Achievement on English Grammar and Opinion Towards the Use of Teacher-Fronted Instruction and Peer Teaching Strategy
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Grammar is a necessary part of language learning, however; the previous studies showed that students were unmotivated to learn English grammar, so it decreased learning abilities in students. The purposes of this study were to investigate students’ achievement on English grammar and opinion towards the use of teacher-fronted instruction and peer teaching strategy. The participants were one experimental group consisting of 40 Matthayomsuksa 1 students from a medium sized secondary school in Yala province. An experimental design was used in this study. The instruments were grammar lesson plans, teaching task assignments, two English grammar tests, a questionnaire and in-depth interviews. The statistics used were mean ( ), standard deviation (S.D.), percentage and t-test. Qualitative data were categorized and summarized. The results were as follows: 1) In teacher-fronted instruction session, it was found that students who were peer teachers and peer learners could improve their grammatical scores significantly at the level of 0.01 even though the significant differences of progression level were not found. 2) In peer teaching strategy session, students who were peer teachers improved their achievement level of grammar significantly at the level of 0.01 while that of peer learners slightly increased. Results from the comparison of the two groups indicated no significant differences in progression. 3) There were highly positive opinions towards teacher-fronted instruction. 4) Students who acted as peer teachers were highly satisfied with their role and students who acted as peer learners were highly satisfied with their peers’ instruction. Further findings suggested that the factors that contributed towards effective English grammar learning.
Article Details
Copyright Notice articles, information, images, etc. was published in this Journal of Yala Rajabhat University is a copyright of the journal Yala Rajabhat University. If any person or deparment wants to bring all or part of it for publish or take any action. Authorization is required in written form from the Journal of Yala Rajabhat University only.
References
2. Conradie, C. I. (2013). Grammar-internal mimicking and analogy. Iconic Investigations, 12(1), 63-80.
3. Faculty of Education Chulalongkorn University. (2018). Problems and solution guidelines for current Thai education system. (2nd ed). Bangkok: Textbooks and Academic papers project Faculty of Education Chulalongkorn University. (in Thai)
4. Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (2007). Cooperative learning. In P. A. Mabrouk (ed.). Active learning: Models from the analytical sciences. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
5. Matden, K. & Charumanee, N. (2017). Ability and the relationships between grammar ability, reading and writing skills. Journal of Humanities Naresuan University, 14(2), 33-42. (in Thai)
6. Panawong, S. (2011). Active learning – the 21st-century teaching/learning approaches [Online]. Retrieve October, 9 2017, http://edu.nsru.ac.th/2011/files/knowlage/17-14-19_22-07-2014_2-1.pdf. (in Thai)
7. Phothongsunan, S. (2014). Beliefs about language learning: An EFL perspective. Journal of Yala Rajabhat University, 9(1), 57-64. (in Thai)
8. Rajkhowa, B., & Das, S. (2015). Competency of teaching English in Indian context: A situational analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(1), 71-77.
9. Tessier, J. (2004). Using peer teaching to promote learning in Biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 18-21.
10. Webb, N. M. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406-423.
