CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In Malaysia, the education has gone through a lot of processes periodically especially in the 21st century. The government has invested a lot of money in the education sector which believe that education is a weapon to bring the development in line of need and inspiration to the society, country, nation and religion (M. Syarina, 2007). As a developing country, Malaysia has been through a lot of changes in development of education. For Malaysians, the education’s concepts are intellectual, spiritual, physical and emotional (JERI) which can create a society who has believe in God, good personality, self balance, self integrated, self concept and peaceful as pursuant to the National of Philosophy (NEP) 1987. With the status as a second language, English has become compulsory subject in all primary and secondary schools curriculum. The Cabinet Committee Report on review of the implementation of education policy 1979 states that the teaching of English is to enable all schools leavers to use English in certain everyday situations and work situations, it is also allow students to pursue higher education in the medium of English (KBSM). Nowadays, English is becoming increasingly important in information and communication Technology (ICT) as a global language. However, in Malaysia, many of the students have low proficiency in English. This situation can be seen obviously in rural area. The slow improvement in English language among students in rural areas has worried the government as it leads to high number of jobless percentage. As such, lack of cooperative learning during English class lesson should be taken into consideration as one of the factors which has influenced the English proficiency among the students. The revised curriculum of the primary and secondary schools emphasized the use of cooperative learning as an alternative to traditional method of teaching (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2001). Efforts should be taken now to direct the lessons away from the traditional methods to a more student cantered approach (Z. Effendi and I. Zanaton, 2006).
1.2 Background of Study
The study will be conducted in SMK Pengkalan Chepa 1 and SMK Pengkalan Chepa 2 in Kelantan. This study will focus on these two schools only. The sample of this study is Form 2 students of those particular schools. I will collect the data by using questionnaire. The questionnaire will be distributed to students who have had experienced participating in cooperating learning activities in class. The questionnaire that is constructed should be able to gain data regarding the usage of cooperative learning activities in English subject among secondary school students. This study also will take into account students’ opinion regarding cooperative learning as an alternative to traditional method and their role in assisting students’ learning.
1.3 Statement of Research Problems
In preparing the students of today to become successful individuals of tomorrow, English teachers need to ensure that their teaching is effective. The quality of education that teachers provide to student is highly dependent upon what teachers do in the classroom. According to Effendi and Zanaton (2006), in Malaysia, research on cooperative learning has been carried out since 1990s. Cooperative learning has proven able to increase students’ achievement in subject learning. However, in Malaysia, most of teachers prefer to use traditional method or teacher centered approach in their teaching as it is the fast way to complete the syllabus in time. In teacher-centered approach, teachers become the main sources of information. Students, on the other hand, become passive participants in the class. This situation is proven by the study done by Effendi and Zanaton (2006). They identify two pedagogical limitations as the major shortcomings in traditional secondary education: lecture-based instruction and...
References: 1) Ahmad F. 1995. ‘Group Discussion versus Individual Learning for Comparative Study in Reading Comprehension Class.’ Unpublished academic exercise: University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Faculty of Education.
2) Allwright, D
3) American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
4) Andrew M. Dahley. Academic article: ‘Cooperative Learning Classroom Research’. Retrieved October 16, 2010. From World Wide Web: http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~andyd/mindset/design/clc_rsch.html
5) Assinder, W
6) Chau, A. 1997. Engaging Independence Learners in Materials Design: A Case Study. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Department of English. Unpublished master’s thesis.
7) Cheah and Poon
8) Cotterall, S. 1995. ‘Developing a Course Strategy for Learner Autonomy’. ELT Journal 49/3: 219-27.
9) Dalton D. W. 1990. ‘The Effect of Cooperative Learning Strategies on Achievement and Attitudes during Interaction Video.’ Journal of Computer-based instruction, 17(1), 8-16.
10) English Cobuild Dictionary. Reverso.com. ‘Defination of Soft Skills’. Online Dictionary. Retrieved October 17, 2010. From World Wide Web: http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/soft%20skills
11) Funderstanding LLC
12) Gardner, D. and L. Miller. 1997. A Study of Tertiary Level Self-Access Facilities in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, Management Committee of Evaluation of the Students Experience Project.
13) Gillespie, J
14) Jack R. Fraenkel and Norman E. Wallen. 2009. ‘How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education’. 7th edition. Chapter 11: 216.
15) Johnson D. W, R. T. Johnson, and H. J. Holubec. 1988. Cooperation in the Classroom, rev. ed. Edina MN: Interaction Book Company.
16) Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia
21) Stacey Skoning. 2010. ‘Dancing the Curriculum’. Kappa Delta Pi Record; Summer 2010; 46, 4; ProQuest Education Journals. pg. 170
22) Ted Panitz
23) The Free Dictionary. ‘Definition of Cooperative Learning’. Online dictionary. Retrieved October 16, 2010. From World Wide Web: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cooperative+learning
24) Thompson, P
25) Tudge, J. R. H. 1992. ‘Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: a Vygotskian analysis’. Child Development 63: 1364-79.
26) Tudge, J
27) Webb N. M. 1983. ‘Predicting Learning from Students’ Interaction: Defining the Interaction Variable.’ Education Psychology, 18(1), 33-41.
28) Zarina Md Zin
Please join StudyMode to read the full document