Acknowledgements

The researcher owes much gratitude to the supervisor Dr.Radhia

Matter for her generous encouragement and guidance, which have
facilitated the accomplishment of this study.

The researcher is grateful to the jury members for their remarkable

notes and recommendations. Also, the researcher expresses her sincere
gratitude to the Head of the department of Education and Psychology,
Dr.Layla Yousif Al-Haj Naji and to the Head of the department of
English, Dr. Lubna Riyadh.

Thanks are due to the Assistance Professor Mrs. Shatha Al-Saadi for
her noble help. Special appreciations are due to, Miss Nibras Abid, and to
Dr.Wijdan Abdul Ameir. Hearty thanks are due to my dear colleagues
Maysa Rashed and Ahlam Raoof. Finally, the greatest thanks are due to
my dear parents, my dear husband Salah Al-Kinani , sisters, and brothers
for their support.

A
 Abstract
The technology and the scientific developments in all fields of life
create the need and desire for preparing college students with high level
of competence in their fields. Over the past few decades, Cooperative
Learning (CL) emerged as one of the most successful leading approaches
in teaching strategies which served to facilitate teaching process, give
students more chances and roles to play, reduce the sense of competition
among students, and encourage the oral communication skills.

Teaching is a central activity to all schools, colleges, and universities.

Teaching Practice is one of the most important and complex subjects in
colleges of education, which has a great role in preparing future teachers.
The researcher intended to use CL as a teaching method - Group
Investigation technique - in teaching Teaching Practice. So, The study
aims at investigating the effect of Cooperative Learning on the English
Student Teachers’ (STs’) performance at the College of Education for
Women.
The study hypothesizes that:
1-There is no statistically significant difference at P 0.05 between the
mean scores of the experimental group; who was taught by the CL, and
that of the control group; who was taught by the traditional method
according to the achievement test.
2-There is no statistically significant difference at P 0.05 between the
mean scores of the experimental group and that of the control group
according to the performance evaluation.
The sample of the study consisted of 32 Student Teachers from the
department of English at the College of Education for Women, distributed
into each group, the experimental and the control .Both groups were

B
equalized in some important variables such as ;age ,parents’ level of
education, the third year scores in Methods of Teaching ,and the third
year averages.
Two instruments were used to measure the independent variables; n
test was constructed to measure the STs’ achievement, and an observation
checklist was also prepared to evaluate the STs’ performance. The tools
were exposed to jury members to verify their validity. The first version of
the achievement test was applied on a pilot sample of (60) STs to reckon
their reliability and estimate the discriminating power and level of
difficulty of the test items. Also, the observation checklist was applied to
(10) STs to achieve its reliability. Alpha Cronbach formula was used to
find out the reliability of the achievement test and Pearson Correlation
Coefficient was used to find out the reliability of the observation
checklist. They are (0.84) and (0.92) respectively.
The experimental design of the study is control and experimental
groups, posttest only. The experiment lasted for two semesters during the
academic year 2003 – 2004. It started on the 1 st of November 2003 and
ended on the 26th of April 2004. The researcher herself taught both
groups.
Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the results, which showed
that, according to the achievement test, there is no statistical difference
between the two groups. But according to performance, the results
showed the superiority of the experimental group.

In the light of the study findings, the researcher recommends using the
CL method in teaching performance as it appears to be more effective.
Finally, many studies are suggested to use different techniques .of CL
with different subjects and levels.

C
 CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements I
Abstract II
List of Abbreviations VIII
List of Figures IX
List of Tables X
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
1.1 Statement of the Problem and its Significance 1
1.2 Aims 4
1.3 Hypotheses 4
1.4 Limits of the Study 5
1.5 Value of the Study 5
1.6 Definition of Basic Terms 6
1.6.1 Cooperative learning (CL) 6
1.6.2 Students Teachers(STs) 7
1.6.3 Teaching Practice (TP) 7
1.6.4 Performance 8
CHAPTER TWO :Literature Review and Previous
Studies
2.1 The Concept of CL 10
2.1.1 Student –Centered Approach 12
2.1. 2 Active Learning 13
2.1.3 Learning by Experience 14
2.2 Principles of CL 15
2.3 Competition Vs Cooperation 19
2.4 Pedagogical and Theoretical Bases of CL 21
2.4.1 The Input Hypothesis 21
2.4.2 The Interaction Hypothesis 22
2.4.3 The Output Hypothesis 22
2.4.4 Motivational Theory 22
2.4.5 Sociocultural Theory 23
2.4.6 Cognitive Theories 23
2.4.7 Content -Based Interaction 24
2.4.8 Critical Theory 24
2.4.9 Individual Differences 25
2.4.10 The Learner’s Autonomy 25
2.4.11 Effective Factors 26
2.5 Techniques of CL 27
2.6 GI Technique 30
2.7 The Syntax of CL 32

D
2.8 The Goals of CL 33
2.9 The Learning Environment of CL 34
2.10 Selection of Instructional Material 34
2.11 Teacher’s Roles 35
2.12 Teaching Cooperation 37
2.12.1 Task Interdependence 37
2.12.2 Social Skills and Group Skills 37
2.12.2.1 Social Skills 37
2.12.2.2 Group Skills 39
2.13 Team Formation Issues 40
2.14 Management Tips 40
2.15 Recommended Tips 41
2.16 Assisting Group work 42
2.17 Learner Roles 42
2.18 CL Fitting 43
2.19 Assessment and Evaluation of CL 44
2.20 Advantages of CL 45
2.21 Teaching Practice (TP) 48
2.21.1 Deficiencies of (TP) 49
2.21.2 CL and TP 50
2.22 Previous Studies
2.22.1 Hussein (2001) 52
2.22.2 Al- Abeedo(2000) 53
2.22.3 Abid (1999) 53
2.22.4 Al-Khaiyat, and Ali(1999) 54
2.22.5 Al- Robaiy(1999) 55
2.22.6 Marti(1999) 56
2.22.7 Abu , and Flowers (1997) 56
2.22.8 Bonaventura(1987) 57
2.22.9 Discussion of the previous studies 58
CHAPTER THREE: Procedures
3.1 Introductory Note 60
3.2 Experimental Design of the Study 60
3.3 Population of the Study 61
3.4 Sample of the Study 61
3.5 Tools 61
3.6 Equivalence of the Sample 62
3.6.1 Age of the STs 62
3.6.2 Final Scores in Methods of Teaching in the Third 63
Year
3.6.3 Third Year Averages of the STs 63

E
3.6.4 Parents’ Level of Education 64
3.6.4.1 Fathers’ Level of Education 64
3.6.4.2 Mothers’ Level of Education 65
3.7 The Model Plan 67
3.7.1 The Construction of CL Lecture 67
3.7.2 The Study Equipment 68
3.7.3 The Instructional Period 69
3.7.4 The Instructional Material 69
3.8 The Achievement Test 71
3.8.1 Test Validity 71
3.8.2 The Pilot Administration of the Test 73
3.8.2.1 Time 73
3.8.2.2 Discriminating Power and Level of Difficulty of 73
the Test Items
2.8.2.3 Test Reliability 75
3.8.3 The Final Administration of the Achievement 75
Test
3.8.4 Scoring Scheme 75
3.9 The Observation Checklist 77
3.9.1 Validity of The Observation checklist 78
3.9.2 Reliability of the Observation Checklist 81
3.9.3 The Final Administration of the Observation 82
Checklist
3.10 Statistical Tools 83
3.10.1 Mann-Whitney Test for Two Independent 83
Samples
3.10.2 Chi-Square Equation 83
3.10.4 Difficulty Equation 84
3.10.5 Discriminating Equation 84
3.10.6 Pearson Correlation Coefficient 84
3.10.7 Alpha Cronbach Formula 85
CHAPTER FOUR :Results and Interpretations
4.1 Introductory Note 86
4.2 Results of the Study 86
4.3 Interpretation of the Results 89
CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions, Recommendation, and
suggestion for further studies
5.1 Conclusions 92
5.2 Recommendations 93
5.3 Suggestions for further studies 94
Appendices 95

F
Bibliography 115
Arabic in Arabic 125

List of Abbreviations

G
 CL Cooperative Learning
CLMs Cooperative Learning Methods
EL English Language
ESL English as a Second Language
FL Foreign Language
GI Group Investigation
JG Jigsaw
LES Limited English Speakers
NECI The New English Course for Iraq
ST Student Teacher
STAD Student Teams-Achievement Divisions
TBLT Task Based Language Teaching
TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Language
TFL Teaching Foreign Language
TGT Teams-Games-Tournaments
TP Teaching Practice
TSL Teaching Second Language

List of Figures

No. Page

Figure(1) Achievement Scores of the Experimental and 87

Control Groups.
Figure(2) Performance Scores for the Experimental and 88
Control Groups.

H
 List of Tables

No. Page
Table(1) The Experimental Design of the Study 60
Table(2) The Mean , Standard Deviation ,and Mann-Whitney 62
Value of the STs’ Ages.
Table(3) The Mean, Standard Deviation, and Mann-Whitney 63
Value of the STs’ Final Scores in Methods of Teaching
in the Third Year.
Table(4) The Mean, Standard Deviation, and Mann-Whitney 64
Value of the STs’ Averages in the Third Year.
Table(5) Frequency and Chi- Square Value for the Fathers’ 65

I
 Education of the STs.
Table(6) Frequency and Chi- Square Value for the Mothers’ 66
Education of the STs.
Table(7) The Syllabus Items and the Restricted Hours 69
Table(8) The Difficulty Level and the Discrimination Power of 74
the Achievement Test
Table(9) Achievement Scores of the Experimental and Control 76
Groups.
Table(10) The Face Validity of the Observation Checklist. 79

Table(11) Performance Scores of the Experimental and Control 82

Groups.

Table(12) Mann-Whitney Test between the Means of the 86

Experimental and Control Groups in Post
Achievement Test.

Table(13) Mann-Whitney Test between the Means of the 88

Experimental and Control Groups in the Post
Performance Evaluation.