| Literature DB >> 35783758 |
Yao Hong1, Ling-Ge Chen2, Jian-Hao Huang2, Yi-Ying Tsai3, Te-Yi Chang3.
Abstract
Oral proficiency is the core element of training courses for English tourist guides. This ability needs to be addressed in training program for English tourist guides. Cooperative learning method is widely used by educators as a teaching method, but rarely used to improve oral proficiency. A quasi-experimental design involving 60 participants was conducted to investigate and examine the effectiveness of cooperative learning method on the oral proficiency of learners in the English tourist guide training program. There were 30 learners in the control group and the experimental group, respectively. The experimental group adopted cooperative learning method, while the control group adopted traditional approach, in both of which pre-test and post-test were conducted. The results of the study showed that the impact of teaching with the cooperative learning method on the oral proficiency of learners of the training program for English tourist guides was higher than that of teaching with the traditional approach. The importance of the cooperative learning method in the training program for English tourist guides is highlighted as a reference for educational institutions.Entities:
Keywords: English tourist guides; cooperative learning method; oral proficiency; quasi-experimental design; vocational education and training
Year: 2022 PMID: 35783758 PMCID: PMC9245035 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866863
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Basic information of participants.
| Basic information | Group | Experimental group ( | Control group ( | ||
|
|
| ||||
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | ||
| Gender | Male | 23 | 76.7 | 24 | 80.0 |
| Female | 7 | 23.3 | 6 | 20.0 | |
| Age | 20–30 | 20 | 66.7 | 20 | 66.7 |
| 31–40 | 7 | 23.3 | 9 | 30 | |
| Above 41 | 3 | 10 | 1 | 3.3 | |
| Background | Without tourist guides working experience | 20 | 66.7 | 20 | 66.7 |
| With tourist guides working experience | 10 | 33.3 | 10 | 33.3 | |
FIGURE 1Research design of the study.
FIGURE 2Implementation procedures of the experimental group.
Definitions of grading criteria.
| Level | Foreign language expression ability | Pronunciation and intonation | Talent and insight |
| 0 | Silent and no responses to any questions | ||
| 1 | A very small bank of vocabulary and incorrect grammar | Too slow speaking rate, unclear pronunciation and incorrect intonation with many pauses | Unable to express perspectives completely |
| 2 | Limited amount of vocabulary and many grammatical errors | Slow speaking rate, poor pronunciation and disfluency of intonation with few pauses | Unable to express perspectives correctly |
| 3 | Inadequate vocabulary, able to use correct grammar frequently, and some grammatical errors | Slow speaking rate, understandable pronunciation while bizarre intonation | Able to express perspectives at least one idea with a few errors |
| 4 | Adequate amount of vocabulary, able to use correct grammar usually and few errors | Moderate speech rate, clear pronunciation and correct intonation | Able to express many perspectives with few errors |
| 5 | A large bank of vocabulary, and always able to use grammar correctly | Fluent speech, clear and precise pronunciation and very fluent intonation | Ability to express plenty of perspectives correctly and explain arguments in detail |
Grading criteria.
| Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Level 5 | |
| Foreign language expression ability (60 points) | 0 | 1-12 | 13-24 | 25-36 | 37-48 | 49-60 |
| Pronunciation and intonation (20 points) | 0 | 1-4 | 5-8 | 9-12 | 13-16 | 17-20 |
| Talent and insight (20 points) | 0 | 1-4 | 5-8 | 9-12 | 13-16 | 17-20 |
Summary of the test of homogeneity of within-group regression coefficient for oral proficiency.
| Source | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean sum of squares |
|
|
| Group | 0.024 | 1 | 0.024 | 0.013 | 0.909 |
| Pre-test | 814.974 | 1 | 814.974 | 436.514 | 0.000 |
| Group*Pre-test | 0.036 | 1 | 0.036 | 0.019 | 0.890 |
| Error | 104.552 | 56 | 1.867 | ||
| Corrected total | 5,164.433 | 59 |
Summary of post hoc comparison for oral proficiency.
| Source | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean sum of squares |
|
| LSD |
| Pre-test | 1,744.578 | 1 | 1,744.578 | 950.78 | 0.000 | Experimental group >Control group |
| Group | 11.605 | 1 | 11.605 | 6.325 | 0.015 | |
| Error | 104.589 | 57 | 1.835 | |||
| Corrected total | 5,164.433 | 59 |
Description of the participants in the pre-test and post-test of the oral proficiency.
| Group | Pre-test | Post-test | Post-test (corrected) | |||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Experimental group ( | 72.967 | 7.550 | 74.800 | 7.289 | 68.410 | 0.330 |
| Control group ( | 58.867 | 3.003 | 59.933 | 3.261 | 66.663 | 0.330 |