1. Measuring Students’ Readiness for L2 Group Work in a University in Japan Kumiko Fushino Temple University, Japan Campus, Graduate College of Education

2. Cooperative Learning Definition (Fushino) Principles and techniques that involve small groups as an instructional means so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning

3. Heterogeneous Grouping Making groups with students with diverse characteristics (e.g. academic abilities, races, genders, personalities) ↓ Usually, forming with students with diverse academic abilities

4. In College English Classes… a) Ability Grouping b) Unavailability of personal information other than sexes ⇩ Academically homogeneous students in a class (with the same nationality and L1) ⇩ How can we form heterogeneous groups?

5. Readiness for L2 Group Work  An alternative way to form heterogeneous groups Definition Learners’ self-perception of the degree to which they are prepared cognitively and affectively for L2 group work (Fushino)

6. Assumptions for RGW A) Students are at different levels of readiness for L2 group work. B) Students’ readiness for L2 group work can change as they work in groups over time C) Students will benefit from learning together with those who are more ready for L2 group work

7. Expectancy-value Theory (Another support) If people believe success in a given task (expectancy) and think it worth doing (value), ↓ they will likely be more motivated. (Wigfield, 2000; Wigfield & Eccles, 1994)

8. Components of Readiness for L2 Group Work A)Communication Competence in L2 Group Work B)Beliefs about Group Work

9. Purpose of the Study To investigate Japanese college students’ Readiness for L2 Group Work

10. Research Question 1 To what degree does the students’ readiness for L2 group work differ due to the type of course and proficiency grouping at the onset and the end of one semester?

11. Research Questions 2 To what degree does the students’ readiness for L2 group work change due to the type of course and proficiency grouping between the beginning and the end of one semester?

12. Method A)Research Period Spring semester, 2005 B)Research Site  English Classes in a prestigious, co-ed, university in Tokyo area

13. C)Participants  772 (367 males + 402 females)  1st-year students  Various majors  Two proficiency levels higher & lower (Placement test)  Two English courses Communicative Course Language and Culture Course

14. D)Questionnaire Administration Questionnaire 1: at the beginning of the semester Questionnaire 2: at the end of the semester

15. Analytical Methods  Factor Analysis Generalized least square extraction with promax rotation (Preliminary Analysis)  2 × 2 ANOVAs (RQ 1)  Mixed Between-within-subjects ANOVA (RQ 2)

16. Results Extracted Factors 1.Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work (α =.89) 2.Self-perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work (α =.90) 3.Beliefs of Group Work (α =.93) 4.Traditional Instruction Orientation (α =.86, all items were reverse coded) 5.Positive Beliefs about the Value of Group Work (α =.90) (α = Questionnaire 1 reliability)

17. Operational Definition of RGW Readiness for L2 Group Work (RGW) = Communication Confidence in L2 GW + Beliefs about L2 GW (Max = 10) Confidence = (Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work-R* + Self-perceived Communicative Competence in L2 Group Work) / 2 Beliefs = (Positive Beliefs about the Value of Group Work + negative Traditional Instruction Orientation + Beliefs of Group Work Usefulness) / 3 Note. *Communication Apprehension in L2 Group Work-R was reverse coded.

18. RQ1: Group Differences Descriptive Statistics for RGW (Questionnaire 1) LevelCoursenMSD HigherLAC1256.93.88 COM847.10.91 LowerLAC2476.68.89 COM1697.27.88

19. 2 × 2 ANOVA Results (Questionnaire 1) SourceSSdfMSFpη2η2 Observed Power Level.2691.27.34.559.001.090 Course19.251 24.44.000*.038.999 L × C5.981 7.60.006*.012.786 Error489.16621.79 Note. Computed using α =.05, R Squared =.071 (Adjusted R squared =.067), *p <.05.

20. Interaction of Level & Course RGW (Questionnaire 2)

21. Descriptive Statistics for RGW (Questionnaire 2) LevelCoursenMSD HigherLAC1227.15.86 COM787.22.96 LowerLAC2416.76.89 COM1607.42.95

22. 2 × 2 ANOVA Results (Questionnaire 2) SourceSSdfMSFpη2η2 Observed Power Level1.191 1.43.231.002.223 Course16.831 20.28.000*.033.994 L × C10.641 12.82.000*.021.947 Error495.43597.83 Note. Computed using α =.05, R Squared =.082 (Adjusted R squared =.078), *p <.05.

23. Interaction of Level & Course RGW (Questionnaire 2)

24. RQ1: Course Differences ◆ Summary Readiness for L2 Group Work: COM students > LAC students (Both Questionnaires 1 & 2) No statistically significant difference for Level Level × Course Interaction

25. RQ2: Time Differences Descriptive Statistics for RGW Time 1 Time 2 LevelCourseNMSDNM HigherLAC1226.92.891227.13.86 COM797.12.91797.22.96 LowerLAC2456.65.922456.75.91 COM1617.24.881617.40.88

26. Figure: Mean Differences

27. Mixed Between-Within- Subjects ANOVA Results SourceSSdfMSFp Partial η 2 Observed Power Between subjects Level1.861 2.11.147.003.305 Course37.181 42.09.000*.0651.000 L×C14.201 16.07.000*.026.979 Withinsubjects Time5.251 6.72.010*.011.735 T×L.051.07.796.000.058 T×C.071.09.766.000.068 T×L×C.521.67.413.001.129

28. Interaction of Course and Level in RGW

29. Changes in Readiness for L2 Group Work among the Higher and Lower Proficiency Students

30. Changes in Readiness for L2 Group Work among the Students in the LAC and COM Course

31. RQ2: Time Differences ◆ Summary All groups: Improved Readiness for L2 Group Work after one semester of English instruction The COM students: More ready for L2 Group work than the LAC students  This tendency unchanged

32. Discussion 1. Group Differences A. Course Differences Readiness: COM > LAC (Not Surprising) [Reason] 1) Items = related to oral production 2) Students knowing the course emphasis → Communicative oriented students (higher readiness) chose the COM course 3) COM students: more opportunities to interact  became more ready for L2 GW

33. B. Level × Course Interaction [Reason] Lower COM: the highest Readiness for L2 Group Work a) high RGW  chose COM course b) matched instruction to their preference Lower LAC: the lowest Readiness for L2 Group Work a) preference for acquiring receptive skills b) avoidance of interaction

34. 2. Time Differences A.Readiness for L2 Group Work: Time 1 > Time 2 [Reason] Effective English instruction to elevate Readiness for L2 Group Work ↓ However, More Closely looking at the results,

35. B. Communication confidence: Time 1 > Time 2 [Reason] a) English-only policy of the university b) Less anxiety provoking, relaxed classes

36. C. Beliefs about L2 Group Work: --No Change [Reason] a) Group work—Really cooperative? b) One semester—Too short for the change to occur? c) Decreased motivation?

37. Conclusion & Implications  Implications for Research on Readiness for L2 Group Work Readiness for L2 Group Work = New Concept  Stepping stone for more refinement

38.  Pedagogical Implications 1) RGW Questionnaire = a useful tool to form heterogeneous groups 2) Students’ Different degrees of RGW  Necessity of the training of working constructively together 3) Necessity of differentiated instruction based on the RGW 4)Students should be aware of their levels of RGW. 5)Students should know that RGW can changeable.

39. ◆ Conclusion  Grouping based on Readiness for L2 Group Work  an alternative way to form heterogeneous groups  Less ready students can learn more effective ways to participate in L2 group work from more ready students  Readiness for L2 Group Work Questionnaire = Useful tool to form heterogeneous groups

40. Thank you for your attention! Email: Kumiko-fushino290729@nifty.com