Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Assistant Professor in Arabic Language and Literature, Farhangian University, Iran.
2 Associate Professor in education & Psychology, Urmia University, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor in Arabic Language and Literature, Bu-Ali Sina University, Iran.
Abstract
This study intends to compare the effectiveness of Jigsaw participatory and traditional approach teaching methods on the teaching of speaking and writing skills of Arabic language students of Farhangian University (a case study of Shahid Rajaee Campus of Urmia). The statistical population in this study includes all Arabic language students of Farhangian University of Shahid Rajaee campus in Urmia in the academic year of 97-96. The statistical sample of the study consists of 48 Arabic language students who were randomly assigned to two groups (24 experimental and 24 control groups). The experimental group participants received 12 sessions of Jigsaw participatory approach learning method, but the control group were taught using the traditional method of giving lectures. The research method is quasi-experimental and to achieve the research goals, a learning unit was developed based on the Jigsaw strategy and was implemented on the 24 students. A researcher-made test was used to collect the data. To examine the validity of the test, it was given to some professors specializing in the Arabic language teaching whose comments were applied after review. To analyze the data, MANCOVA and ANCOVA tests were run using SPSS software whose results showed that Jigsaw participatory teaching method has a statistically significant effect on the development of speaking and writing skills of Arabic students. Also, analysis of the data showed that there is a significant difference between the mean scores of students trained by the Jigsaw method in terms of their speaking and writing skills compared to those taught using the traditional method. Hence, the mean scores of the students in the experimental group in writing and speaking skills were (012/15) and (235/15), respectively while the mean scores of the control group were (35/13) and (164/14), respectively.
Keywords
)