穨Review. Pdf

Table 4.17 Independent Samples Test of Motivational Change (N=70) 
Exp 
Control n 
MD 
t 
p 
Pre 
60.95 
57.12 
35 
3.82 
1.21 
.22 
Post 
65.00 
58.14 
35 
6.86 
2.15 
.03* 
* p < .05 
According to Table 4.17, the score of the pre-test of the motivational 
questionnaire of the experimental group was 60.95 and that of the control group was 
57.12. The mean difference between the two groups was not statistically significant 
(p=. 22). After the intervention of cooperative learning for one semester, the mean 
difference between the two groups in the post-test was 6.86, as shown in Table 4.17.
Such a mean difference was statistically significant (p=. 03). 
In sum, the results of the inter- and the intra-group comparisons of the 
motivational questionnaire indicated that the experimental group gained significantly 
in terms of their motivation toward learning English as a foreign language.
4.2.2 Results of Teacher Interview on Students’ Motivation 
Part of the rater interview was related to the students’ motivation toward learning, 
especially the raters’ observation about the experimental group that was not identified 
in the control group. The raters’ recollection responded to the quantitative findings 
of the motivational questionnaire presented above. Some of the raters mentioned 
something valuable that they did not find in the control group: the application of 
previous knowledge that the students demonstrated in the experimental group. As 
English teachers, they were particular delighted to find some students using 
expressions or words they learned from previous lessons or from other learning 
materials than their textbooks. As Ms. Tsai mentioned, the students in the 
experimental group applied what they learned in the previous lessons to their 
dialogues on the post-test, like “long time no see,” the names of animals, seasons, and 

---

107
food. She was very happy to see that some of the students were able to apply the 
expressions learned from previous lessons or from Let’s talk in English.
l I saw the application of what they learned outside the classroom to 
their performance this time. I felt that they really liked English.
Some students used the words from the menu of the McDonald’s, 
like ‘nuggets’ and ‘milk shake’ in their dialogues. It seemed to me 
that they were keen on English—even after class. I see real 
motivation here. (Ms. Chu) 
4.2.3 Ms. Lee’s Reflections 
Ms. Lee was also interviewed about her reflections upon the experimental group.
Some of her reflection helped to explain the statistical gain of the motivational 
questionnaire of the experimental group. 
First of all, she thought that cooperative learning helped her students to be 
attentive in class. She enjoyed this class because almost all of the students were 
attentive and engaged in class. She said: 
l I felt more relaxed and encouraged to teach this class [experimental group].
I did not have to spend a lot of time on classroom management. Because 
we had so many group activities going on in each class, the students became 
more and more creative, spontaneous, and most of all, attentive. Almost 
all of the students were on-task and engaged in class. There was hardly 
any students falling asleep, dozing off, or being absent-minded. I guess 
the group activities and the well-defined role assignment for each of them 
kept them very busy. They did not have time to “fool around” in class.
(Ms. Lee’s oral reflection made on June 01, 2001) 
Ms. Lee also mentioned that she learned a lot from the experimental group 

---

108
because of the execution of group presentation and group designing of vocabulary 
cards. During the time frame for the experiment, each group was to share some of 
the learning responsibilities in class that used to be sorely the teacher’s job. Because 
the students were supposed to share the learning responsibilities, they got the 
opportunities to exhibit their sub-culture in the classroom. Ms. Lee said that she 
learned a lot from her students’ presentations: 
l I never realized that teaching could be so enlightening and relaxing 
when my students started to share the learning and teaching 
responsibilities by drawing the vocabulary cards, working out group 
presentations, and most of all, the role play of the dialogue. I never 
realized that students could do so much on their own. Sometimes I 
learned a lot from the way they presented the teaching materials 
designed by them. I was thinking that I might never be as creative 
as they were. They were more sensitive to the blind spots or 
learning difficulties of their classmates’ than me. And they could 
use their own language to solve those problems for their classmates.
For example, they drew their favorite comic figures in the worksheet 
to practice the dialogue. I never thought of that before. I did not 
know the magic power of those comic figures. The worksheets I 
designed were not as attractive as theirs. And the vocabulary cards 
they drew were so funny and full of their own sub-culture . . . .
They proved that they had more potential than I expected. (Ms. 
Lee’s oral reflection made on June 01, 2001) 
As for the comments on the control group, her observations explained why the 
control group did not perform as well as the experimental group. She felt drained in 
the class because she was the only one to shoulder all teaching/learning 

---

109
responsibilities in this class. She had to do all the work by herself: trying hard to 
elicit student talk by appointing some students to talk and trying hard to maintain 
students’ attention. She said: 
l About two thirds of the students were afraid to talk in class. I had 
to try very hard to elicit their talk, sometimes by appointing 
someone to answer the questions. They were very passive and 
quiet. Maybe it was because they sat individually facing each 
other’s back and that made them feel uneasy or insecure to talk.
They were more anxious about making mistakes in front of the 
whole class. The role-play of the dialogue was therefore more 
mechanic and rigid. There was hardly any student-student 
interaction in and after class in this traditional learning context . . .
In such traditional classroom, I felt separated from my students . . . I 
needed to call so many students’ names to get their attention back to 
class. Many of them fell asleep or started daydreaming in the 
middle of class while I was lecturing. (Ms. Lee’s oral reflection 
made on June 01, 2001) 
Ms. Lee’s impressions about the students’ passivity and difficulty of paying 
attention in class in the control group might serve as a good explanation of why the 
control group did not gain significant difference in the motivational questionnaire.