The Development of Reading Ability and Analytical Writing English of 6th Grade Students Based on Active Learning, Constructivist Theory, Task-Based Learning and Graphic Organizers
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purposes of this research were 1) to develop grade 6 students analytical English reading and writing by using learning management based on active leaning, constructivist theory, task-based learning, and graphic organizers with 75 efficiency criterion, 2) to compare the students English analytical reading and writing before and after learning by using learning management based on active leaning, constructivist theory, task-based learning, and graphic organizers, 3) to compare the students’ English analytical reading and writing by using learning management based on active leaning, constructivist theory, task-based learning, and graphic organizers and by using regular learning management, 4) to investigate the achievement motivation of the students learning English by using learning management based on active leaning, constructivist theory, task-based learning, and graphic organizers. The sample selected by cluster random sampling consisted of 17 grade 6 students from Municipal 5 (Sompphorn-Apaiso) School as the experiment group learning by using the learning approach in this research, and 25 grade 6/1 students from Municipal 2 School as the control group learning by using the regular learning management. The instruments used to collect the data included 1) the 30 item Analytical Reading and Writing Ability Test, 2) the 5-rating scale Achievement Motivation Evaluation Form comprising of 20 items. The information obtained was analyzed using mean, standard deviation, percentage, t-test (dependent sample), and t-test (independent sample. The results showed that 1) the overall students’ analytical English reading and writing ability before and after learning by using the learning management based on active leaning, constructivist theory, task-based learning, and graphic organizers was found to be 15.12 (50.40 percent) and 23.53 (84.43 per cent) respectively, which means that the percentage of the students’ analytical reading and writing ability after learning was found to be higher than proposed efficiency criterion of 75 per cent, 2) the amount of the students’ analytical English reading and writing ability after learning by using the learning management based on active leaning, constructivist theory, task-based learning, and graphic organizers was found to be higher than that of the students before learning with a significant difference at.05, 3) the amount of the students’ analytical English reading and writing ability after learning by using the learning management based on active leaning, constructivist theory, task-based learning, and graphic organizers was found to be higher that of the student learning by using the regular management with a significant difference at .05,4) the overall average of the amount of achievement motivation of the students learning English by using the learning management based on active leaning, constructivist theory, task-based learning, and graphic organizers before and after learning was found to be 3.10 and 3.84, which was at a medium and a high level respectively.
Downloads
Article Details
References
กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ. (2551). หลักสูตรแกนกลางการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐานพุทธศักราช 2551. ุกระทรงศึกษาธิการ.
ชลรดี ช่างทอง, ดรุณนภา นาชัยฤทธิ์ และทิพาพร สุจารี. (2562). การพัฒนาความสามารถด้านการอ่านและการเขียนภาษาอังกฤษ โดยใช้กิจกรรมการเรียนรู้แบบ SQ4R ร่วมกับแผนผังกราฟิกของนักเรียนชั้นประถมศึกษาปีที่ 4. วารสารสถาบันวิจัยและพัฒนา มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏชัยภูมิ, 1(1), 9-23. https://so10.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/rdicpru/article/view/113
เพ็ญนภา ทัพพันธ์ และภัทร์ธีรา เทียนเพิ่มพูน. (2561). การพัฒนาแบบฝึกเสริมทักษะการอ่านภาษาอังกฤษเพื่อความเข้าใจโดยใช้กิจกรรมการเรียนรู้แบบเน้นภาระงาน สำหรับนักเรียนชั้นประถมศึกษาปีที่ 6. การประชุมนําเสนอผลงานวิจัยระดับบัณฑิตศึกษา ครั้งที่ 13 ปีการศึกษา 2561. (1816-1827). บัณฑิตวิทยาลัย มหาวิทยาลัย รังสิต.
เยาวลักษณ์ ภวะโชติ. (2563). การพัฒนากิจกรรมการเรียนรู้แบบเชิงรุกประกอบกับชุดฝึกทักษะการสื่อสารภาษาอังกฤษที่ส่งเสริมผลสัมฤทธิ์ทางการเรียนและความคิดสร้างสรรค์ของนักเรียนชั้นประถมศึกษาปีที่ 5. e-Journal of Education Studies, Burapha University, 2(4), 53-65. https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ejes/article/view/242755
Balcan, M.F., Hanneke, S. & Vaughan, J.W. (2010). The true sample complexity of active learning. Springer, 111–139 . http://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-010-5174-y
Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H. & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for Collage Faculty (2nd ed) Wiley
Berry, W. (2008). Surviving lecture: A pedagogical alternative. Taylor and Francis Online 56(3), 149-153. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.56.3.149-153
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
Brown, A. & Green, T. D. (2011). The Essentials of Instructional Design: Connecting Fundamental Principles with Progress and Practice (2nd Ed), Allyn& Bacon.
Cook, J. L. & Cook, G. (2010). Child Development: Principles and Perspectives (2nd Ed), Pearson.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Gagnon, G. W. & Collay, M. (2006). Constructivist learning design: Key questions for teaching to standards. Corwin Press.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold.
Long, M, Wood., C., Littleton, K., Passeenger, T. & Sheehy, K. (2011). The Psychology of Education (2nd ed.), Routledge.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works?. Advances in Physiology Education, 50(4), 159-167. http://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutor’s written responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 379-394.