The Effect of using Cooperative Learning Technique on EFL Students’ Writing Performance at University Level

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3115372/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Effect of using Cooperative Learning Technique on EFL Students’ Writing Performance at University Level

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3115372/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The purpose of this study was to investigate effect of using cooperative learning technique on EFL students’ writing performance at university level. The study employed a quasi-experimental research design. Two intact classes of second year undergraduate students who were taking Basic Writing Sills course at Jimma University participated in the study. The two classes were assigned to treatment\ experiment and control groups. The treatment group consists of 48 students while the control group comprises 41 students. The treatment group was taught writing in English using cooperative learning technique and the control group was taught writing in English using individual learning technique. Data were collected through paragraph writing tests (pretest & posttest). The collected data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Independent samples t-tests was conducted to determine whether or not there was a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the writing performances of the treatment group and that of the control groups. Paired sample t-tests were also conducted to determine whether or not there was statistically significant difference between the pretest and the posttest mean scores of each group. The results of the independent samples t-tests indicated that the writing performances of the treatment group and that of the control group were similar before the treatment; however, after the treatment, the writing performance of the treatment group was significantly better than that of the control group. The results of paired sample t-test also showed that the writing performance of the treatment group was significantly improved after the treatment due to the implementation of cooperative learning technique in writing classes. Based on the results it was concluded that using cooperative learning technique improves EFL students’ writing performance at university level in the context of Ethiopia. Therefore, it is recommended that English teachers should use cooperative learning technique in writing classes in order to help university undergraduate students to improve their writing performance. Material designers in the country should also incorporate writing activities that allow students to use cooperative learning technique in the process of learning writing.

Analytical Scoring

Cooperative Learning Approach

Individual Learning Approach

EFL/ Stages of the Writing Process

Writing Performance

1.1 Background of the Study

Nowadays, English language plays an important role in different domains of human life such as education, science, technology, industry, business, tourism, the media, and etc around the world (AlJarf, 2008). In Ethiopia, this language has also been playing a prominent role, particularly in the domain of education since its introduction as a foreign language (Mesfin, 2013). The language serves as a medium of instruction at secondary and tertiary levels of education in the country. The function of English language has also been expanded in other sectors throughout the country (Mesfin, 2013; Meseret, 2012). For example, it is used as a second or an alternative official language in organizations such as banks, Ethiopian Airlines, Ethiopian Telecommunication, and other international organizations working in the country (Meseret, 2012). However, in Ethiopia, English is taught as a foreign language (EFL), which means that the learning of English is not as easy as we think. Students are expected to master the four basic skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) in the language. Among the four basic

skills, writing is the most difficult skill to learn for students learning English as a foreign language (Erkan & Sabah, 2011).

Writing is conceived as a process of exploring thoughts and ideas, and making them concrete (Brown, 2007; Flower& Hayes, 2011; Harmer, 2007). Hence, writing is a useful language skill that plays significant roles in the academic, personal and professional life. For example, writing serves as an important vehicle for communicating thoughts, feelings, ideas, information, and knowledge in different contexts (Weigle, 2002). It also enhances students’ language acquisition as they experiment with words, sentences, paragraphs, or essays to practice the language they are learning in the class and helps them to monitor their language performance as it provides them with opportunity to use the most appropriate language for communicating facts, thoughts, ideas, and feelings effectively (Harmer, 2007). Moreover, it is an essential tool for expanding knowledge as it stimulates critical thinking, helps to organize, summarize, analyze, and synthesize facts or ideas, and generate new ideas (Rao, 2007). More importantly, in the teaching and learning process, particularly at university level, writing serves instructors/ teachers as a tool to assess students’ achievement of course objectives. This is to mean that instructors usually ask students to write paragraphs/essays, term papers, reports, and senior essays in order to evaluate students’ level of understanding in different courses. This implies that, students’ writing skill in the instructional language is very important to accomplish such academic writing tasks successfully and their lack of this skill negatively affects their success in most university courses (Tan, 2011).

Therefore, in Ethiopia, based on the prescribed syllabus suggested by the Education and Training Policy of the country, Basic Writing Skills course is offered as one of the supportive courses to university undergraduate program students in the country. The general objective of the course is to enable students to write well-organized paragraphs and effective essays of different types (expository, descriptive, narrative and argumentative) in English language. However, the present researcher’s experience in teaching this course at Jimma University has revealed that many students cannot construct paragraphs or essays which meet standard that the course requires.

It may be due to the fact that mastering writing skill is not easy for learners of foreign language because of different factors (Erkan & Sabah, 2011; Harmer, 2007). Firstly, writing is a complex thinking process that requires not only exploring and generating ideas, but also organizing, revising and shaping the ideas into a coherent text (Brown, 2007; Harmer, 2007). Writing also requires using appropriate vocabulary, correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation marks of the target language (Hedge, 1988; Luchini, 2010). Moreover, the complexity of the writing process may heighten students’ anxiety level which usually hinders the development of students’ writing skill and results in poor performance in their writing (Erkan & Sabah, 2011). On top of these inherent factors, the teaching methods and techniques employed to teach writing is the key factor to determine students’ success or failure in developing their writing skills (Weigle, 2002).

Recognizing this, researchers have introduced teaching techniques which may reduce the challenging nature of writing and make students successful in building up their writing skills. One of such teaching techniques is using cooperative learning technique in writing classes (Atkinson, 2003; Brown, 2007; Harmer, 2007; McDonough, 2004). Cooperative learning is a learning situation in which students of different performance levels work together in small groups to learn from and with each other to achieve a common goal (Johnson & Johnson 1999). Unlike conventional classes where students work competitively or individually, in cooperative learning situations students strive for their own and their teammates learning. Hence, team members assist each other, encourage and facilitate each other’s efforts to learn, and focus on maximizing the success of their group members as well as their own to achieve their common goal. Such learning situation plays a significant role in enhancing students’ linguistic and cognitive development as students may get a greater amount of comprehensible input, high motivation for learning, a supportive classroom environment, a relaxed atmosphere, opportunities for interaction and meaningful negotiation in their groups (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Richards & Renandya, 2002)

However, it should be clear that simply placing students in small groups and asking them to work together on a learning task does not create effective cooperation among group members. According to Johnson and Johnson (2009), effective cooperation among group members can occur only when teachers/ instructors carefully structure five essential elements into the learning situations. The absence of even one element in the learning situation can lead to a non-cooperative learning environment (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). The first element is positive interdependence, which exists when group members perceive that the group can succeed if, and only if, each member succeeds (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). The second element is individual accountability, which refers to the idea that each member of the group must be accountable for completing his/ her share of the team work and for ensuring that other group mates complete their share of the team work (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). The third element is face-to-face interaction which requires students to sit facing each other, to discuss on learning tasks, exchange ideas, explain things to each other, provide each other with the help they need, provide feedback on each other’s performances on learning tasks, encourage and facilitate each other’s efforts to complete their tasks in order for the group to achieve its goal. The fourth element is social skill such as respecting others’ opinions, giving constructive feedback and comment on others’ ideas, accepting others’ feedback and comment on one’s ideas, and resolving conflict or disagreements that arise among group members (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). The fifth element is group processing in which members of the learning groups evaluate how effectively they have been working together during learning activities in order to identify problems they encountered and what to do in the next cooperative learning activity to avoid similar problems so that the group can achieve its goal (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).

The effectiveness of using cooperative learning for teaching writing is supported by many researchers. When cooperative learning technique is used in writing classes, students get chance to exchange ideas and information on writing topics, to acquire linguistic knowledge, to learn from and with each other how to organize ideas in order to write effective texts as each group member may have different levels of linguistic knowledge, intellectual capacity, and writing experience which he/she may bring to the group (Mahmoud, 2014). Cooperative learning situations also provide students chance to see how their peers think and create ideas, and this helps them to improve their critical thinking skills (Mandal & Willing, 2009). Atkinson (2003) also states that cooperative learning allows students to practice writing in a supportive learning environment, help each other in the process of writing, and receive immediate feedback from each other on their written texts. Nevertheless, such teaching technique is rarely used in Ethiopian schools and universities in general and EFL writing classes in particular, and when used, it is not effectively implemented (Berhanu, 2000; Birhanu, 2019; Endalfer & Getaw, 2016; Sintayehu, 2009). Besides, studies that have tried to investigate the effects of using cooperative learning in EFL writing classes are scarce in the context of Ethiopia. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate effects of using cooperative learning technique in EFL writing classes on EFL students’ writing performance.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

As mentioned earlier, students’ ability to write in English language plays a crucial role for their success in universities and in their future career (Mesfin, 2013). On the other hand, the present researcher while teaching the course ‘Basic Writing Skills’ at Jimma University has noticed that many undergraduate students in the university have serious problems in acquiring writing skills in English language. When these students are asked to write paragraphs/essays in Basic writing skill course exams, many students cannot write even a few meaningful sentences, let alone writing effective paragraphs / essays, and as a result they fail the course. In addition to this, when they are asked to produce term papers, senior essays, and other written texts in English they are unable to discuss relevant and adequate contents, organize the contents coherently, use appropriate vocabulary, and correct grammar and mechanics.

Likewise, other EFL instructors offering Basic writing skills course to university undergraduate students at the University usually complain that the writing performance of the majority of their students is very poor. Moreover, different researchers in our country have confirmed that many undergraduate students in Ethiopia universities are incapable of producing effective written texts in English language. For instance, Mesfin (2013), states that most freshman students are unable to produce written texts which meet the required standard when they are asked to develop term papers, senior essays, and other written texts in English. Muluneh (2018) also has pointed out that although writing is taught and practiced in secondary and tertiary levels of education many students are incapable of expressing their ideas, opinions and feelings appropriately in written English written forms. Furthermore, Meseret (2012) emphasized that some students even after graduating from colleges and universities cannot express themselves properly in written English

Although there may be different causes of students’ failure to develop their writing skills, one of the causes could be the ineffectiveness of the teaching technique employed by teachers in teaching the skill (Meseret (2012). The present researcher’s experience in teaching at secondary schools, college, and university also shows that the technique used for the teaching of EFL writing in Ethiopian schools, colleges, and universities is mostly lecture-based mode of teaching. Accordingly, in many EFL writing classes, students are taught how to write paragraphs/essays and asked to produce written texts in English for evaluation without any opportunity to get support in the writing process. In other words, teachers/instructors assign students with writing tasks; however, because of the large number of students in a class and limited teaching time, they do not seem to provide students with adequate support or feedback that encourages them to rewrite and practice writing. Instead, they tend to evaluate the first draft of students’ written texts and assign marks. This might have not helped students to learn writing in English successfully. To solve such problem, different scholars (e.g. Atkinson, 2003; Brown, 2007; Harmer, 2007; McDonough, 2004) have recommended using cooperative learning technique in writing classes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate effects of using cooperative learning technique in writing classes on EFL students’ writing performance.

Some studies were conducted abroad to investigate effects of cooperative learning technique in writing classes. For example, Adeyemi (2008) conducted a study to determine the effects of cooperative learning technique on junior secondary school students’ writing skills in Botswana. Similarly, Khan, Javaid and Farooq (2015) conducted a study to examine the effects of cooperative learning technique on grade eight students ‘writing ability in Pakistan. Likewise, Mahmoud (2014) conducted a study to investigate the effects of cooperative learning on university students’ writing skill in Saudi Arabia. Similarly, Yusuf, Jusoh, & Yusuf (2019) conducted a study to investigate the effect of using cooperative learning on a middle school students’ writing skill in Malaysia. The finding of these studies showed that using cooperative learning technique helped Botswana, Pakistani, Saudi Arabian and Malaysian students to develop their writing skills. Nevertheless, most of these studies focused on ESL context at elementary and secondary school levels, whereas only very few of them have been conducted to investigate the effects of using this technique in EFL writing classes at university level. Thus, the researcher thought that more research should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of using cooperative learning technique for teaching writing in EFL contexts, particularly in the context of Ethiopia.

In Ethiopia, few studies (Dejene, 2011; Mitiku, 2019; Muluken, 2020) were conducted on the application of cooperative learning technique in EFL writing classes. The study conducted by Dejene (2011) investigated the role of cooperative learning in enhancing Grade 11 students’ writing performance in Shambu Secondary School. The study conducted by Mitiku (2019) investigated the effects of cooperative learning on Grade 11 students’ writing performance in Samara Secondary School in Afar Regional State. The findings of these two studies showed that the application of cooperative learning technique in English writing classes plays a great role in enhancing students writing performance at secondary school level.

Contrary to the above studies, a study conducted by Muluken (2020) on health students of Gondar University showed that there was no significant difference between the traditional and cooperative learning methods in enhancing students writing skills. In addition to this, very few local studies were conducted on the application of cooperative learning technique in EFL writing classes at university level, where writing course is offered independently, and students’ ability to write in English plays a prominent role for their success in most university courses. Therefore, inspired by the difficulties that students in Ethiopian universities in general and in Jimma University in particular face to produce effective written texts in English the present researchers attempted to investigate the effect of using cooperative learning technique on undergraduate students’ EFL writing performance at Jimma University. More specifically, the study aimed to determine whether cooperative learning technique compared to individual learning technique significantly improves university students writing performance in the context of Ethiopia.

1.3 Objective of the study

1.3.1 General objective of the study

The general objective of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative learning on EFL writing performance of undergraduate students of Jimma University, Ethiopia.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this study were the followings:

To determine whether or not the treatment group (students who were taught writing in English through cooperative learning technique) performed significantly better in writing than the control group (students who were taught writing in English through individual learning technique).

To determine whether or not the writing performance of the treatment group and that of the control group were significantly improved after treatment.

1.4 Research Hypotheses

This study tested the following hypotheses:

Hoa

There is no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the writing performance of the treatment group (students who were taught writing in English through cooperative learning technique) and that of the control group (students who were taught writing in English through individually learning technique).

H1a

There is a statistically significant difference between the mean score of the writing performance of the treatment group (students who were taught writing in English through cooperative learning technique) and that of the control group (students who were taught writing in English through individually learning technique)

Hob

There is no statistically significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test mean scores of the treatment group writing performance.

H1b

There is a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test mean scores of the treatment group writing performance.

Hoc

There is no statistically significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test mean scores of the control group writing performance.

H1c

There is a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test mean scores of the control group writing performance.

1.5. Significance of the Study

It is hoped that this study will have important contributions. First of all, the findings of the study may help instructors to consider using cooperative learning technique as an alternative way of teaching EFL writing so that students can improve their writing performance. Second, the study can help instructional material designers in the country to think of incorporating activities that allow students to use cooperative learning technique in learning writing. Finally, it may give insights to researchers who are interested to investigate more on the area.

1.6. Scope of the Study

This study was conducted from April 11 to June10, 2022 at Jimma University. The subjects of this study were only undergraduate students of Jimma University who were taking the course ‘Basic Writing Skills’. The study collected only quantitative data. It is only interested in analyzing the effects of using cooperative learning technique on students writing performance.

1.6. Limitations of the Study

Although useful findings were obtained in this study, some limitations can be cited. The major limitation of this study is the fact that the sample was limited to only undergraduate students who were taking Basic Writing Skills course at Jimma University. Thus, it may be difficult to draw generalizations that can be applied to all university students taking Basic Writing Skills course in Ethiopia.

2.1. Research Paradigm

As theoretical questions in education has emerged from different conceptions and interpretations of social reality, different research paradigms such as Post-Positivism, Constructivism, Participatory, and Pragmatism have been designed by different scholars to determine the criteria in which one can select the research tools that go in line with the theories and the problems for inquiry. Among these, the present study followed the post-positivists’ paradigm that emphasizes testing a theory by collecting data which either support or refute a theory and study the behavior of individuals to understand the world in a better way.

2.2. Research Design

Since the goal of this study is to determine the effect of cooperative learning (the independent variable) on students’ writing performance (the dependent variable), it seems appropriate to use an experimental design. However, in educational settings like universities, colleges and schools, where classes are formed at the beginning of the year, changing the students’ classes to assign the individuals randomly to experimental and control group is not feasible (Creswell, 2012). Therefore, this study employed quasi-experimental design, specifically, the pre-test post-test experimental and control group design. Hence, two intact classes (groups) of students were assigned to treatment and control groups, and only the treatment group received a treatment (implementation of cooperative learning technique) whereas both groups took the same pretest and posttest.

2.3. Study Setting

This study was conducted at Jimma University, one of the higher institutions in Ethiopia. The university is located 352 kms from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. The university was selected as a study setting purposely for the following reasons. First, from her experience of teaching Basic Writing Skills course in the university, the present researcher noticed students’ poor writing performance, and she thought of conducting the research in the university to see if cooperative learning technique can help these students to improve their writing performance. The second reason is its convenience for the researcher. Since Jimma University is the researcher’s work place, it was easy to get access to the information that helps her to conduct the research, thereby minimizing constraints such as time and budget. Since students from across the country were randomly distributed to all universities, the student population does not vary much from one university to another in terms of characteristics such as educational, demography, and social background, etc.

2.4. Participants of the Study

The participants of this study were 89 second year undergraduate students of Jimma University, College of Business and Economics, Department of Banking and Finance and Department of Management. These two departments were chosen because students in these departments were taking Basic Writing Skills as a supportive course when this study was conducted.

2.5. Data Collection Instrument

The data collection instrument used in this study was paragraph writing tests (pretest & posttest).

The Pretest was administered to the students in the treatment and the control groups at the beginning of the treatment to check whether or not the writing performance of the two groups were at the same level before the treatment. The posttest was administered to see if there was any significant difference in the writing performance of the treatment group and that of the control group after students in the treatment group were taught writing through cooperative learning technique and students in the control group were taught writing through individual learning technique for eight weeks. In the pretest and the posttest, all students in both groups were asked to write a paragraph on ‘the Use of Water’. This topic was chosen because it was more or less equivalent in difficulty and familiarity for all participants in the two groups. Students were given 60 minutes to write their paragraphs.

The paragraphs written by students on the pretest and posttests were evaluated and assigned scores using analytical scoring rubric that was developed by Jacobs et al. (1981). This scoring rubric was used as it helps to address how students perform on five component of writing: content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. Based on the scoring rubric, each component of writing is rated separately: content out of 30, organization out of 20, vocabulary out of 20, language use out of 25, and mechanics out of 5). Hence, each participant of the study was given five sub-scores, which were added up to obtain his/her overall writing performance score. To ensure the reliability of the scores, each student’s paragraph was evaluated and assigned scores by two independent raters who had been trained on how to rate students’ paragraphs using the scoring rubric, and the average of the scores assigned by the two raters was considered as the final score for each student’s paragraph since a very high degree of inter-rater reliability existed.

The fact that the same topic was used in both the pre-test and the post-test might suggest that any improvement was the result of writing paragraph on the same topic twice. However, it could be argued that, if the improvement was simply the result of writing paragraph on the same topic twice, the improvement should be found not only in the treatment group but also in the control group. In addition to this, as the pretest was administered at the beginning of the study, and the posttest was administered after eight weeks, it was believed to be long enough for the students to forget what they had written in the pre-test.

2.6. Validity and Reliability of Data Collection Instrument

In this study, the validity of the data collection instrument (the topic of the writing test) was checked by getting feedback from the research supervisors and three EFL instructors in the university. On the other hand, the reliability of the writing test score was checked through inter-rater reliability method. In other words, the paragraphs written by the participants of the study were evaluated and assigned scores by two independent raters, and the correlation coefficient of the scores was calculated using Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (r). The correlation coefficient of the scores was r = .91 for the pretest and r = .98 for the posttest, which indicate high degree of inter-rater reliability.

2.7. Procedure of the Experiment

This study was conducted during the formal period of the university timetable. The treatment lasted for eight weeks. Both the treatment and the control groups met 3 hours per week for three (four) months. Both groups were taught by the same instructor (the researcher). In both groups, the same materials (Basic Writing Skills course material and the material which was prepared by the investigator) were covered. Both the experimental and control groups’ lesson plans address the same instructional objectives, and were based on the same writing activities and exercises. In doing the writing activities, students in both groups were required to go through different stages of writing (Pre-writing, Composing/Drafting, Revising, and Editing). The treatment was conducted in the following procedures:

First, the researcher administered the pretest to both the treatment group and the control group students. In the test the researcher gave the students a topic (the Use of Water) and asked them to write a paragraph within 60 minutes.

Second, the researcher taught both the treatment and the control group lessons included in unit one and unit two of the Basic Writing Skills course material according to the course outline prepared by the course designer. In unit one, students were taught writing effective sentences whereas in unit two they were taught principles and rules of writing effective paragraphs.

Third, after both groups had been taught writing effective sentences and principles and rules of writing effective paragraphs, the researcher divided students in the treatment group into equal teams of four members based on their pre-test scores and gender. She also assigned each member in a small group a role (Team leader, Time keeper, Quiet Captain, and Checker). The role and responsibility of the group members was changed each session so that each member could play all the roles during the treatment.

Fourth, the researcher introduced the concept of cooperative learning to students and explained to them principles/basic elements of cooperative learning (positive interdependence within the team, face to face interaction, individual accountability, applying social skills, and group processing) and the procedures they should follow.

Fifth, the students were involved in cooperative learning activities using the material which was prepared by the investigator. During the cooperative learning (cooperative writing) activities, the researcher asked students to write paragraphs on the given topics in small groups cooperatively, and guided them in each stage of the writing process (pre-writing, composing/drafting, revising, editing, and writing the final draft). Students were given both written and oral instructions to do the writing activities. Accordingly, in the pre-writing stage first students were asked to brainstorm ideas about the given topic, exchange their ideas with their team mates, and generate as many ideas as possible about the topic. Then, they were asked to organize their ideas, and prepare an outline for their paragraph cooperatively.

In the drafting stage, students were asked to write a rough draft of their paragraph individually based on the outline they had prepared in the pre-writing stage.

In the revision stage, students were asked to read all the drafts produced by their group members, and give comments and feedback that help the writer to improve his/her draft. Students had been taught that at such stage they had to focus only on the relevance and adequacy of the content (unity and completeness of the idea in the supporting details), the arrangement of the details and the clarity of the ideas (coherence & cohesion), and the appropriateness of the vocabulary. After each group member had received feedback from his/her group mates, students were asked to write the second draft of their paragraphs individually.

In the editing stage, students were asked to read the revised drafts, identify and correct grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors cooperatively. After students had finished editing their second drafts cooperatively, they were asked to write the final copy individually by making the necessary modifications to their second draft. Then, the instructor randomly selected one paper from each sub-group to provide feedback on content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation marks.

In this way, students wrote different paragraphs on four topics (Uses of Forests, Benefit of Tame/Domestic Animals, Categories of Students Based on their Academic Achievement, Causes that Lead Teenagers to Drop out of School), which required them to write expository paragraphs using exemplification, classification, and cause and effect methods of developing paragraph.

Meanwhile, students in the control group were taught according to their lesson plans. As already mentioned, both the treatment and control groups’ lesson plans address the same instructional objectives, and are based on the same teaching material, the same exercises and writing tasks, similar writing topics, and writing process. The only difference between the two groups’ lesson plans is that while students in the treatment group were given opportunities to exchange ideas, help each other in the process of writing paragraphs and give each other feedback on their writings before submitting their written texts to the instructor, students in the control group were not given such opportunities.

In the eighth week, students in both groups were asked to write an expository paragraph on ‘the Use of Water’ individually within 60 minutes. This was assumed as a posttest. Finally, students’ paragraphs were evaluated, assigned scores, and the scores were prepared for analysis.

2.8. Data Analysis

In this study data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Accordingly, first, mean and standard deviation of participants’ scores on the pretest and the posttest were calculated for both the treatment and the control groups. Then, Independent samples t-est was conducted through the SPSS version 23 to check whether or not there was any significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups both before and after the treatment. Paired Samples t-tests were also conducted to check if there was any significant difference between each group’s pretest and post test mean scores.

2.9. Ethical Considerations

To conduct this study, important ethical issues were taken into consideration. First, the researcher obtained permission from Jimma University Office of Post-graduate and Research Studies to conduct this study. Second, before starting to collect the data, the researcher explained the purpose and the nature of the study to the participants. The researcher also reassured the participants that the test results would be used only for the research purpose.

As indicated in the preceding section, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of using cooperative learning technique on university students’ EFL writing performance in the context of Ethiopia focusing on undergraduate students of Jimma University. In this section the analysis of the data obtained using pre- and post- treatment writing test and interpretation of the results are presented. Accordingly, first the result of a statistical analysis conducted to check the inter-rater reliability of the raters’ marking of the paragraphs written by students on the pre- and the post- treatment writing test is presented. Second, the pre- and the post- treatment writing test results and their interpretation are discussed.

3.1. Inter-rater reliability

As mentioned earlier, inter-rater reliability method was used to assess the degree to which the different raters assigned the same paper consistent scores. Accordingly, Pearson product momentum correlation coefficient (r) was computed on the SPSS version 23 to see the correlation of the scores assigned to students’ writings by the two raters. The result is presented in Table 3.1

Table 3.1

Inter-Rater Reliability of Students’ Scores for the Pre- and Post Writing Tests
Pretest	Rater 1	Rater 2
Rater 1 Person Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N	1 89	.91** 89
Rater 2 Person Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N	91** 89	1 89
Posttest	Rater 1	Rater 2
Rater 1 Person Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N	1 89	.98** 89
Rater 2 Person Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N	.98** . 89	1 89

**Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2tailed)

Table 3.1 shows the correlation of the two raters’ marking in the pre-test and posttest. As can be seen in the table, the raters’ marking of the same paper is highly consistent. The correlation coefficient of the two raters’ marking were found to be 0 .91 for the pretest and 0 .98 for the posttest, and the correlations between the scores are significant at p-value of 0.05 (p = .000). This indicates that the raters’ markings of the same scripts were highly consistent. Therefore, the average score was considered as the final score for each student’s paragraph.

3.2. Results of the Pre-treatment and Post- treatment writing test

As indicated earlier, in this study, the pre- treatment writing test was administered to the students of both the treatment and control groups to check whether or not the writing performance of the two groups were at the same level before the treatment. The post- treatment writing test was administered at the end of the treatment to determine whether or not the treatment group performed significantly better in writing than the control group. In this sub- section results of a statistical test conducted to compare the mean score of the treatment group and that of the control group as well as the mean scores of each group on the pre- treatment and post-treatment writing test are presented. However, before comparing the mean scores, normality of the distribution of the scores was checked using One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (S-K) and Shapiro-Wilk normality tests at .05 level of confidence in order to decide the type of statistical test employed to compare the mean scores. The results are shown in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2

Data Normality Test for the pre- and post treatment writing test
Overall Writing Performance		Kolmogorov-Smirnov^a			Shapiro-Wilk
Overall Writing Performance		Statistic	Df	Sig	Statistic	Df	Sig.
Pretest	Treatment Group	0.106	47	0.20	0.970	47	0.348
Pretest	Control Group	9.154	40	0.35	0.920	40	0.068
Posttest	Treatment Group	0.170	47	0.061	0.920	47	0.17
Posttest	Control Group	0.136	40	0.056	0.939	40	0.31

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

As shown in Table 3.2 above, the One Sample S-K test proved that the p-values were above 0.05 (p = 0.20 for the treatment group and p = 0.35 for the control group). The Shapiro-Wilk test also supported this (p = 0.348 for the treatment group and p = 0.068 for the control group). This shows that the scores of the pre- treatment writing test were normally distributed for both groups. The same goes for the data on the posttest. The p-value for the One Sample S-K test was found to be non-significant at the p-value of 0.05 for both the treatment and the control groups (p > 0.05). The results of the Shapiro-Wilk test also confirmed this (p > 0.05). Therefore, the parametric test (independent samples t-test and paired samples t-test) were used to compare the mean score of the treatment group and that of the control group and the mean scores of each group on the pre- treatment and post-treatment writing test.

Table 3.3

Results of independent sample t-test for mean scores of the two groups Writing Performance of the Pre-test
Group	N	M	SD	Df	T	Sig.(2-tailed)
Treatment	48	41.29	5.42	87	1.106	0.272
Control	41	40.54	5.42	87	1.106	0.272

At 0.05 level of significance

Note

SD = Standard deviation

Df = degrees of freedom (n1 + n2-2), where n is the number of subjects in each group

T = the observed t-value

As Table 3.3 indicates, the mean score of the writing performance of the treatment group (41.29) and that of the control group (40.54) on the pre-treatment writing test are close to each other, and the results of the independent sample t-test in the table [t (87) = 1.106, P = 0.272] show that the difference between the two mean scores was not statistically significant since the P value (0.272) is greater than .05. This result implies that the writing performances of the treatment group and that of the control group were approximately at the same level before the treatment. Therefore, any significant difference that can be observed between the two groups after the treatment is attributable to the implementation of cooperative learning technique in the writing classes of the treatment group students.

Table 3.4

Results of independent sample t-test for mean scores of the two groups Writing Performance of the Post-test
Group	N	M	SD	Df	T	Sig.(2-tailed)
Treatment	48	78.15	6.51	87	13.022	0.00
Control	41	44.59	7.83	87	13.022	0.00

As we can see in Table 3.4, the mean score of the treatment group students for their writing performance (M = 78.15, SD = 6.51) is higher than that of the control group students (M = 44.59, SD = 7.83) on the posttest. The results of the independent sample t-test in the table [t (87) = 13.022, P = 0.00] also show that the difference between the mean scores of the two groups was statistically significant since the P- value (0.00) is less than 0.05. Based on these results, the null hypothesis stated as “There is no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the writing performance of the treatment group (students who were taught writing in English through cooperative learning technique) and that of the control group (students who were taught writing in English through individually learning technique)” is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it was concluded that students who were taught writing in English through cooperatively technique performed significantly better in writing than students who were taught writing in English through individually learning technique.

Table 3.5

Results of paired sample t-test for mean scores of the Writing Performance of the treatment and the control groups
Group	Pre-test			Post-test			Df	T	Sig. (2tailed)
Group	N	M	SD	N	M	SD	Df	T	Sig. (2tailed)
Treatment	48	41.29	5.42	48	78.15	6.51	47	0.461	0.00
Control	41	40.54	5.42	41	44.59	7.83	40	-6.04	0.34

As shown in Table 3.5 above, there is a notable increase in the mean score of the treatment group from the pre-test (M = 41.29) to the posttest (M = 78.15). The result of paired sample t-test [t (47) = 0.461, p = 0.00 < 0.05] also revealed that the difference between the pre-test and the post-test mean scores of this group was statistically significant, indicating that the writing performance of the treatment group was significantly improved on the post-test. This result implies that using cooperative learning technique helped the treatment group students to improve their writing performance.

On the other hand, as shown in the table, there was only slight increase in the mean score of the control group from the pre-test (M = 40.54) to the posttest (M = 44.59),and the result of paired samples t-test, [ t (40) = -6.044, p = 0.34 > 0.05] proved that the difference between the pre-test and the posttest mean scores of the group was not significant, indicating that the writing performance of the control group was not significantly improved on the post test. This result also confirms that the significant improvement of the writing performance of the treatment group on the post-test is the result of the implementation of cooperative learning technique in the writing class of the group.

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effect of using cooperative learning technique on university students’ EFL writing performance in the context of Ethiopia. As reported in the results section, the analysis of the students’ writing performance revealed that students who were assigned to the treatment and the control groups had similar writing performance before the treatment. However, after the treatment, there was a statistically significant difference between the writing performances of the two groups. The treatment group (students who were taught writing in English through cooperative learning technique) performed significantly better than the control group (students who were taught writing in English through individual learning technique). This finding is in line with the findings of studies conducted by Adeyemi (2008), Dejene (2011), Khan, Javaid & Farooq (2015), and Mitiku (2019), which reveal that the writing achievement of the experiment group was significantly higher than that of the control group after the incorporation of cooperative learning approach in the treatment group’ writing classes. The finding is also in agreement with the findings of studies conducted by Mahmoud (2014); Yusuf, Jusoh, & Yusuf (2019),which showed that students achievement in writing was significantly increased in the post test compared to the pretest after the incorporation of cooperative learning in writing classes.

In this study, before cooperative learning was incorporated in the EFL writing class, students obtained low scores on their writing, but after the application of cooperative learning technique in EFL writing classes for eight weeks, the students’ scores on their writing significantly increased. Therefore, the application of cooperative learning in the writing classes has been proven to help students to learn writing in English. Based on the findings of the study, it was concluded that using cooperative learning technique in EFL writing classes improves students’ writing performance in English if it is used effectively. In cooperative learning situations, students are given opportunity to interact with each other, share their ideas and knowledge on the writing topics, help each other during the process of writing, get immediate feedback from each other on their written texts in a non-threatening atmosphere, and practice writing with peers. This increases their confidence toward EFL writing and helps them to improve their writing performances, even when they write individually.

Based on the conclusions made above, the following recommendations are forwarded.

Instructors/teachers should use cooperative learning technique in EFL writing classes as one way of helping university under graduate students to improve their writing performances in English.
Material designers in the country should incorporate writing activities that allow students to use cooperative learning technique in the process of learning writing.
Further studies in the area are recommended to substantiate the findings of the present study.

Availability of data and materials: The dataset used and analyzed in this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Ethical approval: Ethical clearance was obtained from the IRB of the college of Social Sciences and Humanities, Jimma University. Oral informed consent was obtained from the study participants, and the data collection was undertaken in accordance with ethical principles.
Competing interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this research.
Funding: This research was funded by Jimma University, Ethiopia
Authors contributions:
Fatuma Musa and Tekle Ferede identified and conceptualized the research issue;
Fatuma Musa developed the research proposal;
Tekle Ferede and Aberash Tibebu evaluated and approved the proposal;
Fatuma collected and analyzed the data;
Tekle Ferede and Aberash Tibebu helped with data analysis;
Fatuma Musa did the write up with close supervision and support from TF and DT; and
All the authors participated actively in manuscript preparation.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the participants of this study. They also acknowledge Jimma University for funding this research.

Adeyemi, D. A. (2008). The gender factor in composition writing with the use of the cooperative and the individualized approaches at a junior secondary school in Botswana. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 8(1), 1–19.
Al Jarf, R. (2008). The impact of English as an international language (EIL) upon Arabic in.
Saudi Arabia. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 193–210.
Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 3–15.
Berhanu, G. M. (2000). A Study of the practice of cooperative learning in Grade (11 vol.). Group.
work organization in focus. MA. Thesis, Addis Ababa University.
Birhanu Moges. (2019). Practices and challenges of cooperative learning in selected College of Arsi University: As a motivational factor on enhancing students' learning. Universal Journal of Psychology, 7(1), 1–17.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
rd ed.). San Francisco, San Francisco State University: Pearson Longman.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Dejene Mendera (2011). An investigation of the role of cooperative learning in enhancing students’ writing performance in Shambu Preparatory School: Grade 11 students in focus. Unpublished MA thesis. Addis Ababa University.
Endalfer, M., & Getaw, G. (2016). EFL instructors’ and students’ perception and motivation towards team learning: A case of Ethiopian public universities. International Journal of Current Research, 8(11), 41450–41459.
Erkan, D. Y., & Saban, A. I. (2011). Writing performance relative to writing apprehension, self-efficacy in writing, and attitudes towards writing: A correlational study in Turkish Tertiary-Level EFL. Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 164–192.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (2011). A cognitive process theory of writing: Composition and communications. National Council of Teachers of English, 32, 253–277.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach writing. Pearson Education Limited.
Hedge, T. (1988). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1999). ). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2009). An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
Kagan, S., & High, J. (2002). Kagan structures for English language learners. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.
Luchini, P. L. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of a complimentary approach to teaching writing skills. International Journal of Language Studies, 4(3), 73–92.
Mandal, R. R., & Willing, L. (2009). Cooperative learning strategies to enhance writing skill. The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 95–101.
Mahmoud, M. M. A. (2014). The effectiveness of using cooperative language learning approach to enhance EFL writing skills among Saudi University students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3), 616–625.
Mesere Teshome (2012). Instructors’ and students’ perceptions and practices of task-based writing in an EFL Context. PhD dissertation, Addis Ababa University.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.
Mesfin (2013). An exploratory study on the implementation of the process approach to the teaching/learning of the course Basic Writing Skills: The case of Hawassa University. PhD dissertation, Addis Ababa University.
Mitiku Teshome Abeti (2021). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Grade 11 Students’ Writing Performance: Afar Regional State, Ethiopia. Arabic Language, Literature and Culture. 6(2), 26–36.
Muluneh, T. K. (2018). Improving Students’ Paragraph Writing Skill through Task-Based Approach. Arts Social Sci J, 9, 351. 10.4172/2151-6200.1000351.
Mulukenabera (2020). The impact of cooperative learning on Students‟ Paragraph Writing Skills: the case of third Year. Health informatics Students at University of Gondar.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sintsyehu, G. (2009). An Assessment of cooperative learning in the teaching and learning writing in Addis Ababa three private schools in Addis Ababa. Un published MA thesis, Addis Ababa.
Tan, B. H. (2011). Innovative writing centers and online writing labs outside North America. Asian EFL Journal, 13(2), 391–418.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yusuf, Q., Jusoh, Z., & Yusuf, Y. Q. (2019). Cooperative learning strategies to enhance writing skills among second language learners. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1399–1412.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Effect of using Cooperative Learning Technique on EFL Students’ Writing Performance at University Level

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

1.2 Statement of the Problem

1.3 Objective of the study

1.3.1 General objective of the study

1.3.2. Specific objectives

1.4 Research Hypotheses

1.5. Significance of the Study

1.6. Scope of the Study

1.6. Limitations of the Study

2. Research Methodology

2.1. Research Paradigm

2.2. Research Design

2.3. Study Setting

2.4. Participants of the Study

2.5. Data Collection Instrument

2.6. Validity and Reliability of Data Collection Instrument

2.7. Procedure of the Experiment

2.8. Data Analysis

2.9. Ethical Considerations

3. Results

3.1. Inter-rater reliability

3.2. Results of the Pre-treatment and Post- treatment writing test

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

6. Recommendations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1