 1 0
than sat together. I n the econd c i a s students v. ere grouped
heterogeneou I )' in m i ed abi l ity groups \ \hen each g roup i nc luded h i gh and low
ach iever in \ \f i t i n g . This core represented the quart i l e of the students' score i n
the p l acement test .
tudents \ hose core wa
1 1 and more were ident i fi ed as h i gh
a h i evers \ \h i l e student who e score 1 0 and lower \ \ere ide n t i fied a l ow
ach iever .The number of h i gh ac h i evers i n bot h c l asses was 2 1 wh i le the number
of low ac h i e ers w as 2 3 . In the heterogeneous c l ass the number of 10\ ach ievers
was 1 2 \" h i l e the num ber o f the h i gh ac h i e v er w a
1 0.
The number of low
a c h i e v e rs and h igh ach i evers i n the homogenou group was equal at I I students.
The number o f h i gh and 10\ ac h i e ers in both groups is shov n in tab l e 3 . 1 .
T a b le 3. 1 :
T h e n u m be r o f h igh a n d low ach ievers
H i gh ach iever
Tota l
Heterogen eous c l ass
10
22
H omogenous c l ass
I I
I I
22
Total
21
23
44
A ss i g n i n g the groups in the heterogeneous c l ass took p l ace random l y by
us i n g two Ii ts. One l i st i n c luded h i gh ach ievers and the other i nc luded l ow
ach i evers. The researc her matched num bers i n the first l i st w i t h num bers i n the
second. The researcher matc h ed the even num bers in the l i st of h i gh ac h i ev ers
w i t h the odd num ber of the l i st of the low ac h i evers to assign the groups. The
33
researcher was keen on hav i n g tudent \\- ith d i ffe rent abi l i tie i n each group. One
group conta i ned four student or Ie
. A s for the homogeneous c l a s , the gr ups
\\- ere ass igned r, ndom l ) b ) using a I i t of tudents' names ", h ic h was ordered fro m
h i gh to 10V\! core. H i gh ac h i e ers sat i n group o f four or Ie s and lo\. achievers
at in gr up of four or I e
. T h e researc h er a l so h ere wa k een on hav i n g students
w i t h the arne m arks or loser together. In t h i
cia
sat i n groups
\.
a y student i n the heterogeneou
i t h d i fferent scores i n the te t wh i le the students i n the
h omogeneoll c lass sat in groups with a l most the same or c lose score.
There are a few po int to be mentioned here concern i n g t h i s study . F i rst,
the tudents \.\ ere d i v i ded i nto group for the pu rpose of wr i t i n g in truct ion and
\\[ i t i n g acti i t ies on ly.
i nce tudent ' abi l i t i e
ary from k i l l t o sk i l l, for the
p u rpose o f t h i s resea rc h , ident i fy i n g students as h i gher and lower ac h i e ers was
on ly referri n g to the i r a b i l i tie i n writing. In add ition, a part i cu lar level or group i s
n o t based on the subj ect percept ion or the other labe l , but on the resu lts o f t h e
assessment too l a n d the test prepared for t h i s part i c u lar purpose . I n other words,
t udents were not grouped accord i n g to any other s k i l l a part from writ i n g , such a
their fl uency or t h e i r oral sk i l l s and m a i n l y it was accord i n g to the re u l ts o f a
a l i d p lacement test i n their w r i t i n g abi l i t ies.
In t r u m e n t
T h e p retes t
A pretest was adm i n i stered for t h e part i c i pants before gro u p i n g them for
the treatment. I n t h i s test the students sat i n d i v i d ua l ly and were i n v o l ved i n a
w r i t i n g task w h i c h i n c l uded writ i n g an essay about the topic of Money and Friends
w h i c h i s more i m po rtan t . Be fo re the test the teac her read the i n structions both i n
34
f:ngl i sh and exp l a i ned them i n A rabic when needed. The students were a l so
al lo\\ cd to a�k ab ut any po i nts \. h i ch were not c l earl
understood . A fter the
pretest, the student \.\ ere grouped accord ing to the i r Ie e l o f
for the '>etting o f the study. One c i a
group i n g and the other c i a
r i t i n g ac h i evement
\ a s a si gned rando m l y for homogeneous
\. as the heterogeneous group.
T h e po ttc t
The po Lte t \.\ a done 0 n a lter the end of the whole of the wri t i n g
t the end o r the treatment period, the tudents were asked to s i t for the
es Ions.
postle t \\ ith the ame condit ion fo l l ow ed in the pretest. The students were asked
to \.\rite an
c. 'a)
about the ame topic adm i n i tered in the pretest. The teac her
fo l lovv ed t he ame procedure .
R a t i n g s t u d e n ts ' w ri t i n gs
fte r the post te t, both the pretest and the posttest were marked by two
raters w ho ha e experience in rat i n g \. r i t i n g . They were two school teachers whose
xperience w as more than 1 0 years in teac h i n g E F L . They a l so took part i n
mark i n g and rat i n g students ' fi n a l h i gh schoo l exam i n the U A E . The raters were
pro\. ided v\ ith a rubric val i dated by fi ve experts i n the fi e l d of E F L ( A ppend ix A ) .
The researc her had a fe\ meet i ngs w i t h the raters i n w h i c h t hey agreed upon the
proced u re and in \. hich the raters were prov ided w i th i n fo rmation about the
nature of the stud . The researc her and the raters appl ied the rubric on a few
amples of writ ing so as to have a mode l to be fo l l owed for the rat ing. The names
and c l asses of the part i c i pants were h idden in both the pretest and the posttest
before mark i n g the wri t i ngs.
35
T h e t rea t m e n t
The treatment i n c l uded teach i n g students proce
\ \ r i t i n g that \ Va covered
w i t h i n t \\ enty se sions 0 [ 40 m i nu te eac h . A theme ba ed u n i t wa de igned for
the c l as so a to 1'0 1 1 w the provider i n structions for the seme ter i n wh i c h the
treat ment t ok p l ace. Accord i ng to t h i s theme based u n i t, students were supposed
to be i n v o h ed in \-\r i l i ng in d i fferent genre and prod u c i n g d i fferent te t types.
1 he e text t) pes inc l uded narrat i e, i n fomlational, expo itory and d i sc ussion texts.
tudents \\- ere in o l ved in pee r ed i t i ng th roughout the \ r i t i n g ess ions or period
u nder the in truc tion and ob e rvat ion of the teacher. Tec h n iques and strategies of
c operat i e l eam i n g and group \. \-ork were taught to the student th rough mode l s
a n d e x a m p l e s prov ided b y the teac her. During these sess ions the tudents were
tra i n d on u i n g the
\-\
r i t i ng strategies of peer ed i t i ng and se l f ed it i n g dra ft i ng and
peer correction \. h i l e the
\ \ere being taught writing. The teac her u ed the same
tech n i ques \." ith bot h groups.
The teac her i n t roduced the strategies of process writ i n g to the students as
an i m portant \V a) of impro v i ng their writ i n g . The students \. ere tra i ned on both
process \\fit i n g and peer ed it i n g wh i l st in their groups. The teac her a l so tra i ned
students on how to work in groups e i ther homogeneously or heterogeneously. The
i m portance o f the strateg ies of cooperative learn i n g wa ex p l a i ned to the students
at the very early sessions.
The writ i n g ses ion began with brai nstorm i n g as the first step towards
process w r i t i n g . D i scussions were held about certa i n topics for w r i t i n g tasks w i th i n
the framework o f the theme o f the u n i t such a s healthy l i festyle, healthy
com m un ity and respon s i b i l ity of i n d i v i d ua l towards com m u n i ty safety. These top i c
w ere i ncluded i n the l earn i n g a n d teac h i n g p l an of the students. D u r i n g these
36
d i 'c u 'sion the tudents v. ere i m o l ed i n exchanging kno\" led ge and experience as
the) were asked to upport one another i n add i tion to the teac her" s support. The
teac her used a " ariety of grap h i c organ izer so a to help student bra i n torm for
ideas i n the p l a n n i n g and organ i l. i n g tage. The student \', ere g i ven i n formation
about the use and the pu rpo e
f each organ izer. The majority o f the tudents
p refe rred the u e o f the c l u ster w eb and the argument graph ( A ppen d i x B).
I l ov" e\ er, the teac her gave the tudent the chance to make dec i s ions on w h i c h
organ izer the) cou l d u e accord i ng to the need of the \ r i t i n g tas k . The teacher a l so
lI sed scaffo l d i n g s heets and t ra i ned t udents on u ing them ( A ppend i x C) .
Other
heet for ed i t i n g were u ed by the students e.g. the peer e d i t i n g sheet ( A ppen d i x
D).
s for peer ed i t i n g , t h e teacher trained tudents o n h o w t o use peer ed i t i ng and
prO\ ided e\ e r) one o f them in both group w i t h an ed i t i ng c heck l i st ( A ppe nd ix E )
, a proof read i n g h eet ( A ppen d i x F ) and a se l f ed i t i ng sheet ( A ppend i x G ) . The
teac her a l 0 en couraged the students and trai ned them on ho
to make their own
ed i t i ng heet u s i n g the ed i t i n g descri ptors ( A ppend i x H ) .
The student were i nvol ved i n group work and cooperat i ve l earn i n g
act i \ i t ie i n v" h i c h they were a l l owed to share i dea , edit and correct each other ' s
\\ r i t i ngs. I n the heterogeneo us c I a s the h i gh ac h i e e rs were i n st ructed to prov ide
support to l ow ac h i ever ne t to the teacher's su pport and u nder h i s supe rv i s i o n .
Lo\\ a c h i e \ er \" e re asked to take palt i n a l l the act i v i t i e s . I n the h omogeneous
clas , t he teac her p ro v i ded the same content given in the heterogamous c l ass. H i gh
ac h i e e rs v.. ere i n vol ed i n act i v i t ies together. They suppo rted each other and the
teac her supported them . Low ach ievers were i n v o l ved in act i v ities together w i t h
the h e l p a n d suppo rt o f the teac her w h i l e t h e y a l so were su pposed t o support each
other.
37
The student \" e re i m o l ved i n \Hi t i ng entence and paragraph and
correc t i ng and ed i t i n g ea h other' s w r i t i n g . The organ izat ion, the pe l l i ng, the
grammar and id eas \" e re d i sc u sed, tra i ned on, pract iced and ed i ted w i t h i n group
[a h student \\ as as"-ed t
\\ rite, correct and peer-ed i t for other tudents.
The \ a l i d i t) of the instrument i n c l ud i ng the rat i n g ru bric \ as rev i ewed b a
n u m ber of re ferees \\ ho a re considered experts i n the fi e l d of teac h i n g
e:-.pcrt in l uded
a
u n ivcr i t) pr fe
la nguage ad \ isor \\ ho \\ or"-s for
FL. These
or i n the facu lty of Ed ucat ion , an Eng l i sh
DEC , two Engl i sh l anguage consu l tants and a
c u rri u l u m d i rectc r . The j u ry re iewed the rubric and made som e comments and
recom m endat ions \\ h i c h the re earcher took i n to con i de ration before app l y i ng i t .
T h e recom mendat ions inc l uded some h an ges of the content marks and the
\\ rd i n g of the rubri c .
fter mak i n g t h e su ggested c hanges t h e j u ry approved the
\ a l i d it) of the i n st rument tool as shown in the appendix section ( A ppend i x r )
D a t a a n a lysi
The data from the pretest and po ttest were analyzed q ua n t i t at i ve l y u s i n g
the
tatistical Package of oc i a l
c i ences
P S program version 1 8 . The
re earcher anal yzed the scores of the students ' wri t i ngs in the two g roups after
chec k i n g the re l i ab i l i t I o f the prete t and the po ttest . The analysi of the data was
deteml i ned to i n v est i gate the i n ter- and intra-group d i fferences. A t . test was used
to invest i gate the d i fference between the means of pretest and the posttest resu l t s
i n b o t h groups. T h e d i ffere nces between the mean wo u l d tel l the d i fferences of t h e
effect of the \\ ay o f gro u p i n g . T h e i g n i ficance and i nteraction between the groups
and the w i t h i n groups neces i tated the use o f the Analy i s of Covariance
(A
COV A ) test.
38
I VRE
1 hi
stud
LT
A
D Fl
D I NG
i s an attempt to i n esti gate the e ffects o f gr uping student i n
homogene u group
the e ffects
H A PT E R FO U R
om pared to grouping them in heterogeneou group i n g and
f th i o n tudent ' wri t i n g ach i evement. I t a l so attem pts to fi nd more
about the e ffects
f the e two type
h i gh ac h i e er and I
v
f groupi n g on the ac h i evement in "H i t i n g of
ach iever and t
determ i n e w h ich i more ben e fi c i a l for
each lev e l of tudent . The scores and resul ts of both the pretest and the postte t
v" ere analyzed b) the
tat i t i c Pacl\. age of oc i a l
iences
P S version 1 8 t o
an weI' t h e r e earch que t i ons.
B e fore in e t i gat i ng the resu lt o f the score col l ected, the re l i ab i l ity o f the
prete t and the postte t \v a achieved by using the a l pha mode l . I t \ as found that
the re l i ab i l i t o f t h e p retest a n d t h e content o f t h e V\ r i t i n g rubric name ly
vocabu l ary, grammar and syntax, content, mechan i m and organ izat ion was . 7 8 7 .
I n add i t i o n , t h e corre lation coeffi c ient o f t h e pretest a n d t h e postte t wa . 84 2
A t te t was used t o show the d i fferenc e between the m e a n o f t h e p rete t
and the post test. The
f
test show
that there i s a d i ffe rence in the means of the
pretest and the post test in the two cia se together. The mean o f the pretest i s
1 1 . 1 J a n d the po t t e s t i s 1 3 .66 as h o w n i n tab le 4 . 1 .
T a b le 4. 1 :
T h e t t e t fo r h o m og e n e o u s g ro u p a n d h et e ro ge n eo u s g ro u p
td. Dev iation
M ean
Std . Error M ean
Pretest
44
1 1.1 J
2 . 026
.305
Posttest
44
1 3 .66
2.458
.37 1
39
n the other hand anot her
t
te t for the heterogeneou group a l one shO\ \ed
that there \\- a a d i fference in the mean of the p rete t and the po t test. The mean of
the prete t \\ a
1 0 .82 \\- h i le the post te t wa
1 2 . 82 a shovv n i n table -+ . 2 .
Ta b l e 4 . 2
T h e t tc t o f t h e core o f t h e h et e roge n eo u s g ro u p
td. Dev iat ion
Pret t
Po tte t
II
1 0 .82
2.343
td . Error Mean
. 5 00
1 _.82
2.2 1 8
.473
for the homogeneous group, the I test show the d i fference i n the means
of the pretest and po tte t as fo l l ow: the pretest is 1 1 .4 1 w h i le the posttest i s 1 4 . 5 0
a
sho\Y n i n t a b l e 4 . 3
Ta b le 4.3
T h e t test o f t h e sco res o f t h e h o m ogeneous g ro u p
P retest
Posnest
M ean
Std . Dev iation
Std . E rror M ean
22
1 1 .4 1
1 .6 5 2
.352
22
1 A . 50
2 .445
.52 1
To test homogeneit
among vari ance , a Le even ' s test o f eq ual ity of errors
showed no s i gn i fi cance as sho\ n i n tab l e 4.4 w h i c h means that the A
robust .
40
COY A i s
Ta b l
4.4
Lev e n e '
Te t o f E q u a l ity o f E r ro r V a r i a n ce
Dependent
ariable: postte t
J .8 1 7
d rJ
d f2
3
40
. 1 60
To an '\ \ r the research q u e l i o n . the re earcher used the A na l y s i s o f
Variance (
OV
) te
1
s o as t o delenn ine t h e s i g n i fi cance o f the d i fference
between the mean . The ana l y i i as fo l low :
Que tion one
1 - T h e effec t o f g ro u p i n g ( h et e roge n eo u s l y v s . h o m og e n e o u s l y )
\ hat i
the e ffect of gro u p i n g ( homogeneo usly v ersus heterogeneously) on
stud nts' ac h i evement in wri t i ng?
Table 4.
show the d i fference between the mean resu lts of the
-
h eterogeneou group and homogeneou group. The table shows that the d i fference
is in fa our o f the homogenous group a the mean of the heterogeneous gro u p i s
1 2 . 82 v" h i l e the m ean o f the heteroge neous group i s 1 4 . 5 . T h i s s i gn i fi cance
d i fference w i l l be d i scus ed i n a l ater c hapter.
Table 4.5
Desc r i p t iv e S t a t is t ics o f t h e m a i n effect of g ro u p i n g ( h ete roge n e o u s ly v s .
h om ogen eo u I y )
Dependent Variab l e : posttest
Group
M ean
td . Dev iat i on
N
H etero
1 2.82
2 .2 1 8
22
Homo
1 4.50
2 .445
22
Tot a l
1 3 .66
2.458
44
41
J he
Ie
test ho\\ ed that there i a i gn i ficant d i fference re l ated to
the m a i n effect of group . F
( 1 .446) df= { l . 3 9) P
( 0 1 9) a sho\'y n i n tab l e 4 . 6
T a b le .t.6
Ig.
Of
Mean quare F
')
78.8 1 8
3 1 .605
.000
I
1 4 . 8 79
5 . 966
.0 1 9
39
2 .494
fodel
Group
1 4 . 8 79
E rror
Tota l
Corrected Total
a. R
quared
=
.607 (
Q u e t i o n tw o
2-
T h e e ffect o f g ro u p i n g t u d e n t accord i n g to t h e i r l e v e l s ( h i g h v s . low
ach i e i n g t u d e n ts )
What i s t h e e ffect o f gro u p i ng tudent accord i n g t o t h e i r level a s ( h i g h ach i evers
and 10\\ ac h i ever )
i n the homogenous group and the heterogam ous group on
student ' s ach ie vement i n writ i n g ?
T a b le 4 . 7
T h e e ffec t of g ro u p i n g s t u d e n ts a ccord i n g to t h e i r l e v e l s ( h i g h v e rs u s l o w
a c h iever )
Test o f Between- u bjects Effects
Dependent Variable: posttest
Ig.
Of
1 43 . 1 44 a
M e a n Square F
2
7 1 . 5 72
25. 1 36
.000
A c h i ever
.385
I
.385
. 1 35
.7 1 5
Error
1 1 6 . 74 3
39
2.847
Total
8469.000
44
quares
ource
Corrected
Model
Corrected Tota l 2 5 9 . 8 8 6
a. R
q uared
=
43
. 5 5 1 ( A dj usted R Squared
=
42
.529)
Refe rring to table 4 . 7 there i no ign i ficant d i fference re lated to the m a i n
e ffect of grouping tude ll t as h igh a n d l o w ach ie e r s i n both the homogeneous
group and the heterogeneous group F = ( . 2 ) , df = ( 1 , 9 ) , P . 7 1 S .
Q u e t io n t h ree
3-
T h e effect of t h e i n teraction between g ro u p i n g t u d e n t accord i n g
h o moge n e i ty a n d h ete roge n e i ty a n d accord i n g t o t h e i r level a s h i g h a n d low
ach iever .
W hat i s the e ffect o f the i n teraction between gro u p i n g students accord i n g to
homogeneity and heterogeneit) , and gro u p i n g them accord i n g to t h e i r level as
h i gh achieve rs and l ov,. ach iever ?
s hoV \n i n tab l e 4 . 8 there i
no sign i ficant i n teract ion between both
\. ariables·· gro u p i n g a homogeneo us and heterogeneous and gro u p i n g accord i n g
to l e v e l a h igh a n d I O\\. ac h i evers a s F = ( 4 . 7 ) , df =( 1 , 3 9 ) , p= ( . 8 9 8 ) .
T a b l e .t . 8
T h e effect o f t h e i n t e ract i o n between g ro u p i n g a n d t h e levels o f a c h i ev e rs
Tests o f Bet \ \een- u bjects E ffects
Dependent Variab l e : posttest
ource
Ty pe I I I
urn
Df
G roup
Mean quare F
S ig.
I S .335
5 . 899
.020
. 7 54
. 290
.S93
.0 1 7
. 898
A c h i e v ers
. 7 54
Group * A c h i evers
.044
1
. 044
E ITor
1 0 1 . 3 84
39
2 . 600
Tota l
8469.000
44
Corrected Total
2S9.886
43
a. R
q uared = .6 1 0 ( Adj usted R
quared
=
43
. 5 70 )
Ithough the i n teracti n i n t i gn i fi cant the re earcher com pared the ce l l
mean a show n i n table 4 . 9 and the find i n g are as fo l l ov" accord i n g to the table
4. 1 0:
T he mean o f 10\\ a hie er and high ac h i evers are ver c lo e to each
II r l h
olhers in b th groups.
group i
h i gh ach i e ers, the m e a n s i n the heterogen eous
1 3 . 2 1 v"hile the mean i n the heterogeneous group is 1 4 .47. On the other
hand the means o f the 10\\ achiev ers in the heterogeneous group i
1 2 . 92, w h i l e the
low ac h ie v ers ' mean in the homogeneous group is 1 4 . 0 5 .
Ta b le " . 9
Desc r i p t i v e ' ta t i t i c o f t h e effect of t h e i n terac t i o n between g l'o u ps a n d
ach iev e r ' Ie e l .
95% Confidence I nterval
Mean
hetero
homo
a. CO\ ariate
td . E rror
Lower Bound
U pper Bound
hi
1 3 .2 1 4 n
. 5 69
1 2 .064
1 4.365
10\\
1 2 .920a
.555
1 1 .798
1 4 .042
hi
1 4 .476 3
.537
1 3 .390
1 5 .562
l oy.
1 4 .05 Y
. 5 03
1 3 . 036
1 5 .069
appearing i n the m od e l are e al uated at the fol l o w i ng
a l ues: p retest
1 1.1 1.
Ta b l e " . 1 0
Co m pa r i n g t h e ce l l m ea n s of h ig h a n d l ow a c h ievers
H i gh
low
H etero
1 3.2 1
1 2 .92
Hom o
1 4.47
1 4 .05
u m m a ry of t h e res u l ts
Accord i n g to the data anal yzed , the resu l t s conce rn i n g the posttest showed
that the mean v"as h i gher than that of the pretest as the mean of posttest in the
heterogeneou group and the homogeneou group was higher. On the other hand,
44
accord i n g to the
·co
test the ana l ys i sho\\ ed a s i gn i ficant d i ffere nce i n t h e
m a i n effect of grou p i n g student ho mogene us l ) a n d heterogeneously on tudent ' s
ac h i evement i n \H i t i ng . The d i ffe rence ho\\ ed fa our f the homogeneous group
over the heterogeneou group v" h i c h "", as re fl ected in the d i fference between the
means of both group . fhis can be i n terpreted i n the \vay that students in the
homogen eou group ach i e v ed b tter than the student in the heterogeneous group
in wri t i n g as it vv i l l be d i cus ed in chapter fi \ e .
l l owcver, there
s i gn i ficant i nteraction between students' levels a h igh and 10
\.
as n
achievers and the
t) pc o f grouping them hom geneous l } and hete rogeneous l ) . The re eareher a l so
com pared the cel l mean o f both group
\A.
h i ch h wed that the low ac h i evers and
h ig h ach ie\ er had no d i fference in the i r ach iev ement in both c l asses. F i n a l l y the
re u l t s and the ans\', er to the three quest ion \A, i l l be di cussed in deta i l s in the
next chapter vv h i c h dea l s w ith the d i sc Llss ion, conc lusion and recommendat i on s .
45
C H APT E R F I V E
10
Oi cu
,
CO
CL
[0
D R ECOM M E
D A TJ O
ion
The resu l ts found i n t h i s tudy
\
i l l be d i c u s e d accord i n g to the research
q uest ion :
I.
hat i the e ffect o f grouping h mogeneously ver us heteroge neou ly on
tudent ' ach i e ement i n
\\
riti ng?
2. y hat i the e ffect o f grouping tudent ac o rd i n g to their Ie e l as h i gh ac h iever
and 10'.'. ach i e '. e rs in the homogenou group and the heterogam ous group on
tudent' s ach ie ement i n writi n g?
3 . What is the e ffect o f the i nteraction between gro u p i n g tudent accord i n g to
homog n e i t and heterogeneity, a n d gro u p i n g t h e m accord i n g t o the i r l ev e l s as
h i gh ac h i e ers and low ach i e e rs?
T h e e ffec t of g ro u p i n g s t u d e n ts h o m ogeneo u s ly a n d h e t eroge n eo u s ly o n t h e i r
w ri t i n g a c h ievem en t.
Accord i n g to the fi ndi ngs obtai ned by the analysis of students ' scores i n t h e
pretest a n d the posttest, there w a s a s i gn i ficant d i fference i n the m e a n res u l ts of
both group . Accord i n g to the t test there was a s i gn i fi c ant d i ffere nce i n the m a i n
effect of the students i n t h e homogeneous groups a n d the heteroge neous groups.
A s the treatment was the same in both group the researc her fe l t that the students
got eq ual chances to pract i ce the act i v it ies suggested for teac h i n g them d u r i n g the
treatment. A s a res u lt t h e c l ass sett i n g u s i n g the two types of gro u p i n g a ffected the
students' scores in wri t i n g w h i c h i s the main q u est ion of the st udy. Actua l l y they
equa l l y gai ned some i mp rovement accord i n g to the d i fference between the means
o f the pretest and the posttest as shown in table 4 . 1 , tab l e 4 . 2 and tab l e 4 . 3 .
46
I /ov. e\ c r, the
0
te t hov. ed that there \, as a ign i ficant d i ffi renee a l so in
fa our o f the hom geneou group w h i ch upported the resu l t o f the t te t and
which i
hown i n tab le 4 . 5 and table 4 . 6 . I n short, tudent i n the homogeneous
gr u p ach ieved better gains than those in the heterogene us group accord i n g to the
fi n d i ng o f t h i s tud .
tud nt i n the h mogenou group are p ro i ded w i th a type
f i n struct ion that
s u i t the Ie e l o f a h . W hen tuden! are grouped in homogeneou group the w i l l
h m e the hance to be i n v o l ved in act i v it ies that are se l ected for each leve l . The
teac hers are supp
cd to pro ide and prepare certain object ive fo r each gro up
accord i n g to their l e \ e l and the i r need . I n t h i way a l l the students o f both levels
a h igh and 10\ achievers
v.
i l l be supported by spec i fi c and i nd i v i d ua l i st i c way .
W hen h i gh ac h i e er are pro v i ded by advan ced mate rial the
w i l l fee l more
cogn i t i e ly chal lenged and the i r need \\ i l l be atisfi ed w i th being h i ndered by
be i ng engaged i n 10\ er Ie el act i v it i es w h i c h do not answer the i r needs. A l so low
ach iever w i l l be engaged with act i v i t i e that are not too d i ffic u l t for them . The i r
needs and t h e l eve l s w i l l determ i n e the type o f act i v i t ie they shou l d cover. They
"" i l l be under less pres u re of be i n g com pared to h igh ach i evers and fee l
d i couraged.
W i t h i n homogeneous gro u p i ng, there is a chance for students to move from
one I e el to the other on systematic and orga n i zed way. The tec h n i q ues and
materi a l s the teac her uses w i l l be detenn i ned to e l evate certa i n l e v e l s for teams o f
tudents w h o w i l l h e l p support each other. L o w ach i evers w i I I have the chance to
move from l ower to h i gher Ie el with teac her su pport . H i gh ach i evers w i l l have the
47
chance to mo\ e to advanced le\ el a the} are upported by ad\ anced materia l s
prepared b y the teac her.
rhc e fi n d i ng are congruent 'W ith man} re earch fi nd i n gs obta i ned by other
researchers.
ccord i ng to man. re earch l ud i c . students i n homogeneous
gro u p i n g benefi t from their learn i n g context. For example . Ed i ger (200 I ),
proposed that homogeneou gr uping prov ide opport u n i t ies for students to learn
at the i r 0\\ n pace and abi l i t} and t hat, t h i s type o f gro u p i n g i freq uen t l y used i n
l a sroom and chools t o i ncrea e tudents' ac h i e ement. I n homogeneous
group , tudent l earn at the ir o\\ n pace and abi l i t y . Ed iger ( 2 00 I ) . al 0 added that
talented student rec e i e more h igh q u a l ity i n struction i n a h omogeneou s sett i n g .
I n add i t ion,
1 e ij nen and Gu ldemond ( 2 00:?) suggested that homogeneous
gro u p i n g doe not demand greater ski l i on the pari o f the teac her because i t
makes i t e a i e r t o teac h cert a i n concept and sk i l I s. A n adva ntage o f t h i s approac h
i s i t fl ex i b i l i t ( H a l l a m , 2002 ) . M oreo\er, tudents i n homogeneous groups can
progre s and mo e from one abi l ity level to the next when foc u s is et on t h e i r
abi l i ty o f concern. T ieso ( 2 003 ) su ggested that w h e n abi l ity group i n g o r
h omogeneou gro u p i n g i u t i l ized i n a fl e x i b l e and tem porary manner the
ign i ficant ach ievement ga i n s can be rea l i zed.
h ie l d ( 2002) found that, in homogeneous groups, students can experience
t h i ngs in both negati e and posit i v e v. ays. In homogeneous groups, teachers can
i n d i idual ize the pace, process . and prod ucts req u i red o f students ( h ie l ds, 2002) .
tudents � ho are i n h omogeneous g i fted c l as e , for exam p l e, reported t hat t h e i r
teac hers ex pected m o re o f t h e m t h a n of students i n the regu lar c lass ( S h i e l ds,
2002) . S h i e l d s (2002) fu rther suggested that teacher o f homogeneous c l asses for
48
g i fted tudent tended to req u i re student to en gage i n longer tenn, re earc h style
a sign ments, rather than freq uent, lo\\ er Ie e l cogn i t i \ e assignment general I)
g i en to a reg u l a r cia
c Ia
.
h ie l d al 0 con c l uded that tudents i n heterogeneous
e reported lower teacher ex pectat ions. less acade m i c learn i n g t i me, less
homew rk, and Ie s teac her feedback .
O n the other hand the fi n d i ngs o [ t h i s tudy do not match the fi n d i ngs o [ some
other re earch tud i e . For exam p l e in grouping students heterogeneously,
accord i n g to R i c hard on & H i nes ( 2 002 ), students have the chance to l earn a
\ ariet
f ed ucat i o n a l ett i ng w ith d i fferent people when they are grou ped
heterogeneou I
•
.
I n heterogeneous groupi ng, tudent can l ea rn from each other
and low ac h i ever can learn from h i gh ach i e ers. Teac her encourage students to
u e each other a a resource w h i c h in tum a l low teacher t d i rect the i r attention
wh re i t i s more req u i red ( E l ba u m , M oody, & c h u m m , 1 99 9 . ) Ed i ger 200 1 ,
fu rther tated that i n heterogeneou groupi ng, student should ac h i eve h i gher
tandard , regard l e s o f abi J it) or talent, and not be held back from opt i m a l
ac h ievement.
L) Ie ( 1 999) argued that t h rough i nteraction s \\ ith their peers, students
be l i eved they had l earned new l i teracy s k i l l and ne\\ \Va s of e ngagi n g in l i terate
practi ces. L y l e a l so i n d ic ated that the soc i a l experience of c o l l aboration a ffects the
course o f development regardless o f the students' abi l i t i e . Heterogonous gro u p i n g
a l lows tudents to become both the teacher and l earners for t h e i r groups. T h i s type
of gro u p i n g a l so pro ides opport u n i t i e for peer t utori ng and ad v i s i n g . M oreover
in the long ru n , heteroge neous gro u p i n g p rov ides tudents w i th soc i a l sk i l ls that
they \V i I I need both l ater in school and in the careers they choose.
49
I l eterogeneou grou pings proponents argue that the background and
experi ences of a l l t udents are i m po rtant for enrich i ng learn i n g i n the cia sroo m .
J o h n on et a l . ( 1 99 1 ). Kagan ( 1 995 ), and M i l l i a n d Cotte l l ( 1 99 8 ) encou rage
heterogeneou gr up for re flect ing ari ed learn i n g abi l it ies.
i m i larly,
pear
( 1 992 ) supp rt gro u p i n g pract ices t hat a l lo\ for l arger peer i n te raction that a l low
students to model and adj u t to a vari ety o f peer i n fl uence . (
pear. 1 992 ) .
I n a tudy cond ucted \\ ith fi fth grade tuclent . re u l ts showed that students
in the heterogeneous c l ass dem nstrated greater acade m i c e l f-con fidence ( h i e lds .
2002 ) . A I
E l ba u m et a l . . ( 1 999) sugge ted that a majority o f genera l a n d spec i a l
ed u ation teac her b e l i eve that " hen tudents
\.\
ith a range o f abi I ities are p l aced
together in the ame gro u p. l o\', er a b i l ity tudents can learn from h i gher abi l ity
tudent and a l l student \ i l l benefit from work ing cooperat i ve l y . Lyle ( 1 999 )
found that a l l the ch i l dren agreed that they had been o ffe red and recei ved
a
i tance from othe rs i n the m i xed abi l i ty group and consi dered t h i s help to be
s i gn i ficant i n the development of the i r read i n g and writing k i l l s . In t h i s type of
groupi ng, low a b i l ity students cont i n ua l l y look toward s h i gh abi l ity students for
gu i dance and acceptance. For exam p l e . students fe l t that the i r learn i ng was
i m p ro v i ng \\ hen the) were he l ped by other in the i r group. Through the
co l l aborat i e process. the contribution of eac h student can be extended.
chal lenged. or m od i fied by the contributions of other i n the group ( Ly l e, 1 999).
K egan ( 1 995 ) suggested that heterogeneous grouping max i m izes
opportu n it i es for peer i n teraction. peer tutori n g and peer support wh i l e J o h nson
and Joh nson ( 1 989) ment i oned some bene fits of homogenous gro u p i n g i nc l u d i ng
the increased soc i a l behav iours and i m proved se l f-esteem , att itudes toward
school and acceptance of d i fferen ces. Students tend to have h igher se l f- e fficacy
so
about the i r chance of being succe
gro u p i n g e pec i a l l
fu l . One more fi nding about heterogeneous
for high ach i ev i ng
tudent i that through the i r e x p l a i n ing of
the material to the i r cia smates, they accom p l i hed h i gher Ie e l proces i ng of the
u bject material them e l es and remem bered i t fo r l onger t i me ( W ood fo l k ,
200 1 ) .
T h e effect o f g ro u p i n g
tudent
a c h iever in h etcrog e n e o u
ccord i ng to the A
acco rd i n g t o t h e i r levels as h ig h a n d low
a n d h o m oge n eo u s g ro u p.
O V A te t hown i n tab l e 4.6 chapter four, there \V as n o
'ign i ficant d i ffe rence in t h e effect o f grouping tudents accord i n g to the i r l ev e l s as
high ach i evers and 10
ach i evers i n both the heterogeneous group and the
homogeneous group on students ' ae h i e ement i n wri t i ng.
T h i fi n d i ng u gge ts that 1 0\: ac h i evers and h i gh ae h i e e rs benefit from both
homogen eous gro u p i n g and heterogeneous groupi ng. As for h i gh ach i evers in the
homoge n eous group, it is suggested that they a re supported by t h e i r h i gher level
peer and in t u m the
m i ght ach ieve more advanced gains. A l so i n add ition to
support from t h e i r peer, they a l so have support fro m the teac her \ ho engages them
in advanced act i i t i es that suit the i r levels. On the other hand h i gh ac h i e ers in the
heterogeneous grou p ben e fi t from t h i s type o f grou ping as they are i nv o l ved i n
ass i s t i n g and su pport i n g t he i r low ach i evers peers i n c ooperative act i v i t ies. The
rate of reten t i on and tra i n i ng on \ r i t i n g w i l l become better as they are using and
teac h i ng the strategies targeted by the i r teac hers .
Low ach i evers a l so benefit from both homogeneous gro u p i n g and
heterogeneous gro u p i n g . In h eterogeneous groups low ac h ievers are suppo rted by
t he i r h i gh ach i evers peers and t he i r teacher. W hen t hey are ass i sted by the h igh
ac h i evers i n the gro u p every student w i l l have the chance to be su pported
51
accord i ng to h i or her le\ e l v. h i c h i s very i n d i v idual i st i c . I n other word h i gh
achie e rs h e l p low ach iever each accord i ng to the need of every student i n the
grou p. In add i t i o n to h i gh achie er suppo rt, low ac h i evers are a l 0 supp rted b
the i r teachers. I n the homogeneou group, low ac h i e er are prov i ded by act i v i t ies
that su i t the i r I e el and the are free from pressure o f their h i gh ach iev i n g peers.
10reo er, the find ing
f this tud
matc h the fi n d i ngs o f prev ious research
st udies oncem i n g h i gb achie er v. ho are uggested by many researchers to
perfoml \\'e l l if grou ped hom geneou I y or heterogeneou Iy. For example, in the
majority o f the e tud ies, h i gh ac h i e ers perfo rmed equa l l
te t' a fter
\V
\' e l l i n ac h ievement
rk ing e i ther in hom ogeneou groups or heterogeneous groups.
The e ffect of the i n tera c t i o n between g ro u p i n g s t u d e n ts a ccord i n g to
h o m oge n e i ty a n d h e t e roge n eity, a n d g ro u p i n g t h e m acco rd i n g to t h e i r levels
a
h ig h a c h i ev e rs a n d low a c h ievers.
ccord i n g to the data analysi i n c hapter four there was no s i g n i ficant
i n teract i on between gro u p i n g students as homogeneous groups and heteroge neous
group and gro u p i n g them accord i ng to their level s a h i g h and low ac h i ev ers as
hO\\ n in table 4 . 8 . The analysis a l so re ealed tbat h i gh ac h i evers and low
ach i e \ e rs in the homogeneoLls group and the hete rogeneous group ac h i eved the
ame gains.
0 there may be no d i fference when grouping h i gh and low ac h i e er
in e i ther way.
These fi n d i n gs match the fi nd i ngs of some prev ious research studies. For
exam p l e Ed i ger ( 2 00 1 ) argued that talented students receive more h igh q u a l i ty
i n struc t i on i n a homogeneous sett i ng. M e ij nen and G u l demond ( 2002 ) suggested
that t h i s type of gro u p i n g does not req u i re i m mense sk i l l s on the part of the
teac her, mak i ng i t easier to i n struct and d i rect cert a i n concepts or targeted s k i l l s .
52
\1oreo\ cr. I I oper and Hannafi n (1 9 8 8 ) ind icated that the ach i e ement of h i gh
ac h i c\< e r ' in homogeneous grouping i n c reased com pared v" j th h i gh ac h ie e r s i n
heterogen cou gro u p i n g .
I n ad d i t i on , Baron ( 1 994 ); Fuchs, Fuchs . ! l a m l ett &Karns ( 1 99 8 ) and K n u fer
( 1 99 ) sugge ted accord ing to ome of their stud i e t hat h i gh ach i e ers perfo rmed
better in homogeneou groups than in h teroge neous groups. In add i t ion, Baer
( 2 003 ) found out that in the o l l ege c i a sroom w h ich have fa i r l y w i de range o f
student a b i l i t), homogeneou gro u p i ng o ften res u l ted i n s i gn i ficant ach i evement
ga i n among average and h igh ac h i evers, w h i l e no harm was fe lt to the
a h i e\ ement of 1 0
ach i e ing tudent . Karns ( 1 99 8 ) a l so suggested that high
ach iever col l aborated m o re e ffec t i v e l y and produced work o f better q ua l i ty when
they worked in homogeneous rather than in heterogeneous groups.
Howe er, ome research findi ngs su ggest the opposite. For example, Webb
( 1 98 0 )
ugge ted o pposite fi ndi ngs w h e n he c l a i med that h i gh ach i evers learned
more i n heterogeneou groups than i n homogeneous groups because , accord i n g to
Webb, in hom ogeneous group h i gh ach i e e rs exchange fa i rl y few explanat ions
because the) suppo e that other students i n the group cou l d m aster the material
\<\
i thout help.
S u m m a ry o f t h e d is c u ss i o n s
The use o f abi l it y group i ng o r homogeneous grou p i n g i s feas i b l e and prac t i c a l
i n teac h i ng E F L w r i t i n g .
tudents' writ i n g abi l i t ies c a n deve l op t h rough the
i nteraction w i t h other students. However, homogeneous gro u p i n g a long w i th
m i xed ab i l ity group i ng or heterogeneous grouping enable the students to atta i n
more prac t i ce and they a l low more retent ion and more pract i ce wh ich lead to
i m provement in the writ i n g ach i evement. Moreover, in gro u p i n g students e ither
53
homogencou I) or hcter geneousl; the; \\ i l l ha e the chance o f using more than
one resource for i n truction and l earn i ng. This wou l d mean that in tead of having
the teacher as a o l e re ource i n the cia
, they can have other students as resources
in add i t ion .
BOlh h i gh ach i e er and 10\ ac hiev ers ben e fi t from abi l i ty gro u p i n g and m i xed
abi l ity gro u p i n g . I n m i ed abi l ity c l as e or heterogeneous c l asses, h i gh ac h i evers
are i n o l v ed i n u i n g m uch o f the i n fonllation the
the 10\\1 ach ie\ e r' peer .
ha e i n teac h i n g and d i rect i ng
n the other hand, low achie ers w i l l have the chance to
be expo ed to more learn i ng experience bes ide the teac her's i nst ruct i o n . A l so i n
m i x d a b i l it)
l a 'e low ach ie ers " i l l i m p rove as the i r spec i fic n eeds w i l l be
addre, ed for every student separate l y i n each group w h i c h i s done by their h i g h
ac h i ever peers. However, t h i s shou l d b e mon i tored by the teac her to m atch h i gh
ac h i evers i ntel entions \ i th the l earn i n g targets.
In a b i l i t y gro u p i n g or homogenous groups, h i gh ac h i e ers w i l l have the cha n ce
to deve l o p h i gher or more advanced abi l i t i es as the levels they target w i l l be b u i l t
o n t h e i r prior know ledge
v. h i c h
i s a l ready advanced . They w i l l a l so have the
chance to elabo rate more and handle certa i n top ics deep l y with the students of their
ame l e \ e l . W he reas low ach i evers w i l l be given the opportun i ty to Jearn at t h e i r
o\\ n pace and bu i ld up knO\ l edge start i ng from the bas i c knowledge t h e y have
\-\ i thout the pressure from advanced students. They \ i l l be a l so given the chance to
learn accord i ng to their abi l i t i e s . Beside t h i s , they w i l l have su pport from t he i r
teac hers "' ho w i l l have more chance for i t .
The i n c rease i n stude nts' ach ievement i n homogeneous gro u p i n g com pared to
the ac h ievement i n heterogeneous gro up an swers the m a i n q uest ion o f t h i s study.
54
I lov. e v er . t h i doe n ot mean that tudents i n heterogeneou gro u p i n g do n ot
I m pro c .
ctua l l ), it i s fe lt i n t h i study that bot h type of gro u p i n g a ffected
st uden ts' ac h i evement in \\r i l i n g pos i t i v e l y.
The reason for t h i s i s the amount of
i nleraction v, h ic h tudent went t h rough d u r i n g the treatm ent wh ich represents the
actual tcac h i n g trategie . It i s a l so becau e they are bot h re l ated to cooperat i e
l earn i n g \\ h i ch ha p ro en to be an effe t i v e \Va, to i n c rease and even max i m i ze
E f L lan guage l earn i ng and acq u i i t i o n .
Accord i n g to t h e fi n d i ngs o f th i study, the achie ement o f students i n
homogcneou- grou p i ng showed m re im pro ement than t h e ac h i evement o f
ludent i n heterogeneo u s group. Th i s means that the fi n d i ngs o f this study add
more SUppOl1 to the e ffec t i venes o f homogcneou gro u p i ng.
W hen students receive i m mediate feedback of an
k i nd e i ther from thei r
tea her or from their peer, their v. r i t i n g i m proves. Due to i m m ed iate responses
students beg i n to ask re levant q uest ions about the tasks in hand. They w i l l a l so
ha\ e to make dec i s i o n s and l earn to eval uate the i r wri t i ng w h i le they are work i n g
on i t rather than a fter they have com p l eted i t . D u r i n g tudents' i nv o l vement i n the
stages o f writ i n g, the teac hers may have the chance to conference with students in
sm a l l groups. AI 0 the st udents m ust be able to help each others . A s a res u l t each
student m ust have a type of u nderstand i n g of how to he l p and support peers so as
to develop and rev i se the i r text.
Low ach i e i n g students are u n l i ke l y to be st i gmatized or marg i n a l i zed in the
m i xed - abi l i ty e n i ronment. The ex pectat ions for a l l l earners are kept at h i gher
l evels and lower abi l i ty students w i l l have opport u n i t ies to be assi sted by the i r
advanced peers.
55
ccord i n g to the i n struct ions and an itude of
D C ) i t is a n e e
bu Dhabi Ed ucati on Counc i l
ill the e days to d i rect our c l assroom s to a more l eamer­
centered e m, i r nment. F i na l ly, grouping student homogeneously or
heterogeneo u s l y in the ame c i a
room a l lo�
for t h i s spec i fi c need .
Reco m m en d a t io n s
I (omogeneou gro u p i n g i an c ffecti
student ' ach ievement in � rit i ng s
e
type o f grouping
h i c h h e l ps i nc rease
teac hers can use it i n the i r c l assroom pract ices.
J l O\\ ever, it i better to u t i l ize both type of grou p i n g e en i n the same c lass
accord i ng to the aCli i t i e and objectives targeted . For e, amp le, when students a re
engaged i n the bra i n storm ing proce
for \ r i t i ng, the teac her can use
heterogeneou gro u p i n g becau e t h i w i l l a l lo\ students to cover d i fferent levels
o f i deas. A l so heterogeneous grou p i n g i s effect i ve i n the ed i t ing and d ra ft i n g
stages. W h i l e i n the fi nal stage o f t h e prod u c i n g tage, students c a n b e grouped
homogeneou Iy becau e they need to write in each student ' s leve l .
H igh and 1 0\,,, ac h i e ers benefit from grouping o f any k i n d . T h i s means that the
teac her can var the trategie o f gro u p i n g accord ing to the needs of the
c u rri c u l u m and acco rd i n g to the objectives w hatever the leve l s o f the tudents are .
For exa m p l e , i n caffo l d i n g stages. h i gh ac h i evers can be used as bridges for low
ach ievers to reach certa i n levels. H i gh ac h i evers can work as mode l s for the low
achiever to fo l l ow. Low ac h ievers are the suppo rted and h i gh ach i evers tra i n w i t h
more foc us on t h e target w r i t i n g tasks.
Teac hers need to engage students in act i v i t i es that a l low e l a borat ion and
explanation to i n c rease ac h i evemen t . The reason for t h i s is that when students a re
engaged i n e l aborat i n g c erta i n i deas and ex p l a i n i ng to their peers, the i r
56
ac h i e cment w i l l i m pro\ e a they are u ing the i n formation t hey know and are
app l y i n g "" hat the
learn. A l 0 w hen tudents h e l p their peers \ ith the i r \ r i t i n g
t a ks they themsel e w i l l ga i n better i m provement i n the i r s k i l l s. W h e n students
c.
change idea for \Hi t i n g. the} try to UppO l1 the i r opin ion w i t h i n formation
which can be u ed for e l aborat ion and e pan d i ng i deas.
tudents sho u l d rece i \ e i m med iate feedback from their peers or from
their teacher . f m med i ate feedback has rrov�n e ffect ive in i ncreas i n g students '
l earn i n g and i n turn increa ing their ach ievement i n w ri t i ng. W hen students ed it
and correct spel l i ng and grammat ical m i stake for exam p l e to the i r peers wh i l e sti l l
i n the ta k . i t \ i l l h e l p bot h the w riter and the editor to be foc used on the tasks.
Groupi ng tudents a l lows teac her to c reate a more l earner - centered
em i ronment for better i n struct i o n . I n teac h i n g writi ng,
\
hen students a re grouped
e i ther homogeneou Iy or heterogeneous l y they are req u i red to carry out cert a i n
tasks. Each tudent h a s a ro le i n h i or h e r group. I n t h i s way students are no longer
pa s i e l earners \\ ho j ust rece i v e the i n fOlmation from the teac her. Th i s w i l l
engage the student in conti n uou process o f t h i nk i ng how to carry out thei r ro les
and part i c i pate in the success of their teams.
I so, students part i c i pations w i l l be
the ba e of an) cooperat ive act i v i t i e s .
More research i s needed i n t h i s area w i t h the u s e of q ua l i tative too l s l i ke
i n terv iewing o r survey i ng teac hers and learners. The use of more q ua l i tative too l s
along
\
ith the use of q uantitative too l s w i l l h e l p us have more understand i n g of the
e ffect of gro u p i n g espec i a l l y the side re lated to m ot i vation, percept ions and
atti tudes towards homogeneous grouping and heterogeneous gro u p i n g . Both
57
student and teac her can be i n c l uded in thi part a this \-\ i l l prov i de deeper
u nderstand i n g of the i s ue.
For more i n s i ght tudents' Ie\,el can be identi fied V\ i th more categories than
h i gh and lo\-\ achiever o n l y. for exam p l e , student can be iden t i fied as h i gh,
m ed i u m and low ac h i e ers in wri t i n g. This w i l l lead to more deta i led analysis
abo u t the e ffect of grouping on the \-Hi l i ng ac h i evement.
58
R e fe re n ce
bu Dhabi Ed ucat ion
ounc i l ( 20 0 8 ) , A bu Dhabi Education Council
Employee Iwndbook(l) J 5.
A l lan,
. ( 1 99 1 ). Grouping and the g i fted abi l i ty - groupi ng research reviews: What do they
say about grouping and the gi fted ? Educational Leadership4 8(6).60 - 65 .
Andri n i , B. & Kagan,
. ( 1 990). Cooperative learning: A m ulti-structural approach.
an J uan Capi strano,
A : Resources for Teachers I n c .
Ansalone, G & M i ng, C (2006). P rogramming Students for A cademic Success :
An A l ternative to Trad iti onal Tracking. Educational Research Quarterly. 29 ( 3 ) 3 - 1 0 .
Ansal o ne, G. (2 000). K eeping o n trac k : A reassessment of trac k i n g i n the schoo l s . Race,
Gender and CIa
Ansalone, G . (200 1 ).
s
7 ( 3 ) . 1 -2 5 .
choo l i n g trac k i n g a n d i nequa l i ty . Journal o/Children and Poverty
7( 1 ) . 3 3 -49.
Azm i tia, M . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Peer I nterac t i o n and problem so l v i ng : W hen are two heads
better than one? Child Development, 59, 8 7-96.
Baer, 1. (_00 3 ) . Gro u p i ng and a c h i evement i n cooperat i ve l e arni n g . College Teaching.5 1 ,
1 69- 1 74.
Bal lntor,
., Farnum, M., & Kapl an, B. ( 1 999). NA EP 1 996 trends in writing: Fluency
and writing conventions, N C E S 1 999-45 6. Washi ngton, D C : U . S . Department
of Education. Offi ce o f E ducati onal Research and I m provement. Nati onal Center
for E ducation S tat istics.
Bereiter, C . & Scardan1al i a, M. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . F rom conversation t o composi t i o n : The ro l e of
i nstructi o n i n a devel opmental process. A dvances in Instructional Psychology, 2.
Beckett, H ; G o nzalez V. & S c h wa rtz,H . (2004). Content- B ased ESL Wri t i n g C u rricul u m :
A Language S o c i a l i zat i o n M o d e l NA BE Jo urnal 0/ Research and Practice, 2 : 1
W i nter. 1 6 1 - 1 75 .
Berg, c . E . ( 1 999) "The e ffects o f trained peer response o n E S L students' revision types and
wri t i n g quality " , Journal o/Second Language Writing, V o l . 8, N o . 3 "
pp. 2 1 5 -24 1 .
B oaler, 1 . , B rown, M . & Wi l l i a m , D . (2000). S tudents' experiences o f a b i l ity grouping:
D i saffection, p o l arizat i o n , and the construct ion of fai l ure . British Education Journal,
2 6( 5 ) , 63 1 -64 8 .
B ri m fi e l d , R . , M asc i , F . & D e F i o re , D . (2002) . D i fferentiating i nstru c t i o n t o teach al l
l earners. Middle School Jo urnaI3 3 . 1 4- 1 8 .
59
ottera l L
. ( I 990) . D e \·eloping read ing strategies thro ugh smal l -group interaction. RELC
Journal 2 1 . S S-69.
otteral l ,
. &
ohen. R. (2003 ) .
caffo l d ing for second language \\.Titers: Produc ing an
academic essay. EL T Jo urnaI S 7 . 1S8- 1 66.
Damon, W. ( 1 984) Peer education: The untapped potenti a l . Jo urnal ojApplied
Developmental Psychology, S . 3 3 1 -343 .
Davies, J . , Hal lam,
. , & I reson. 1 . (2004 ) . Primary pupi l s ' experiences o f d i fferent types o f
grouping in scho o l . Briti 'h Educational Research Jo urnal, 3 0 (4), 5 1 5 - 5 3 3 .
D i l l enbourg P . , Baker, M . . B l aye. A. & O'Mal l ey C . ( 1 996) The evo l ution o f research o n
c o l l aborat ive l earning. I n E . S pada& P . Reiman (Eds) Learning in Humans and
i\/achille: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science. ( 1 89-2 1 1 ) . Oxford :
E l sevier.
Ed iger.
1 . ('200 1 ) . Homogeneolls grouping and heterogeneous grouping. ( E R I C Document
Reproduction
E l baum, B . , Moody
\Vhat student
ervlce
. W., &
o. ED4 5 5 5 3 6)
chumm 1 . S . ( 1 999). M i xed-ab i l ity grouping for read i n g :
t h i n k . Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 1 4( 1 ), 6 1 -66
Fiedler. E . D . , Lange, R . E . & W i nebrenner, S . 2002 . In S earch o f Real ity :
U nrave l i ng the 1 yt h s about Track i n g, Abi l ity G ro u p i ng, a n d t h e Gi fted . Roeper
Review, '24(3 ) : 1 08 (4p).
Flower. L . S . , & H ayes, 1 . R . ( 1 98 1 ).A cognitive process theory o f wri t i ng. College
Composition and Comm unication, 32(4), 3 6 5 - 3 8 7 .
Fuchs. L . . F uchs. D . , H a m l ett, c . . & Kams, K . ( 1 998). H igh-achieving students'
i nteract ions and performance on complex m athemati cal tasks as a function of
homogeneous and heterogeneous pairi ngs. A merican Educational Research Journal,
35, 2 2 7-26 7
Gal loway, D . Armstrong, D . & Tom l i nson, S . ( 1 994) The A ssessment oJSpecial
Educational
eeds - W hose Problem? Longman, London.
Graham S. &Perin. D. (2007) A Meta- Analysis o f W r i t i ng I nstruction for A d o l escent
S tudents. Journal of Educational Psychology, V o l . 99, N o . 3 . 445-476
Graves. D . H . ( 1 99 1 ) . Build a literate classroom. Portsmouth, N H : Heinemann.
Hal lam, S. (2002 ). M i x ed up? The pros and cons o f abi l ity groupi n g . Education Journal, 64 ,
24-26.
H a l l inan, M . ( 1 994 ) . Tracki ng: From theory to practice. Sociology oj Education 6 7 . 7 9 - 8 3 .
60
Hedgcock. J . (2005 ). Tak ing stock o f research and pedagogy i n L2 "witi ng. I n E. Hinkel
(Ed.). Handbook o/research in second language teachh7g and learning ( pp. 597
6 1 3).
fahwah .
-
J : Lawrence Erlbaum Associ ates.
H i l l ocks, G . ( l 986).Re earch on 'written composition ( Urbana, I L :
ational Conference on
Research in Engl i sh and E R I C C learinghouse on Rea d i ng and CommW1ication
k i l l ). Chapter 1 .
H i l locks G. ( 1 98 7 ) . ynthesis o f research on teaching wri t i n g . Educational Leadership,
44(8), 7 J -82 .
Hooper,
. & Hanna fi n . M . J . ( 1 988). Cooperat i ve C B 1 : The e ffects of heterogeneous
versu homog neous grouping on the leam ing of progressi vely complex
concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Re earch, 4, 4 1 3 -424.
Hooper,
., & Hanna fi n M. J. ( 1 99 1 ). The effects o f group c o m position on achievement,
interaction, and learn i n g e ffi ciency duri ng computer-based cooperati ve i nstruction.
Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39, 2 7--40.
Howden, J. ( 1 995). Classroom connections: Understanding and using cooperative
learning Toro n t o : H arcourt B race .
Hudelson, S . ( 2005 ). Tak ing on E n g l ish wri t i ng in a b i l ingual program : Revisiti ng,
reex am i n i ng, reco nceptual i zing the data. I n P . K. Matsuda & T. S i lva (Eds .), Second
language writing research: Perspectives 017 the process of knowledge construction
(pp. 207-220). M ahwah. N J : Lawrence Erlbaum Associ ates.
Huot, B rian (2002). (Re) Ar{iClilating lvriting assessment for teaching and learning.
Logan. U T : Utah
tate U n i versity Press.
I noue. Asao (200 5 ) . C o m m u n i ty-based assessment pedagogy. A ssessing Writing, 9, 208-
238.
I reson, J . & H a l l a m S . ( 1 999). Raising standard s : I s abi l ity grou p i n g the answer? Oxford
Revie"w 0/ Education 25 ( 3 ) . 344-360.
J acob. E . , Rottenberg, L . , Patri ck, S . & Wheeler, E . ( 1 996). Cooperat i ve l earning: Context
and opportun i t i es for acquiring academ i c Engl i sh . TESOL Quarterly, 30 (2). 253-
280.
Johnson, D . W . , Johnson, R. T . & H o l ubec, E. J. ( 1 986). Circles of learning: Cooperation
in the classroom . E d i na, MN: I nteraction Book Company.
Johnson, D . W . , & Johnso n , R . T . ( 1 989). Leading the cooperative school. Ed i na, MN:
I nteraction .
Johnson, D . W . , Johnson, R . , & S m i th , K. ( 1 998).Active learning: Cooperation in the
61
College Classroom. Edi na. M i nnesota: I nterac tion Book Company.
Jones, M.
,
& Carter. G. ( 1 994). Rel ationship between achie i ng-paired i nteractions
and the deve l opment of fi ft h-graders' concepts of bal ance . Journal oj Research
in Science Teaching, 3 1 ( 6 ) 6 0 3 6 2 0 .
-
. ( J 995). We cal/ talk-Cooperative learning in the elementary ESL
K agan,
classroom Washi ngton, DC.
K agan, . (2002) Cooperative Learning. Resources for Teachers. San C l emente,
A: Kagan P u bl i shi ng.
K u l i k , 1. & K u l i k , C . 1 992 . A n A nalysi oJthe Re earch on A b ility Grouping: Historical
and Contemporary Perspecti\'es. Storrs CT: The Nat ional Research C enter on the
G i fted and Ta l ented .
L i u , 1 . & Hansen, 1 . ( 2002 ). Peer response in second language writing c!as rooms. Ann
Arbor,
I I : U n i versity o f M ic h i gan P ress.
Lou, Y . , Abram i , P. c . ,
pence, 1. c., Poulsen, C . , C hambers, B . , & d Apo lonia, S . ( 1 996).
W i t h i n c l ass grou p i n g : A meta-analysis. Review oj Educational Research, 66, 423-
./5 .
Lovel ess, T. ( 1998). The tracking and ability grouping debate . Retri eved from :
\\W\
.ecs.org/html/offsite. asp?document=http%3A %2 F%2 F www%2Eedexcel lence
�'o2Enet%2 Ffo undati o n%2 Fpubi i cati on%Rppubl i cation%2E c fm%
Lyle, S. ( 1 999). An i nvestigation of pupil percepti ons of m i xed-abi l i ty grouping to e nhance
l i teracy i n ch i l dren aged 9- 1 0 . Educational Studies 25 ( 3 ) . 2 8 3 -296.
1anlo e, 1 .& B aker, D . ( 1 995 ) . Local constrai nts and opport u n i ty to l earn. In M . H a l l i nan
(ed) Restructuring schools. New York : P lenun . 1 3 3 - 1 5 3 .
1 arsh , H . W. ( 1 98 7 ). The b i g- fi s h - l i ttle-pond effect of acad e m i c s e l f-concept. Journal oj
Educational Psychology79.2 80-295 .
1eijnen, G . & Gulge nmond , H . (2002). Grouping i n pri mary schools and re ference
processes[ E l e c tron ic Version ] , E d ucati onal Research and E v a l u at i o n , 8
( 3 ) 299-248
Me iser,
. ( 1 999). Gifted students and cooperative learning: A study oj
grouping strategies. Roeper Review, 2 1 (4) 3 1 5 .
M i n, H . T . (200 5 ) Training students to become successJul peer reviewers, System vol . 3 3 , N o .
2 , ' pp. 293-3 0 8 .
62
1
1 i n H .T . (2006) . The e ffec ts of tra i ned peer review on E F L students' rev i sion types and
wri t i ng quality . Journal ofSecond Language Writing. Vol. 1 5 , , pp. 1 1 8- 1 4 1
M c arthey,
. 1 . , Hoffman, J . Y . ,
tabl e, D . , E l l iott, B . , Dressman, M . , & A bbott, 1 . ( 1 994).
" l'ery s-weel, but ,'ery, )'ely slow ": Hml' teachers ' " Ways of Knowing " are reflected
in their assumptions about sludents. Unpubl i shed paper, U n i versity of Texas, A usti n .
McCoac h . D _ , O ' connel, A . . & Levitt, H . (2006).
b i l ity gro u p i ng across
k i ndergarten u s i n g an early chi l dhood longitud i nal study. The Journal of
Educational Research, 99 (6), 3 3 9- 3 4 6 .
M i ze, 1 . , L a d d G . & Price. J .
1 . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Promoting posi tive peer re l ati onsh i ps w i t h young
c h i l d re n : Rat i o nale and strategies. Child Care Quarterly 1 4.22 1 -23 7 .
M u rray, D . H . ( 1 982). Learning by teaching. Montc l a i r, N J : Boynton/Cook.
Oakes, 1. ( 1 992) . Can trac k i ng research i n fo rnl prac t i ce? Tec hn ical normat ive and po l it i cal
considerations. Educational Researcher2 J (4 ). 1 2 -2 1 .
O ' Do n ne l l , A . , Dan e reau , D . , Roc k l i n, T. , Lambi otte, J . , H yt hecker, V . and Larson, C .
( 1 9 8 5 ) . C ooperat ive \\Titing: D i rect e ffects and transfer. Wrillen Communication, 2 ,
3 0 7-3 1 5 .
Onnord, 1 . ( 2008) Educational psychology Developing learners (6
R iver,
th
ed) Upper Sadd l e
e w J e rsey : Pearson Educat i o n .
Panofsky, c . , Pacheco, M . , S m i t h , S . , Santos, J . , Fogel man , c . , H arrington , M . ,& Kenney,
E . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Approaches to Writing I nstruction for A d o l e scent Engl ish Language
Learn ers. The Education A lliance at Brown University Online Publication. Retrieved
from . http://www . al l i ance. bro,, n .edu/db/ea_cata log.php
Payne, B., M onk-Turner, E., & Smith, D. (2006). I mprovi n g group work : Voices of
students Education (Chula Vista, CA). 1 26, 1 44- 1 4 8 .
Petre l l o
. (2000). Can ability grouping help educalors meet higher standards? ( E R I C
Document Rep rod uction
erv i c e N o . ED442743 )
P i c a, T. & Doughty, C . ( 1 9 8 5 ). The ro le of group work i n c l assroom second l anguage
acq u i si t i o n . Studies in Secol7d Language Acquisition 7 . 2 3 3 -246 .
Porter. P. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . How l earners talk to each other: I nput and i nteraction i n task-cantered
d i scussions. In R. Day (ed) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language
acqu isition. R owley, M A : Newbury Hou se.
R i chardson L . , & H i n es, M. T . , I I I . ( Ed s . ) . (2002). Equity in education : A balanCing act.
( E R I C Document Reprod uction Service No. ED476548)
Rogoff B . ( 1 99 3 ). C h i l dren ' s guided part i c ipation and part i c i patory appropriation i n
63
soc i ocul tural acti v i t y . In R. Wozn iak & K . Fischer ( Eds) De " elopment in Context:
A cting and Thinkhlg in specific environments.
ew J ersey : Lav" rence Erl baum
Associates.
Roll inson, P . (200 5 ) . Using peer feedback in the E L \\'T i t i n g c l ass. EL T Jo urnal 59.23-30.
hem1an, G. P . ,
' K l e i n, 1 . D . ( 1 995). T h e effects of c u e d i n t eraction and abi l i ty
grouping duri n g cooperative computer-based science i nstru cti on .
Educational
Technology Research and Development, 4 3 (4) 5-24.
hields, C . (2002). A compari son study of student attitudes a n d perceptions in homogeneous
and heterogeneous cl assrooms. Roeper Review. 2-1(3), 1 1 5.
kon, L . , Johnson, D . \V . , & Johnson, R. T. ( 1 98 1 ). Cooperat i ve peer i nteraction versus
individual com pet i tion and indi id ual istic effo rts : E ffects on the acquisition of
cognitive reaso ning strategies. Journal of Educat ional Psychology, J 8(3), 1 89
l avin, R. ( 1 98 7 ) . A b i l ity G rouping and I ts A l ternat i ve s : M ust We Track ? American
Educator, S u m mer.
S l avin, R.( 1 988). Synthesis of Research on G rouping in E l ementary and Secondary
Schoo l s . Educational Leadership, September.
l avin, R . E . ( 1 990). R esear h on Cooperat ive Learn i n g : Consensus and Controversy.
Educational Leadership 47 (4), 52 - 54
lavin, R . E . ( 1 99 1 ). St udent (eam learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning.
Was h i ngton , D . C . : National Education A ssoc iation.
S lavin, R . E . ( 1 995 ) . Cooperative learning: Theory, research. and practice ( 2 nd ed. ).
Englewood C l i ffs. NJ : P rentice H a l l
Spear, R . ( 1 992). Appropriate grouping practices fo r m i d d l e l evel students. I n 1 . I rvin ( Ed . ) ,
Transforming m iddle level education: Perspectives and possibilities ( p p . 244-274).
Needham H e i ghts MA: A l Iyn& B acon.
Tieso, C . (2003 ). Abi l i t y grouping i s not j ust track i n g anymore. Roeper Review, 26 ( 1 ) 29-
36.
Tudge, J . &Winterhoff, P . ( 1 993 ) Can young chi ld ren bene fi t fro m c o l l aborati ve problem
so l ving? Trac i ng the effects o f partner competence and feedbac k . Social
Development, 2 242-259.
Unger, 1 . & F l e i schm an. S . (2004 ) . I s Process Wri t i n g t h e " Wri te Stuff'? Educational
Leadership, 62(2 ), 9 0 9 1 .
-
Van der Veer, R. & V a l siner, 1 . ( 1 99 1 ) . Understanding Vygotsky: A q uestfor synthesis.
London: B l ackwel l .
64
Vygotsky. L . ( 1 986). Tho ught and language. Cambridge,
Webb.
1A:
l I T P ress.
. ( 1 989). Peer interaction and learning in smal l groups. International Journal of
Educational Research I 3 . 2 1 - 3 9 .
Webb,
. , & P a l i ncsar, A . . ( 1 996). G roup processes i n the cl assroo m . ] n D .
Berl iner & R . C a l fee ( E d s . ) , Handbook ofeducational psychology (pp . 84 1 -
8 7 3 ).
Webb,
.,
ew York : Macm il l an .
emer, K . , & Zun i ga, S . ( 2 002).
hort c i rcuits or superconductors? E ffects of
group compos i t i o n on h i gh-ach ieving students' science assessment performance
[ E l ectro n i c
ers i o n ] .A merican Educational Research Journal, 39, 943-989.
Retri eved from H. W . W i l son accession nu mber 2002 34904 6 7 8 005 .
Webb, N . (2009). The teacher ' s ro l e i n promoting coll aborat i v e d i a l ogue i n the
c l assroom. British Journal of Educational P.sychology, 79. 1 -2 8 .
WeI ner, K . & M i ckel son R . (2000). School refom1, po l i tics and trac k i n g : Should we p ursue
v i ltue? Educational Researcher29(4).22-26.
Wheelock. A . ( 2005 ). Does ab i l i t y grouping help or hurt ? A talk with A nn Wheelock.
Retrieved from http://teacher.sc h o iast i c .com/profess iona J/c iassm gmtiabi iitygroup.htm
Woodfo l k , A. (200 1 ) . Educational Psychology ( 8 th e d . ) . U S A : A l lyn & B acon.
Z i m bardo, P., B u t l er, L . , & Wo l fe, V. (2003 ) . Cooperative col lege exami nations: M ore gai n
l ess p a i n when students share i n fom1ation and grades The Jo urnal of Experimental
Education, 71 , 1 0 1 - 1 25 .
65
A P PE D I XE S
A ppend i x ( A ) scoring rubric for rat i n g wri t i ng
W R I T I NG ACH I E V E M E NT R U B R I CS
SCORE
C O N T E NT
G R A I\ I M A R &
(0-20 ma rks
VOCA B U L A R Y
)
O R G A N I ZA T I O N
M EC H A '\ I C S
S Y NTAX
4
Content c learly
•
•
•
A w i de range o f
E v idence o f logical seq uence
•
A N D c o m p lex
acc urate and
w i t h l ogical flow
sentence structures
appropriate word
i ntroduction, body,
o f we l l deve l o ped
free of e rrors t hat
c h o i ces t hat ful ly
conc l usion
i nterfere w i t h
express c o m p lete ideas.
ideas
Content c learly
•
•
S i mple OR complex
addresses t he topic
sentence structures
with some
deve loped i deas .
•
Ope n i ng t hat draws reader
•
in.
expression o f ideas.
foc us
Focus not i n
E xcel lent spe l l i ng,
punctuat ion and
capital izat i o n .
•
t hat supports ideas :
mea n i ng or the
S i ng l e d isti nct
•
3
A m i xt u re o f s i m p l e
addresses t he topic
•
Word c ho i ces
•
E ffect i ve c lo s i ng.
•
P i ece complete.
•
Ev idence of sequence but
•
A ver} good spel l i ng.
adeq uate to con vey t he
l a c k i ng one of t he t hree
wi t h errors not
mean i ng w i t h some
struct ure components:
with few errors which UO !lot
su ffic i ent to i nterfere
acc urate and
i ntrod uct ion, bod) and
i nterfere w i t h t he meani ng.
w i t h meani ng.
app ropriate words
every p o i nt
concl u s i o n .
•
p unct uation and capital izat ion
•
An o pe n i ng but not
A repeated error i s considered
once o n l y .
necessar i l y foc used . No
atte n t i o n to c l o s i ng .
2
•
•
C ontent part i a l l y
•
Sentences w i th
a
•
Word c hoices
•
Pi ece nearly compl ete .
•
One paragraph essa) t hat
•
Good spe l l i ng. p unct uat ion unu
addresses the topic
n u m ber o f errors that
adequate to con vey the
merges the three components
capital ization
but is o ff target i n
may i n terfere w i t h
mea n i ng : b u t few
w i t h no attent ion to ope n i ng
t hat do not i nterfere w i t h the
some way.
the meani ng at some
acc urate and
and c lo s i ng.
meani ng.
points.
appropriate words
Focus is not
consistently
•
Piece seems comp lete
•
i t h some errors
A repeated error is consi uered
once o n l y
66
\\
s ustai ned
I
•
•
Ev idence o f
•
Sentences w i th
atte m pt to address
errors obsc ure
t he t o p i c .
meaning
•
L i m i ted vocabul ary
•
No open i ng or c l osing
•
P iece is i ncomp l ete
-- -- -- --
•
S pe l l i ng, punct uat ion and
capital i zation
\\
ith a n umber or
errors t hat s l ightl) affect the
meani ng.
Focus not
sustai ned
•
A repeated error is considered
once onh
0
•
No e v i dence o f
•
No sentences are
Most vocabu lary i s
•
N o sequence or awkward
•
F req uent errors that i nterfere
i nappropr i ate and lor
seq uence that confuses
.... i t h mean i ng in most of t he
w r i t i ng. J ust c h unks
i n acc urate except for
mean i ng.
sentences.
of words.
basic common l anguage
attem p t to address
c learly formed i n
t he topic
67
•
No sentences.
-----
p pe n d i
( B ) G ra p h ic o ro a n izer fo r b ra i n t o r m i n g
C l u ster Web
68
.
.
..
.
..
..
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
.
.
·
·
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
·
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
·
·
.
l
.
.
.
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
·
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
rI)
�
rI)
::
�
•
•
.
.
.
:
·
.
:
.
:
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
.
·
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
·
. .
.
•
.
u
.
.
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
..
.
..
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
.
.
.
-;:;-
t
·
.
.
·
.
.
..
.
.
..
..
·
.
.
..
.
..
..
..
·
..
.
..
·
.
.
.
.
·
1
·
.
·
·
1
.
..
.
..
..
.
·
.
..
..
..
..
..
·
.
.
·
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
·
..
..
..
..
·
.
.
·
.
.
..
�
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
..
..
..
·
.
.
..
..
..
..
.
..
..
..
..
..
·
,
..
..
..
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
·
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
·
.
.
·
.
.
·
..
..
..
.
..
I
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
·
..
·
.
·
..
..
..
·
..
..
..
.
.
..
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
.
.
..
..
.
..
..
.
..
..
..
.
..
..
..
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
..
·
..
.
..
.
.
·
..
..
.
.
·
.
.
..
..
..
·
.
.
..
.
..
..
.
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
.
(J'I
\.D
A rg u m e n t
Featu res
r
1L.......--_ �
I
1�_ �
70
p pc n d i x (
DJ
P u rpo e : t
r--
---
TITLE
) : T h e ca ffold i n g h eet
CD
fo r w ri t i n g
I O N T E XT T Y P E
g i \ c both ide of an i ssue
-----,
,------------,-__
__
__,
-------
I d e n t i fy t h e i
L a n g u a ge
ue
�------_4--�
* po i nt l i n k i ng
connec t i es eg fi rst, i n
t h e next ect i on
I n t rod u c t i o n to
*Genera J i zed
part i c i pants eg
�------t--_1 student , bu i Iders
Po i n t! fo r
the i sue
* th i n k i ng verbs to
ex press a po i nt of
v i ew eg fee l , be l i eve,
hope
S u p p o rt /
* oppos i n g argument
l i n k i ng conj unctions
eg on the other hand,
however
E v i d e n ce
* comparing language
�------_f--____j eg s i m i larl y, i nstead,
Po i n tls a ga i n s t
a l ike, a l though
* objective language
* varied moda l ity eg
m i gh t ,
should, m u st
1-------+---1 perha ps,
S u p p o rt /
ev i d e n ce
* re l ating erbs
eg s peed i n g is
dangerous
* usua l l y present tense
S u m m a ry a n d/o r
recom m e n d a t i o n
71
E X PO
I T I ON T EXT T Y P E
P u r p o e : to state a po ition and argue it/per uade
I TITLE
L a n g u age
I d e n t i fy a p o i n t
*argu ment l i n k i ng
connec t i es eg fi rst , fi nal l y
o f v i ew
I n t ro d u c t i o n t o a
*genera l i zed part i c i pants eg
fisherman, drive rs
po i n t o f v i ew
A rg u m e n t 1
*th i n k i ng verbs to express a
po i n t of v iew eg fee l , bel i eve,
understand
* conj u nct i ons of reason eg
because, therefore, as, i f
S u p p o rt /
* strong modal ity eg, should,
m ust, certa i n ly, c learly
E v i d e n ce
l.
*relati ng verbs
eg smoke is dangerous for
hea lth
2.
A rg u m e n t
2
*action verbs eg
we must save . . .
*abstract nouns eg poverty,
po l l ut i o n
S u p p o r-t /
* rhetorical q uest ions eg i
h i story i m po rtant?
ev i d e n c e
l.
* pe rsuasi e
2.
* logical
* presen t tense
S u m m a ry a n d/or
rec o m m e n d a t i o n
72
E X P LA N A T I O N T E XT T Y P E
P u rpo e : to ho\\ ho\'. \\ h; ometh i n g happen or \York
TITLE
L a n g u age
I d e n t i fy t h e
* verbs t o show cause
e g w i l l form a . . . a s a
res u l t of. . . , lead i ng
t ...
phenomenon
I n t ro d u c t i o n t o
the phenomenon
*conj unction o f t i me
and cause and e ffect
e g when, as, next
then, fo l l ow i ng, as a
conseq uence
Explai n I n
eq u e n c e :
how a n d w hy
* tec h n ical words top i c
re l ated
h ow a n d w h y
*abstract and genera l
nouns eg benefit,
hospi tals
* t i me l ess present tense
e g are, happens, turn s
how a n d w h y
* factual
* pass i v e voice
h ow a n d w h y
S u m m a ry /
I
c l os i n g s t a t e m e n t
73
A R RA T I V E T E XT T Y P E
P u rpo e : to entert a i n and i n truct, ho\' a moral
TITLE
L a n g u a ge
O ri e n t a t io n
* pa rt ic u l ar nouns and
adjecti ves to re fer to and
describe, defi ned
characters
eg A h med was a young
boy . . .
w h o w h a t w h e re
when why
* act ion verbs eg curled
u p . . . , s lammed s h u t . . .
Co m p l i c a t i o n
* conj u nctions and t i me
connec t i ves eg when
then, next, after, earlier
* figurat ive language to
desc ri be e g s i m i le . . . as
hot as the sun
eg m etaphor . . . trees are
the l ungs of the earth
eg . perso n i fi cation
. . . the sea roared
A se r i es of eve n t s
t h a t d e ve l o p t h e
co m p l i c a t i o n
.
.
*de c riptive language of
mood eg exc i tement, fear,
happi ness
* complex sentences
Reso l u t i o n n o r m a l i ty
* u sua l l y past tense
ret u rn s
*can have d ia l ogue
Coda
74
P R O C E D U RE T E XT T Y P E
P u r p o e : to ach i e \ e a goal b
I
I
fo l l o\\- i ng certa i n tep
TITLE
L a n g u a ge
* i m perati e,
comman d i n g verbs eg
put, tum, take
t a t e m e n t o f goa l
or aim
What you will
*adverb to deta i l
t i me, p l ace, manner eg
st i r for 5 m i n utes . . . ,
p l ace be low the . . . ,
turn carefu l l y
n ee d
( I n g red i e n t /
M aterial )
*connecti ves o f t i m e
t o sequence e g after
thi , tie off. . . , fi n a l ly,
fi rst, next
S t e ps i n seq u e n c e
* reasons for doing
t h i ngs eg st i r the cream
so that it w i l l . . .
h ow w h e n w h e re
w h a t w hy
* s i m p l e present tense
*deta i l ed i n fo rmation
on
how eg care fu l l y
where e g S c m from top
when eg after cutting
C l os i n g
sta temen t
75
R E C O U N T T E XT T Y P E
P u rp o e : rete l l i n order \.\ hat ha happened
, TITLE
L a n g u a ge
O ri e n t a t io n
* adjectives to
desc ribe nouns eg
the strong horse . . .
W h o w h a t w h e re
when why
* spec i fic
part i c i pants eg my
fam i l y
E ve n t
*Conj unctions and
t i me connec t i ves
to seq uence eg
when, then, fi rst,
yesterday
i n o rd e r
*action verbs eg
the car swerved . . .
chased, went
*co m p l ex
sentences
* s i m p l e past tense
* fi rst o r t h i rd
person pronouns
eg he, her, us, I
P e rso n a l
co m m e n ts t o p l a c e
t h ro u g h o u t
R e o r i e n ta t i o n
w h i c h c o n c l u d es/
a n d o r fi n a l
I p e rso n a l co m m e n t
76
I N FO RM A T I O
Pur-po
c:
T E XT T Y P E
to pre ent i n fo rmati n - defi ne descri be, c l ass i fy
TITLE
L a n g u age
I d e n t i fy a n d
* t i me l e present tense eg
the ra i n y sea on a l ways
beg i n s i n May
cia
i fy t h e
s u bj ect
A ge n e ra l
*techn ical tenn top i c
re lated eg longi tude a n d
latitude l i nes on a map . . .
tatement
a bou t t h e topic
* factual prec i se
description eg snow fa l l s
i n the w i nter . . .
red and yel low l eaves,
tra i ght l i nes
Descri p t i o n i n
bu n d le of
i n fo r m a t i o n c o u l d h a ve s u b
h e a d i n gs
*c lassi ficat ion word s eg
s i m i lar to, belongs to
1.
1------+--1
2.
* verbs to desc ribe
beha iour
eg b i rds fl y nort h i n w i nter
* re l ating verbs eg l ions are
mam m a l s
* genera l n o u n s eg schoo l s
rather t h a n ' o ur schoo l "
3.
C l os i n g
stateme n t
77
A ppend i x ( D ) Peer ed i t i ng heet
arne
J
---
ame o f edi tor
-----
Tip: read th e e\ \ ay out /out!.
tep I · I.., ay one t h i ng that y o u n tice about the es a) that is po i t i \ c . :'·Wov" , ) ou
Step 2 . Check. OJ 1 1
fa r the po i nts l i sted belo\ .
I f there i s no problem, t i k. the "yes "co l u m n . r f there i a problem , t i c k the " 0"
w l u l11 n and mak.e a commcnt i f y ou k.no\\ ho\ to fix i t .
r
Yes
N
S uggest i n to fix the m i take . . . .
Pili' ('/1/ tilitill
D i d he
1I
e fu l l stop'?
D i d hc usc oml11as?
Capitalization
\ re name'> capita l ilcd?
I
I s the fi rst l etter o f each
'icntencc apital ized';
Spelling
( n o more than 3 )
Do ) u t h i n k. that mo t
\\ ords pe l l ed correct l y?
Grammar
Do most sentence have
a u bject and a \ erb?
Main points
D i d the) tak.e about a l l
o f the i deas i n the
prompt?
78
t\ ppend i x ( E ) Peer ed i t i n g c heck l i t
ame
Date-------
\11 ) peer I d i t i ng
hee l-. l i st
D I rect I o n : Read each sl.:nten e and ti k the p i cture that be t desc r i be ho\\ ) OU fee l
anoul t h e ... tatement.
Ye
I No
I can ' t
te l l
L
l i e used h i s best hand\H i t i ng.
')
l i e u ed capital l etters and peri ds.
3
l i e \Hote lhe t i t l e o r h i e
4.
l I i s \\r i t i ng ha a topic entence.
-
J l i s \\ r i t i n g h a
.
6.
f-7.
a) / paragraph,
everal det a i l entence
H e corre ts spel l i n g and grammar mi take
H i s \\r i l i ng make
en e when I read i t .
79
\ ppend i . ( F ) Pr o fread i ng heet
P roofread i n g ... hl.!et
'T he fo l lcm i ng chec k l ist \\ i l l help you pro fread. edit. and i m prov e the \Hi tten \york .
When dOIlI.!. a ... k a
l\ u t h a r------ -
-
- ---
la ... smate. paren t or teac her to proofread it aga i n .
--
-- - - - - - - - - -
-
--
- - - --
--
Ed i tor
Ye
�l l.!re c\ idence (I f prc\\ rit i n g act i \ it) ?
Dose the t i t l e fit the p i ece?
f---
,
A re paragraph lI ... ed ?
-
I ' the i ntrodll t i o n cfTect i \ e'?
!--
.
I s the mean idea c lear. \\ 1 th a sense
0f
p llrpo-;e'?
I s i n format ion p laced i n l ogical order?
I there en lIgh SlI PP ) 11 i ng e\ idence?
D
e the \\ riter sta) on topi
')
I the \\f i t i n g i n tere t i ng?
I the \ cabu l a r) appropriate?
Do e each entence beg i n \\ ith a capital
l etter'?
D se ea h e ntence end \\ ith a capital
l etter?
Dose each sentence end \\ ith a proper
pun tllat ion?
I ea h sentence a compl ete th ught?
A re there \\ ord s that should be
capital i zed?
,\ re t here other gra m m ar m i. takes that
shou l d be fi xed?
I the onc l u i o n e ffect i v e?
I
the hand\H i t i n g n ea t?
80
--
--
----
No
--
---
---
------
---- -
Comment
-
---
- - - - --
-
ppcn d i x ( G )
I- d i l i n g
I
e l f ed i l i ng ched. l i
l
hcck l i t
'ame
" i l l c o r m : \\ ri L i ng
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-
\../
I read m) \\ r i t i n g m } se l f to ec i f i t made en e .
�I} \\r i t i n g i s fo u�ed
011
o n e i m p rtant idea o r topic.
\-1) i n troduction attracts a reader
atte n t i o n .
I he L i t le l i t s the p iece and geLS a reader i n te re ted .
I rep lace \\ eaJ... \\ ord \\ i t h pc i lic \\ I'd .
I deleted lI nne c,>sar) \\ ord b combi n i ng sh
rt
entencc .
I che J... ed for corre t pun tuaLi n .
1 c hecked lor corre t apital iza t i o n .
I i ndented t
beg i n a nc\\ paragraph.
\\ riting this p iece \\ as: hard \\ orJ...
not so hard work
ea y
Ed i l i ng t h i s p i c c \\ us: hard \\ orJ...
not so hard \\ ork
easy
'\e'\t t i me I \\ o u l d :
81
A ppen d i
( jI
) des r i ptor � r des i g n i ng peer ed i t i n g heets for tudent
Des riptors to u se i n [ esig n i n g peer ed i t i ng \\ orl-: heet
() 11 vellti011.\
r he paragraph are so u n d .
___
[ a h o f the paragraphs ha one m a i n idea.
\\ e ha\ e used c rrect gram mar.
vve hm C u t:d
c
rre t J1 u n c ruat ion .
Period are at the end o f the sentences.
\\ e hm e q uotat ion marks around d i a l ogue.
___
fhe pe l l i ng i co rre t.
1 he hand\\ ri t i ng i
legi b l e .
Fill ell (J
--- The sentence beg i n i n d i ffe rent \\ a) .
--- The entence b u i l d u pon the one before.
--- 1 he sentence are d i ffe rent length
--- The mean i n g of each of the sent e n ces i
lear.
---The entences flo \\ and usc co rrect gra m m ar.
---There are no ru n - Oil .
___ The entence a rc complete .
--- Organization
___
___
The report i s seq uenced i n order.
The i n t rod uction i exc i t i n g and i n i t i n g .
---T h e i deas fl ow and are �el l connected .
82
\\r i t i n g
\\ e ha\ e a 'ali [y i n g c n I II I o n .
apila/izatiol1
\\ e ha'v c capital i /ed the fi r t
\\
rd i n each . entence.
\\ e ha\ c capital ized peoplc and pet name
\\ e ha\ c a p i ta l i zed months and days.
\\
c
ha'v e capital ized
i t i es, tates and pia
c .
\.\ e ha c capital i /ed t i t l e of b ok , mo ie , et cetera .
Word choice
Ev er) \\ ord eem ' J ll t right.
\\ e u ed a lot o f de
___
---
ribing
\ \ ords.
The word pa i nt p i cture i n th ' reader' m i n d .
We II ed t rong v rb l i ke darted and e :-. c l a i m e d .
\\ c II cd ) non) m to add
v ariet) .
ideas
---
---
___
___
___
---
___
\\ e u ed a graph ic orga n i zer to create and orga n i ze ideas.
The idea a re \Hi tten in
ur o\'" n w o rd
The report i c l ear and fo u ed.
We under tand the top i c .
The deta i l give t he reader i m portant i n format i o n .
f h e i deas re l ate to o n e another.
We have l i stened to uggest ion from the teac her or peers.
Sound ideas
___
I t a l l make
e n e and i t has a purpose.
83
___
I k now t h l t p i c \\ e l l .
\\ e ha\c i n l uded i n tere t i ng deta i l not c \ cr}one \\ u l d t h i n k of.
On e , u sta rt read i ng you \\ i I I not want to stop.
Good Organization
It tart out \\ i t b a bang.
he ryt h i ng tic together and n O\\
_
fr m i dea to idea.
I t b u i l d t o the g o d part .
T he idea a re bro ken i nto logical
hunks of paragraphs.
\ t thc end it fee l fi n i shed and make , u t h i n k .
J 'oice
Th i rea l l y sound l i ke u and v. hat \ve t h i n k .
___
The reader c a n te l l that w c are about t h i top i c .
The reader an ident i f, \\ ith our charactcr .
___
\\ e want you to read t h i and fee l somet h i ng.
__
Word ch oice
___
I can picture the itting, act ion , and m ood !
___
___
---
___
Th i i the be t \\ta. to ay i t .
The \\ ord are new \Va to a) ev ery da) t h i ng .
L i ten to the po\\er i n the
erb .
-ome o f the word rem a i n i n my m i nd.
Sentence Fluency
___
The entence begi n i n d i fferent way .
ome
entence and paragraphs are short and ome arc long.
84
I t j u st sou nd go d a i t i read a loud.
___
r he sent nce ha\.c p \.', er and punch .
COil vell/iolls
__
apitaL a re used o rre t l .
Period" comma" and q uotation m ark are in the right p l ace .
A l most e\ r)
\.\
rd i · pe l led
rrect l ) .
\\ e remembered to i ndent each paragraph .
85
ppcndi. ( I ) J u ry of Referee for Re earch I n 'trument
b:;? � h. ��
MA
; .,
'-ESo L
(D>'I s \A lhVJ 1-/ SS'A T
/
;v<."",�rc:..v
I
Ah",
L\ >,\ l v <.¥5 1't..)
J c-r
wv{i
V I'J , .J(-<...:5 ,
86
bha b J
f
tAK
S� ffT.
'1
cr
(
i ' �i r � Irl� i".,.", �
i'
'9"'i
..ffrfl prr S'>
,
i ' � \r� I�f'
. � Irm l �' :�
- I'! "'1?
11>!1'1?
rrr\� IM� rI" Ir:f�
� Ir:f�
I�""'fl� I�� I��
.
;
��
Al!Sla" �Un Sare1!W 3 qlW" pal�U
u o n -e :> n p 3
C, tnS1? I r. 01 rl C' I � if"'p I ['U!'C'
) 0 � l l n > -e .:t
Digitally signed by Shrieen
DN: cn=Shrieen, o=UAE
University, ou=UAEU
Libraries Deanship,
[email protected],
c=US
Date: 2016.02.21 12:15:27
'+01'00
r · �r!' � \tf'I� i"""1 �
r · �"i
�rtf' I�r"\" fJ
r · � \r� \�
K':I� IM� f' Ir.:I�
� I r.:I�
I�"irl� IrcI!T-p I��
�rT)J
.
U O U 1? > n p 3
l O ,{ H n > 1? �
n EnUl
-
A��Sli M! Un sa�l?l! w3 ql?l'o' pal!Un
q� I ri Ol fl G 1 �iTl? I �