4.5 Article

Effect of student team achievement division through WebQuest on EFL students' argumentative writing skills and their instructors' perceptions

期刊

COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 275-300

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1558254

关键词

Active learning; argumentative writing; CALL; cooperative learning; ICT; STAD; STADIBTM; WebQuest

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effectiveness of integrating Student Team Achievement Division (STAD), a structured cooperative learning method, and WebQuest, an inquiry-based technological model (IBTM) on developing university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students' advanced-level argumentative writing skills and enhancing instructors' positive perceptions about teaching and learning. The study, which was undertaken over a 12-week academic semester, employed a mixed methods pre-test/post-test control/experimental group design whereby six intact rhetoric classes were randomly assigned to experimental and control conditions. The experimental group participants (N = 54) were enrolled in four classes and received argumentative writing instruction incorporating STADIBTM whereas their control group counterparts (N = 24) were enrolled in two classes and received the same argumentative writing instruction without STADIBTM. Four instructors who were involved with the experimental group received training on the implementation of STADIBTM. Qualitative data collection and analysis were utilized. The argumentative essay pre-tests and post-tests along with pre-treatment and post-treatment surveys were used to collect data. The quantitative results were evaluated using ANCOVA analyses. The findings showed that only the less skilled participants of the experimental and control groups were able to significantly improve their argumentative writing. However, their instructors were able to develop more positive pedagogical perceptions and perceived fewer challenges because of STADIBTM-based instruction. Further recommendations are given.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据