BASIC OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRICULUM FOR SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER THREE THE USE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING AS A LEARNER CENTERED APPROACH TO TEACHING AND LEARNING

Introduction

The previous chapter has dealt extensively with various teaching strategies, methods and techniques, as well as, EFAL and NCS and CAPS. This chapter narrows in on cooperative learning as a learner-centered approach to teaching. Specifically, the chapter will look at various theories that foreground cooperative learning as a teaching approach and will also look at the historical antecedents to the establishment of these theories. The principles of this strategy in question, as well as, its pros and cons will also be dealt with as the chapter unfolds.
The main basis for which this chapter dwells more on cooperative learning based on the premise established by Zahara and Hossain (2010) that for over three decades the approach has become a focal point for researchers due to the huge chunk of literature that supports that cooperative learning is a sure way of helping learners to work together to become higher achievers, which is in synch with the focus of this research. Zahara and Hossain’s assertion had earlier been established by Millis (2001) who had established that not only has cooperative learning strategy a large research base for regular schools but mostly for high schools too. This therefore lays a solid foundation for me to critically look at how the cooperative approach is being used to teach EFAL in high schools in the Kwazulu-Natal Province.
Secondly, in high schools in the KZN, EFAL is used as a medium of instruction and it is not the first language of learners as well as that of teachers, and this may serve as a barrier to effective teaching and learning. In agreement with this Motitswe (2011) establishes that in the South African context, languages other than the child’s mother tongue is used in the teaching learning environment. The simple deduction that can be made from Motitswe’s assertion is that both formal and informal communication, an essential element in learning and development will breakdown in the classroom and this will in turn lead to learning breakdown. Motitswe further adds that second language learners are often subjected to low expectations, discrimination and lack of cultural peers. I side with what has just been established by virtue of the fact that the first cultural identity of people is their language, hence where people are not able to fully identify with a language, it will be highly difficult, if not impossible to accept and use the language effectively, as in the case of the use of EFAL in KZN high schools.
In view of the above build up, it comes with little surprise that Ahuja (2007) had earlier asserted that educators often have trouble in their bid to develop appropriate support mechanisms for learners of a second language. Ahuja’s argument is in concert with what Motitswe opined later in 2011. For both reasons just stated, the DoE (South Africa, 2005d) strongly recommends that educators acknowledge and respect differences in learners and foster a determined effort to among them. To be able to solve the problem with second language and individual differences, the cooperative learning strategy is highly recommended; as it caters for individual differences and also it is more effective compared to the traditional approach to teaching.
Cooperative learning approach is not being considered in a vacuum by this research. The study therefore establishes various theories that underpin cooperative learning as a specific teaching approach and moves on to build bridges between the outlined strategies and teaching to advance the objectives of quality education. The specifics will be determined when the study critically reflects and expands to the next chapter by doing an exposè on STAD, which is the specific strategy under cooperative learning under study in this research.

Theories Foregrounding the Cooperative Learning Approach

Many theories of learning are applicable when using co-operative learning which rests on the assumption that learners construct knowledge as they attempt to make sense of their experiences. Learners are not empty vessels [tabula rasa; the educational term used for empty vessels or blank slates] waiting to be filled, they are rather active organisms seeking meaning and they do test their understanding against those of others, for example, educators or more experienced peers. Hence, opportunities should be given to learners in order for them to interact with each other within their co-operative teams so as to interact and learn (Driscoll, 1994) and also enable both high and slow learners to learn from each other. This chapter is therefore concerned with the theories under which cooperative learning is subsumed, the reason being that the theoretical orientation of both teachers and students has the tendency of determining their strategies adopted in facilitating teaching and learning.

Social Interdependence (S.I) Theory

It was categorically stated by Smith (1981) that right in the heart of the cooperative learning model lies the social interdependence theory. In 1981, Smith, Johnson, and Johnson, employed the social interdependence theory into the engineering education community. The researchers employed and elaborated on two types of social interdependence theory constructs, which are positive and negative interdependence as posited by Deutsch in both 1949 and 1962. Based on Deutsch’s previous findings, Smith et al. (1981) further elaborate that positive interdependence exists when there is a positive correlation among individuals’ goal attainments; individuals perceive that they can attain their goals if, and only if, the other individuals with whom they are cooperatively linked attain their goals. Negative interdependence exists when there is a negative correlation among individuals’ goal achievements; when individuals are of the firm belief that their own objectives can be obtained only when those they are competing with fail in achieving their own goals. No interdependence or individualistic efforts exist when there is no correlation among individuals’ goal achievements; individuals perceive that the achievement of their goals is unrelated to the goal achievement of others. Johnson and Johnson (1989) summarise the core of the social interdependence theory by postulating that “Social interdependence exists when the outcomes of individuals are affected by their own and others’ actions.” It can be perceived from the foregoing that negative interdependence leans on the traditional teaching learning approach where the teacher was the only one active in the process and every individuals’ aim was to outdo the others, which brought hostilities and a higher amount of unhealthy competition among learners, a situation that cooperative learning when applied appropriately will correct.
Emanating from this view and in tracing studies conducted on the social interdependence theory (SIT) and its effectiveness, Stanne, Johnson, and Johnson, (1999: 133-154) are quoted below:
Social interdependence theory is a classic example of the interaction among theory, research, and practice. The premise of the theory is that the way in which goals are structured determines how individuals interact, which in turn creates outcomes. These studies have validated, modified, refined, and extended the theory. Social interdependence theory has been widely applied, especially in education.
Considering the core ideals of the social interdependence theory makes it clear there is cooperation among students, especially where there is a correlation between what group members do in a team. To expatiate, Stanne et al. (1999: 133-154) provide enough grounds that the theory imbibes in learners a higher sense of achieving, more positive relationships, and greater psychological health than the theories that are based on competition or individualism. Stanne et al’s work helps in establishing what was earlier opined by Smith that the S.I Theory is the heart of cooperative learning because learners learn together and build good relationships as they learn. Stanne et al. further add that the cooperation remains a powerful tool as long as there is presence of a clear and positive interdependence that will lead to promotive interaction, through the use of social skills and group processing. From the write up, enough evidence has been provided so far as confirmation that the social interdependence theory is a strong foundation upon which cooperative learning can be built on and a sure consideration for effective and successful teaching and learning.
The researcher asserts that the social interdependence theory can provide many insights into preparing English FAL learners in the school /classroom when working with fellow classmates/ others to synthesize common group outcomes/ goals and then attain common purposes to achieve higher academic performances and learn social skills such as respect and dignity, which are essential for developing collaborative advantage and navigating complexity amongst themselves. This comes about as a result of both gifted and weak English FAL learners /students coming together to tackle a common language writing/essay problem, bringing together individual (synergic effort) and group effort all in a bid to achieve the maximum best for the group, hence making the social interdependence theory a sure strategy in effective teaching and learning.
At the centre of the modern teaching learning process is the learner, a case very typical with the various South African curricula; hence the very tenets of the S.I theory have been used variously in establishing it as a theory underpinning the cooperative learning approach and most especially with regards to this study. First of all, individual and group accountability are enforced, where each individual is made accountable for a specific task or topic assigned to the group and other group members. This to a large extent helps students to see the need to work individually and in a group in order to achieve the ultimate goal of the group. When this stage is successfully passed, rivalry and competition (negative interdependence) gets out of the equation; making way for the principle of positive interdependence. Positive interdependence naturally emanates from the need, on the part of group members, to work on the task that has been assigned them and the quest to ensure that the group is successful. At this stage, group members tend to appreciate what has come to be termed “sink or swim together”, which in turn helps them appreciate that the entire team benefits when all individual team member’s performance is high and is also held accountable when one or more members do not perform well.
After members of a group, individually and collectively, come to terms with the idea of swim or sink and put in all effort to ensure that the group swims instead of sinking, the next stage that follows is group processing. Oliver (1999) explains that in group processing, students are coached on group process skills-supporting differences, listening, providing feedback, gatekeeping to ensure all participate, coaching others, reaching consensus. Once students assimilated these skills, teacher [facilitator in a typical cooperative learning situation] will then make all efforts to channel students attention to the group processes outlined by Oliver in order to ensure that the S.I theory is employed to the fullest in establishing it as the heart of all theories that underpin cooperative learning and also an effective way of ensuring cooperative learning in the classroom.

Social Constructivism

According to Derry (1999) and McMahon (1997), the emphasis of social constructivism is on the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in society and construction of knowledge based on this understanding. Shunk (2000) cited in Kim (2001) notes that this perspective is closely associated with many contemporary theories. Shunk’s statement gives the scope of theories that are associated with the social constructivist theory. Amongst the most prominent theories he noted are; the developmental theories of Vygotsky and Bruner, and Bandura’s social cognitive theory which all emphasise group work, which for this research is cooperative learning.
It is noted firstly that reality, knowledge and learning are the specific assumptions upon which social constructivism is based. For a clearer understanding and application of the perspectives of this theory, it is necessary to understand the premise or assumptions earlier noted. An explanation of the three specific assumptions is done presently. Social constructivists believe that reality is constructed through human activity in that members of a society [group] together invent the properties of the world (Kukla, 2000). For the social constructivist, reality cannot be discovered: it does not exist prior to its social invention. In short, reality is a social construct and names are only assigned to what is seen out there by human beings. It therefore behooves on teachers in the cooperative learning environment to help learners learn cooperatively in order to make use of what is inherent (skills, knowledge and experience) in them.
Several research studies have revealed that social constructivists, posit that knowledge is a human product, which is constructed according to our social and cultural orientation (Prawatt & Floden, 1994; Gredler, 1997 and Ernest, 1999). An explanation to this assertion is that meaning is created by individuals as they interact with others and the environment in which they live. In the nutshell, knowledge as a social construct is gained as one becomes more and more familiar with the environment and also with others.
In the words of McMahon (1997), learning is viewed as a social process by social constructivists. It is further explained that learning does not take place only within an individual, nor is it a passive development of behaviours that are shaped by external forces. In essence, meaningful learning results from engagement in group activity, which is the main pillar of cooperative learning. With this said, effective learning can fully take place when the teacher puts learners in the centre of learning and makes the classroom more activity based rather than making learners passive recipients of knowledge.
Another important element of the social constructivist theory is intersubjectivity, which Rogoff (1990) explained as “a shared understanding among individuals whose interaction is based on common interests and assumptions that form the ground for their communication.” Being a teacher for over ten years, I know the content to be taught to learners is tailored to suit their needs and therefore most of the students will have an interest of what is being taught and will serve as premise for learners to share their knowledge with one another. Based on the content that serves as a common ground for learners, Ernest (1999) buttress Rogoff’s assertion that communications and interactions among group members entail socially agreed-upon ideas of the world and the social patterns and rules of language use. To bring cooperative learning into the picture, it has been established that social meanings and knowledge are shaped and evolve through negotiation within the communicating groups (Gredler, 1997; Prawat & Floden, 1994). This is in view of the fact that through interaction among learners, some will soften their stands on issues, some will change their minds entirely and some will unlearn, learn and relearn through the negotiations that go on as they negotiate.
To establish reason for which social constructivist theory is being discussed as a theory for cooperative learning, Rogoff (1990) and Vygotsky (1987) in Kim (2001) touch on intersubjectivity and posit that not only does social constructivist theory serve as a premise for communication to take place but it also serves as a support system for people to extend their understanding of the information they have newly acquired the and activities among task members. From the ongoing, it is agreed that through intersubjectivity, positive interaction can take place which will in turn help in building knowledge due to the cooperative nature of groups at work (Prawat & Floden, 1994; McMahon, 1997; Gredler, 1997 and Shunk, 2000). It can be concluded that when members of a community become aware of their intersubjective meanings, it becomes easier for them to understand new information and activities that arise in the community. This goes a long way in establishing that when task-members work in unison, taking into consideration the principle of intersubjectivity, success rate in teaching and learning will be higher compared to individual work and work done in the face of competition.

Social Learning Theory

Bandura’s social learning theory lays emphasis on the importance of observing and modeling the behaviours, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others, the factors which are all inherent in cooperative learning. Bandura (1977) state:
Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behaviour is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action (p.22).
In view of the above statements, human behavior is explained through the social learning theory by way of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences. Bandura (1977) outlines four component processes that underline observational learning as:
1. Attention, including modeled events (distinctiveness, affective valence, complexity, prevalence, functional value) and observer characteristics (sensory capacities, arousal level, perceptual set, past reinforcement),
2. Retention, including symbolic coding, cognitive organization, symbolic rehearsal, motor rehearsal),
3. Motor Reproduction, including physical capabilities, self-observation of reproduction, accuracy of feedback, and
4. Motivation, including external, vicarious and self-reinforcement.
It is important to note that the social learning theory encompasses both cognitive and behavioural frameworks because it goes beyond attention, memory and motivation.
Kumpulainen and Wray (2002) shared the view that:
Guided participation is seen in schools across the United States and all around the world in language classes when the teacher says a phrase and asks the class to repeat the phrase. An extension of guided participation is reciprocal learning in which both student and teacher share responsibility in leading discussions.
Emanating from this stance, another aspect for guided participation, a core element in the social learning theory, is when students on their own will practice and parents try to teach or help them, the parents are equipping their own children with speaking skills. This happens when the children model their parents’ way of helping them with their work, which they are likely to emulate and also when they try to pronounce words and speak like their parents.
The social learning theory has also been variously applied as a way understanding aggressive behaviors and psychological disorders, especially in the context of behavior modification and it has also served as the theoretical foundation for the technique of behavior modeling which is widely used in training programs (Bandura, 1969; Bandura, 1973; Bandura 1997). Bandura in 1979 focused his work on the self-concept concept, which is inherent in his social learning theory, in a variety of contexts including the following:
• The highest level of observational learning is achieved by first organizing and rehearsing the modeled behaviour symbolically and then enacting it overtly. Coding modeled behaviour into words, labels or images results in better retention than simply observing.
• Individuals are more likely to adopt a modeled behaviour if it results in outcomes they value.
• Individuals are more likely to adopt a modeled behaviour if the model is similar to the observer and has admired status and the behaviour has functional value. The scope, content, elements and context of the social learning theory run parallel to what prevails in cooperative learning. This therefore makes it one of the theories that need to be considered as far as teaching and learning adopts the cooperative learning strategy. Secondly, cooperative learning is about group work and how individuality affects the ultimate goal(s) of the group, hence when one party’s behaviour is modeled by the other as postulated in the social learning theory, it behooves on teachers to adopt it in their bid to enable students get the best from their group members.
To expatiate on what has just been said, human beings are social beings and naturally inquisitive which has led to various learning approaches, technology advancement and new ways of doing things every now and then. The use of Bandura’s Social Learning theory in this study is encapsulated in the idea that in a cooperative learning situation, where students are put into study groups to work individually as well as for the benefit of the entire group, members tend to give out their best. Especially when they get to know that social loathing is unacceptable and each member of the group has to work in order to see to his or her own growth as well as that of the group.
It becomes such a beautiful experience when the high performing students accept the low performing students as members of the task team and render all the support they can offer, and the latter also accepts their weaknesses and work towards it all in a bid to put away their individuality in order to ensure that the best is achieved for the groups in which they have been placed and given a task to accomplish. In this circumstance, the weaker students directly or indirectly observe how the high performing students do their things and model their own around that. To sum it all, Hijazi and Al-Natour (2012) establish that students help each other when there is a task at hand because they know very well that the success or failure of their group hinges on their ability to work as a group. This is seen as a great motivator in cooperative learning because all things being equal, students working in groups would rather float than sink both individually and as a group.

The Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) provides a framework for effective inclusive teaching and learning in the classroom (Vygotsky, 1978:120). This theory establishes that learning is a path through the ZPD. Pettigrew & Akhurst (1999:125) explain the term ‘zone’ as the space between what a learner cannot do alone and what he/she can do with the help of capable others, such as peers or educators. In other words, the capable others within the learners environment will to a large extent help the learner who is not capable at that moment to progress from what the learner already knows to what he/she does not know. From the ongoing build up Rowlands (2006) argue that teaching happens most effectively when the learner gets the required help at the actual point that it is needed in the ZDP. He also notes that there is a distinction between what the learners have mastered and where they are in the process of learning. It has been observed over time that students learn better and quicker when they learn from their mates and especially in groups. Hence, making maximum use of the ZDP in a cooperative learning environment will go a long way to help learner in an EFAL classroom learn faster and more effectively as they learn in groups and share what they know with each other.
In the ZPD, Vygotsky (1986: 135) identifies four stages through which learners must progress to reach their optimal development:
Stage one is where the learner has the ability to perform the task but has no understanding of how it should be done. The learner needs assistance from more knowledgeable others to mould behaviour and provide direct instruction. This understanding develops through conversation during the performance of the task. Support rendered to the learner at this stage is of utmost importance for his or her further development and success (Pettigrew & Akhurst, 1999:86). It is worthy of note that the learner at this level can move to stage two only when help from others, more knowledgeable and experienced, has been offered him/ her.
In the second stage the learner performs the task without assistance from others, even though performance has not fully developed. The learner uses inner speech (overt verbalization), that is the verbal instructions that have been passed on to him/her by more capable others. The learner, at this stage, talks to himself/herself to direct his/her own actions, in order to be kept reminded of what to do in the task (Pettigrew & Akhurst, 1999). Though a lot of trial and errors and or mistakes may occur at this stage, it is nonetheless very instrumental as the student will make all necessary effort to put into action what was observed or done with the help of others and this ushers in the third stage of the ZPD.
The third stage is where performance is developed and tasks are smoothly carried out in an integrated manner by the learner which implies that performance has been internalized. At this stage assistance from capable others ceases as learning at this stage is self-directed. The learner is able to attempt and finish tasks alone without mediation from the capable others (Pettigrew & Akhurst, 1999). This stage is a proof of what the student has been able to acquire with the help of others. It is self-fulfilling as students will be able to apply knowledge and skills acquired correctly and most importantly on their own.
Lee (2000:167) establishes that the fourth stage occurs when the learner may have fully developed a particular task, but suddenly discovers that he or she can no longer perform it automatically, due to intrinsic factors such as stress or illness, and extrinsic factors, such as the learning environment not being conducive, among other factors that may call for the learner needing assistance. The final stage is an indication that no matter how knowledgeable, skillful or experienced one becomes, the importance of cooperative work cannot be downplayed as help may still be needed in one way or the other. The fourth shows how knowledge can be obsolete (a common saying that what is knowledge to day becomes useless tomorrow). Hence it becomes imperative for students to continuously learn from others in order to be abreast of time and events.
The objective of Inclusive Education as explained by White Paper 6 (South Africa, 2001:10) is that collaboration, support and active engagement of learners in the learning process is the key to Inclusive Education. Thus, to achieve this objective, education requires the use of teaching methodologies driven by theories that promote collaboration and active participation. This spells out the need for Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal Development, because the theory encompasses all that has been outlined in White Paper 6 to help in inclusive education.
In furtherance of what is outlined in White Paper 6, cooperative learning ensures that no member ought to be left out in the learning process, no matter how high or low the person performs. So the mere fact that students are put in a group and given a common task to perform (the main distinguishing factor between cooperative groups and other groups) is a way of ensuring that all hands are put on deck in the performance of tasks and the achievement of common tasks assigned to the group. As spelt out in the ZDP, there is a gap between what a student knows and what he or she is supposed to know (the zone), hence where groups are put together, tasks are given and instructions are issued, the gap is almost closed because with the help of more knowledgeable and skilled members in the group, each member will acquire the necessary skill and knowledge to move on.
Various definitions of cooperative learning point to the fact that it is an approach where small groups are put together to work and accomplish a common goal (Johnson, Johnson and Holubc, 1994; Adams and Hamm, 1996; Bainbridge, 2012). An important issue here is one common thing with group where individual differences are not catered for at the initial stages but task members make the conscious effort to get into terms with what is going on in order not to be left behind. In a similar vein, the ZDP theory starts with somebody who needs to be helped to get to a certain level and gets to that level when the necessary help is obtained, as has been explained above.
Another very visible characteristic of the theory which is clearly exhibited in cooperative learning is the ability of the individual to work on his or her own for some time. This is similar to the third stage of cooperative learning, which is individual and group accountability. It is a foregone conclusion that in cooperative learning, it is a matter of “one for all” and “all for one”. However, it is important to note that in this third principle, individual learners need to demonstrate mastery over the content under study since every task member accounts for his or her work, which helps in pushing the group agenda upward and forward. In corroboration to this assertion, Van Wyk (2007) establishes that the essence of every learning venture is the pursuance of maximum individual learning performance. To add to what is established by Van Wyk, once an individuals in a group achieve, the group will undoubtedly achieve as well because the synergic effect will be felt and utilized.
In the nutshell, the application of the ZDP is established when individuals are accepted in task teams and helped to attain the requisite skills and knowledge that propels them to work independently in achieving individual as well as group goals. Additionally, since internal and external factors may inhibit an individual from performing the best of his or her abilities, times may come when others may be needed to render their expertise when relapse sets in and the student is not able to perform as expected (the last stage of the ZDP). At this stage, the need to fall on others become eminent paving the way for cooperative work again in order to achieve the goal that has been achieved. The stages of the ZDP make it inseparable from cooperative learning and also a useful theory for this research work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page
Declaration
Dedication
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Key terms
Table of contents
CHAPTER 1 ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.3 BASIC OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRICULUM FOR SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS
1.4 PUTTING UMALUSI INTO CONTEXT
1.5 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.6 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.8 MOTIVATION FOR THE RESEARCH
1.9 DELIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
1.10 RESEARCH METHODS
1.11 CHAPTER DIVISION
1.12 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
1.13 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 OVERVIEW OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
2.3 CONCEPT OF TEACHING
2.4 TEACHING PRINCIPLES
2.5 TEACHING METHODS
2.6 EXPLORING TEACHING METHODS
2.7 TEACHING STRATEGIES
2.8 TEACHING TECHNIQUES
2.9 EXPLAINING EFAL
2.10 NATIONAL CURRICULUM STATEMENT (NCS) AND CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT POLICY STATEMENTS (CAPS)
2.11 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 THE USE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING AS A LEARNER CENTERED APPROACH TO TEACHING AND LEARNING
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THEORIES FOREGROUNDING THE COOPERATIVE LEARNING
3.3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING
3.4 CONCEPTUALISED COOPERATIVE LEARNING AS A TEACHING METHOD
3.5 PRINCIPLES OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING
3.6 COOPERATIVE LEARNING TEACHING TECHNIQUES/STRATEGIES
3.7 USAGE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING
3.8 BENEFITS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING
3.9 CHALLENGES IN USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING
3.10 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 CRITICAL REVIEW OF STUDENT TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISIONS AS A COOPERATIVE TEACHING TECHNIQUE FOR EFAL
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 A MODEL FOR STUDENT TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISIONS
4.3 BACKGROUND TO STUDENT TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISIONS (STAD)
4.4 CONCEPTUALISED STAD AS A COOPERATIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE
4.5 COMPONENTS OF THE STAD
4.6 USAGE OF STAD
4.7 APPLYING STAD IN THE EFAL CLASSROOM
4.8 BENEFITS OF USING STUDENT TEAM ACHIEVEMENT STRATEGIES
4.9 CHALLENGES IN USING STUDENT TEAM ACHIEVEMENT STRATEGIES
4.10 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM
5.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
5.4 QUANTITATIVE PHASE
5.5 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
5.6 ADHERING TO SPECIFIC ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO CONDUCT THIS INVESTIGATION
5.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA
6.3 ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE DATA
6.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, LIMITATION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS
7.3 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
7.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
7.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 8 FRAMEWORK FOR THE USE OF STUDENT TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION IN EFAL IN HIGH SCHOOLS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 COMPONENTS OF A FRAMEWORK FOR THE USE OF STAD AS ATEACHING STRATEGY FOR EFAL
8.3 THE ROLE OF THE EFAL TEACHER IN A STAD CLASSROOM
8.4 THE ROLE OF LEARNERS IN A STAD CLASSROOM
8.5 STEPS IN IMPLEMENTING STAD
8.6 PRACTICAL OUTCOMES OF STAD
8.7 IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED MODEL
8.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Bibliography
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT