穨Review. Pdf

4.5 Summary of the Results 
In this chapter, both the quantitative and the qualitative findings were presented 
to answer the research questions on (1) the effects of cooperative learning on the 
improvement of the EFL learners’ language ability in terms of the oral communicative 
competence and the school monthly achievement tests, (2) the effects of cooperative 
learning on the EFL learners’ motivation toward learning English as a foreign 
language, and (3) the effects of cooperative learning on the high- and low- achievers 
in a heterogeneous class. The results were summarized as follows: 
1. The experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group in 
terms of linguistic competence (p=. 00). The experimental group also gained 
significantly in the intra-group analysis of linguistic competence (p=. 00), while there 
was no significant gain identified in the control group (p=. 76). In addition to the 
comparison of the total scores, each score from the five grading criteria was also 
compared for inter- and intra-group analysis. The experimental group gained 
significantly on all of the five grading criteria (appropriateness, vocabulary, grammar, 
intelligibility, and fluency) while the control group only gained significantly on the 
items of grammar and fluency. 
2. The experimental group demonstrated better discourse competence by 
employing more discourse markers of openings, transitions, and pre-closings in their 
dialogues. Besides, the overall length of pause was shorter in experimental group 
than that in the control group. 
3. The experimental group outdid the control group in strategic competence by 
showing more verbal and nonverbal strategies to fix the communication breakdown 
occurred during their oral performance. 
4. The experimental group demonstrated better non-verbal competence by 

---

122
displaying more eye contact and smile during their oral performance. In addition, 
there were 13 students in the experimental group who kept appropriate conversational 
distance within 60-90 centimeters while there were only seven in the control group 
that did so.
5. No significant differences were identified in the three school-wide monthly 
examinations between the experimental group and the control group. In other words, 
the implementation of cooperative learning did not reduce the students’ academic 
achievements in the structure-based school monthly tests, as many teachers were 
worried. 
6. The experimental group gained significantly in terms of motivational change 
toward learning English before and after the study. There was no such significant 
difference identified in the control group. 
7. In addition to the whole-group comparisons, the 12 high-achievers and the 
nine low-achievers in both groups were also investigated on their performance in the 
three school monthly examinations and the oral tasks. The results showed that the 
high-achievers in the control group did not perform significantly higher than those in 
the experimental group in the structure-based school monthly examinations (p > .05).
On the other hand, the high-achievers in the experimental group performed 
significantly better in the post-oral task than those in the control group (p < .00).
Likewise, the low-achievers in the control group did not score significantly higher 
than those in the experimental group in the three monthly examinations (p> .05).
However, the low-achievers in the experimental group did score significantly better 
than those in the control group in the post-oral test (p< .05). Such results suggested 
that both the high- and low-achievers in the experimental group progressed 
significantly in their oral communicative competence while maintaining the similar 
academic achievements in the school-wide monthly examinations.

---

123