Developing cooperative learning in EFL - Английский язык - Дипломные работы

Developing cooperative learning in EFL

Загружено в:

29.06.2021

Скачано:

0

Размер:

79.5166015625 KB

Developing cooperative learning in EFL 1

CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………3 CHAPTER I. THE CONCEPT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ………… 1.1. Main peculiarities of cooperative learning ………………………………..6 1.2. Elements and types of cooperative learning……………………………..10 1.3. С reating cohesive learner group…………………………………………. 2 7 CHAPTER II. THE ADVANTAGES OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND RESEARCH FINDINGS…………………………………………………… 2.1. The advantages of cooperative learning…………………………………….. 30 2 .2. The role of teachers and students in cooperative learning……………………37 2.3. Research findings…………………………………………………………....44 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………….55 References …………………………………………………................................57 2

Introduction The actuality of the research. Cooperative learning promotes academic achievement, which is relatively easy to implement. Children's improved behavior and attendance, and increased interests for learning language at schools make this topic actual to investigate. While life is going on, education, depending on the demands of time, will gradually develop and renovate and as our previous president I. Karimov estimated, all of the nation hope that our future is in the hands of reliable youth. 1 In order to radically improve the system of higher education, to completaly re vise the content of cadres, to create the necessary conditions for the training of highly qualified specialists in accordance with the international standards, proceeding from the priorities of socio-economic development of the country have been doing much effort. Particularly, each higher education institution has established close cooperation with leading world scientific and educational institutions, introduces advanced teaching technologies, curricula and teaching materials based on international educational standards. 2 Investigation of the theme: The research is founded on fundamental works of well-known scholars such as Salomatov K.I, Hoshimov O. , Yoqubov I. Gillies R. M., Ashman A., and Terwel J., Hijzen D., Boekaerts M., and Vedder, P., Hilke E. V., Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T., & Stanne, M. B., Kagan S., Krashen S. D., & Terrell T. D., Liang X., Mohan B. A., & Early M., Long M. H., & Porter P. A., PavlenkoA., & Lantolf J. P., PicaT., Senge P., Sharan S., Shachar H., & Levine T., Sharan Y., Slavin R. E.,Swain M. , S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Vygotsky L.S.,Wheatley M. J. and many others. 1 I.A.Karimov “Uzbekistan is on the thre shhold of the XXI century”. Tashkent 1992.pp 1-5 2 Sh. Mirziyoyev. Oliy ta’lim tizimini yanada rivojlantirish chora-tadbirlari to‘g‘risida O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining qarori //xalq so’zi.- № 36 . 21.04.2017. 3

The aim of the theme. Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy involving children's participation in small group learning activities that promote positive interaction. This study discusses the reasons for using cooperative learning in centers and classrooms, ways to implement the strategy, and the long-term benefits for children's education. The object of the theme : building and promoting cooperation at primary schools The subject of the theme is cooperation building strategies, factors to make students learning language easy. The tasks of the theme . - To study, analyze, and sum up the role of cooperative learning in learning foreign languages; - To analyze the major results achieved in the studied field; - To examine the effects of cooperative learning instruction on the students' performance. It investigates whether students' engagement in interactive activities would have a positive impact and, thus, would improve their academic achievement. The methodological ground of the theme consist of the theoretical books and scientific articles of scientists and linguists in the sphere of linguistics, methodology, psychology, socio-linguistics etc. The following methods of inquiry were used in research work: comparative and qualitative analysis. Theoretical significance of the theme. The purpose of this paper is to improve teaching methods to obtain satisfactory learning results. In addition, we want our learners to be as proficient and accurate as possible when expressing themselves, either in writing or in speaking. Moreover, we aim at facilitating the acquisition of the English temporal system and reducing as much as possible learners' errors. Practical significance of the research . The results and conclusion of this research can be applied in the sphere of methodology. It can be used at the lessons of different level students, in special courses on methodology, scientific articles, 4

broadening students’ outlook and for the further investigation of the problems of acquiring a new language. The structure of the research work. The research work consists of Introduction, 2 Chapters, Conclusion and references. The introduction covers actuality, the aim, practical and theoretical significance, object and the subject, methods of research and the structure of the research. Chapter I. deals with theoretical part of the research while Chapter II of the work covers the elements, types, advantages of cooperative learning, the role of teacher and student in cooperative learning. The results and recommendations of the research are given in conclusion. References indicate the scientific issues, articles and thesis that were used in doing research work. 5

CHAPTER I. THE CONCEPT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING 1.1. Main peculiarities of cooperative learning Cooperative learning (CL) involves pupils working together in small groups to accomplish shared goals. These are firstly interdependence, where members of the group perceive that they cannot succeed in a task unless everyone succeeds, and that every member has a vital role to play. The second key ingredient consists of ensuring the necessary conditions for cooperative learning to thrive. This is termed as promotive interaction, which occurs when individuals encourage each other to achieve group goals underpinned by interpersonal and small group skills. Cooperative learning promotes academic achievement, is relatively easy to implement. Children's improved behavior and attendance, and increased liking of school, are some of the benefits of cooperative learning 3 (Slavin, 1987). Although much of the research on cooperative learning has been done with older students, cooperative learning strategies are effective with younger children in primary and secondary classrooms. In addition to the positive outcomes just noted, cooperative learning promotes student motivation, encourages group processes, fosters social and academic interaction among students, and rewards successful group participation. When children begin to work on readiness tasks, cooperation can provide opportunities for sharing ideas, learning how others think and react to problems, and practicing oral language skills in small groups. Cooperative learning in early childhood can promote positive feelings toward school, teachers, and peers. These feelings build an important base for further success in school. Encouraging cooperation between students is such a powerful means of increasing student motivation. Basically, cooperation is a definite `plus'. Studies from all over the world are unanimous in claiming that students in cooperative 3 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 6

environments have more positive attitudes towards learning and develop higher self-esteem and self-confidence than in other classroom structures. Educational theory has even proposed a teaching approach, called cooperative learning, which is entirely built on the concept of peer collaboration, and this approach, according to Slavin has been `one of the greatest success stories in the history of educational research'. In the L2 field, various forms of peer cooperation have become well- established techniques (e.g. small group activities or project work in the spirit of communicative language teaching), which is due to the fact that peer interaction is seen in modern language teaching methodologies as a prerequisite to building the learners' communicative competence. 4 What are the reasons for the very favourable impact of cooperation on motivation? There are several: - Cooperation fosters class group cohesiveness . When students work together they tend to like each other regardless of ethnic, cultural, class or ability differences. This is because in cooperative situations students are dependent on each other and share common goals, which in turn create a feeling of solidarity and comradely supportiveness. . If learners are allowed to cooperate with each other towards a certain goal, their expectancy of success is likely to be higher than if they are to work individually because they know that they can also count on their peers. The cooperating team is a powerful resource pool. - Cooperative team work achieves a rare synthesis of academic and social goals (which was argued in the previous section to be the ideal combination from a motivational perspective): it tends to be effective in terms of learning, and it also responds directly to the students' needs for belonging and relatedness. - In cooperative situations there is a sense of obligation and moral responsibility to the `fellow-cooperators'. This means that peers are likely to pull each other along when motivation would be otherwise low. The joint responsibility 4 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 7

also means that in such setups the likelihood of `free-riding' (i.e. doing very little while reaping the benefits of others' performance) decreases. - Cooperation is also motivating because the knowledge that one's unique contribution is required for the group to succeed increases one's efforts. Cooperative situations generally have a positive emotional tone, which means that they generate less anxiety and stress than other learning formats. - Cooperative teams are by defition autonomous (because they have to work a lot without the immediate supervision of the teacher), and autonomy is a powerful contributor to motivation . The satisfaction that students experience after they successfully complete a task together is increased by the shared experience and the joint celebration that usually follows. - Cooperative situations increase the significance of effort relative to ability, because in team work the main characteristic people are judged by is their commitment to the team. This, in turn, promotes effort-based attributions, which will be a central issue of self-evaluation. What are the key features of effective cooperative tasks? The following points are most often mentioned in teachers' accounts and research papers: 1. Learners should work together in small groups of 3±6 members. 2. Learning is structured in a way that group members are `positively interdependent', that is, rely on each other to be able to complete the task. This can be achieved in several ways: - Learners work towards a single team product (e.g. joint performance). - In addition to individual grades, some sort of team score is also calculated, and it is used to modify the individual scores (e.g. when a team has prepared together for a test which the students take individually, the individual test marks will be modified by taking into account the team's average score). - Specific roles are assigned to every team member so that everybody has a specific responsibility (e.g. `explainer', `summariser' or `note-taker'). 8

- Resources are either limited so that they need to be shared (e.g. one answer sheet per team) or they are such that they need to betted together (e.g. everybody receives a different section of an article). - Certain class rules are set that emphasise team responsibility (e.g. no one can proceed to some new material before everybody else in the team has completed the previous assignment). 3. Learners should be given some advance training of group skills (e.g. listening to each other; giving reasons in arguments; organising and coordinating the team's work) and they should be asked to react from time to time on how the cooperative work has gone and what could be improved. Increase student motivation by promoting cooperation among the learners. More specifically: - Set up tasks in which teams of learners are asked to work together towards the same goal. - Take into account team products and not just individual products in your assessment. Provide students with some `social training' to learn how best to work in a team. In short, cooperative learning, in contrast to teacher-fronted instruction, provides the possibility of a large increase in students' opportunities to create output, as many students are talking simultaneously, instead of one person, normally the teacher, doing all the talking (Long & Porter, 1985) 5 . In cooperative learning, group interaction is structured in an attempt to balance the opportunities that each student has for creating output. This contrasts with the situation often seen in group activities in which more student talk exists, but a relatively small group of students take most of the speaking turns. Groupworking is one which is `together'; in which there is a strong `we' feeling; and which students are happy to belong to. That is, cohesiveness refers to the members' commitment to the group and to each other. It is the `magnetism' or `glue' that holds the group together. Cohesiveness is often 5 Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228. 9

manifested by members seeking each other out, providing mutual support, and making each other welcome in the group. 1.2. Elements and types of cooperative learning Cooperative learning (CL) has been described as one of the most widely investigated educational approaches 6 . Hundreds of studies have cited its benefits, and Johnson and Johnson 7 , Slavin and Sharan have produced extensive reviews of these: According to Johnson and Johnson 'Surprisingly, although cooperative learning is believed to be the most effective among three primary styles of teaching and learning (individualistic, competitive, and cooperative), it remains the least used in classroom settings' . Applied to the classroom, Cohen 8 defined cooperative learning as: 'Students working together in a group small enough that everyone can participate on a collective task that has been clearly assigned. Moreover, students are expected to carry out their task without direct and immediate supervision of the teacher.' This definition sets out three key components: 1. The size of the group: small enough to be conducive to everyone participating in a joint task. 2. The task should be carefully structured and jointly undertaken by members of the group. 3. The group should be able to work independently of the teacher. A definition by Veenman, Kenter and Post,states: 6 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 7 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). "Cooperative learning methods: A meta- analysis." [Retrieved July, 2000]: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html. 8 Cohen S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, Ca: Kagan Publishing 10

'CL refers to any of a variety of teaching methods in which pupils are placed in small groups to help one another learn academic content. ' This indicates that cooperative learning is a broad concept with a range of methods; the key factor being that pupils are placed in small groups and help one another with academic tasks. Johnson and Johnson 9 state simply that 'cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals'. The key aspects concern joint working with a shared purpose.It is also important to clarify the distinction between cooperation and collaboration; terms which are often used interchangeably, but which have different meanings. Collaborative learning includes the notion of pupils working together on a shared project. However, what distinguishes cooperative learning is the element of interdependence that exists in the group. Indeed, there seems to be common agreement from the major instigators of, and researchers into, cooperative learning (e.g. Johnson and Johnson, Slavin, Kagan, Cohen, and Sharan) that for learning to be cooperative it must include certain elements. The crucial aspects that are needed for CL according to Johnson and Johnson (2000, 2005), Slavin (1995), Kagan (1994), Cohen (1994a), Sharan & Sharan (1992, 1994)) are: • interdependence (often termed 'positive interdependence'). This is where group members perceive that they are linked with each other and one cannot succeed unless everyone succeeds. Another aspect of positive independence is individual accountability, where each member of the group must be accountable for his or her share of the work. • 'promotive interaction' which provides the conditions for CL to thrive, and occurs when individuals encourage each other to achieve group goals. This in turn incorporates group and individual reflection where groups monitor and assess their functioning underpinned by the necessary social and small group skills. These skills need explicit teaching; for example, the skills of encouragement, management communication and conflict control. 9 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). "Cooperative learning methods: A meta- analysis." [Retrieved July, 2000]: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html. 11

From the foregoing, the definition of cooperative learning underpinning this research will therefore be: pupils working together in small groups on a joint task which ensures interdependence and promotive interaction, underpinned by the pre-requisite small group and social skills. A range of different approaches to CL have emerged. These vary in essence from those that present strategies that are applicable across the curriculum and age ranges, to those that are embedded within a defined curriculum. Nevertheless, certain essential ingredients are common to all. Johnson et al (1994) set out two basic elements which include positive interdependence, derived from the social interdependence theory, and which has expanded to include individual and group accountability. The other key element: promotive interaction provides the conditions for CL to thrive. It occurs when individuals encourage each other to accomplish the group's goals, which in turn require the appropriate use of social skills and the ability to reflect on, and improve them. As these elements form the bedrock of CL, it is necessary to review them in greater depth: Positive interdependence. This is the core element of CL, i.e. the whole group does not succeed without every member contributing (an 'all for one - one for all' attitude is required). This is group accountability. This results from mutual goals and it can be structured in three ways: outcome, means and boundary. Therefore, to be interdependent pupils need to be orientated to a desired joint outcome or goal. Means interdependence includes resources, role and tasks. Thirdly the boundaries that exist among individuals and groups can define who is interdependent with whom and has links to a group's cohesion. A number of studies showed that knowing that one's performance can affect others increases a sense of responsibility to perform (Lew et al 1986, Johnson and Johnson, 1991). As Johnson and Johnson (2008: 22) point out 'Failing oneself is bad, but failing others as well as oneself is worse.' Individual accountability. Another aspect of positive interdependence is that of individual accountability. An individual must be committed to his or her own 12

learning and that of the group. This exists when the performance of each individual member of a group impacts on others and the individual is held accountable by other members, for contributing his or her fair share to the group's success. Hooper et al (1989) found that cooperation resulted in higher achievement when individual accountability was ensured, than when it was not. Increasing individual accountability also impacts on interdependence amongst a group. One factor that has been shown to impact on individual accountability, is the size of the group and as team size increases, accountability reduces . Promotive Interaction. Promotive Interaction provides the conditions for positive interdependence to occur. It occurs as individuals encourage each other's efforts to achieve joint goals. It is characterised by Johnson and Johnson: • providing each other with support and assistance • exchanging needed resources • providing each other with feedback • challenging each other's decisions and reasoning • encouraging each other to exert effort • influencing each other's efforts to achieve goals • acting in trusting and trustworthy ways • being motivated to work for mutual benefit • having low levels of stress and anxiety when supported by others • having a clearer view of the perspectives of others Johnson and Johnson also set out key aspects of promotive interaction to include: 1. Group and individual reflection - groups learn to monitor and assess their own functioning. The process of reflecting on group effectiveness has been shown to support greater cooperation. Group processing may be defined as reflecting on a group session to first describe what actions by members were helpful or not, and second, to decide on what to change to continue for the group's further success. 13

2. Small group skills - these need to be explicitly taught and involve the skills of encouragement, management, communication and conflict control. The need for interpersonal and small group skills is the bedrock of working cooperatively. These need to be clearly taught and pupils need to be motivated to use them. In particular, group members must: • get to know and trust each other • communicate effectively with each other • accept and support each other • be able to resolve conflicts constructively 3. Face-to-face interaction - this involves ensuring the physical layout of the classroom is conducive to CL These key elements vary according to different researchers into CL (for example, Slavin, 1996, Kagan, 1994), although there is common agreement on the vital ingredients of positive interdependence and individual accountability (Cooper & Mueck, 1992; Cottell & Millis, 1992; Slavin, 1992). Slavin describes the importance of 'group goals and individual accountability' 10 although he stresses that CL has most impact when groups are rewarded 'based on the individual learning of their members' 11 . Kagan (1994) cites three main principles: simultaneous interaction (pupils are able to interact with each other simultaneously, rather than the traditional classroom situation where the teacher and one pupil at a time interacts); positive interdependence and individual accountability (as described above). He also states the importance of teachers fully understanding these basic principles in order to succeed in the use of CL. According to Johnson and Johnson 12 there are ten types of CL as most widespread: 1. Learning together and alone 10 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 11 Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, Ca: Kagan Publishing 12 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). "Cooperative learning methods: A meta- analysis." [Retrieved July, 2000]: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html. 14

2. Teams – games – tournaments 3. Group investigation 4. Constructive controversy 5. Jigsaw procedure 6. Student Teams achievement divisions 7. Complex Instruction (CI) 8. Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) 9. Cooperative Learning Structures 10. Cooperative Integrated Reading & Composition (CIRC) The following section discusses these, together with the main research findings for each. Learning Together (Johnson and Johnson, 1975) This method when it was first developed did not set out specific detail for implementation. It was typically described as a method in which: 'students worked as a group to complete a single group product, shared ideas and helped each other with answers to questions, made sure all members were involved and understood group answers, and asked for help from each other before asking the teacher, and the teacher praised and rewarded the group on the basis of the group performances' 13 Developing on this, Johnson and Johnson set out 18 specific steps for implementation for teachers: 1. Teaching objectives should be specified. 2. Groups need to be limited to no more than six (later recommendations were of four). 3. Groups should be heterogeneous in terms of ability, sex and ethnicity. 13 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). "Cooperative learning methods: A meta- analysis." [Retrieved July, 2000]: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html. 15

4. Groups should be arranged in circles to help communication. 5. Materials should promote interdependence, such as only one copy of materials per group, to facilitate sharing. 6. Roles should be assigned to pupils in groups to ensure interdependence. 7. The task must be clearly structured and explained. 8. Positive goal interdependence should be structured, i.e. by the group producing a single product. 9. Individual accountability should be ensured so that all members of the group contribute. 10. Inter-group cooperation should be provided. 11. The criteria for success should be explained. 12. The desired behaviours should be stated from a clear hierarchy of skills. 13. Pupils' behaviour should be monitored continually. 14. Task assistance should be provided. 15. Intervention to teach collaborative skills should be provided where necessary. 16. Closure to a lesson should be provided with summaries by pupils and the teacher. 17. The pupils' work should be evaluated. 18. Group functioning should be assessed by ongoing observation and discussion of group process. In Learning Together , Johnson and Johnson also set out three key types of cooperative learning groups. Firstly, formal cooperative learning groups which last from one lesson to several weeks in which groups are established and roles assigned within groups. Secondly, informal cooperative learning groups which are ad hoc groups that can last from a few minutes to a whole lesson and typically consist of turn to your partner type activities. Thirdly, cooperative base groups which are long term (usually lasting for an academic year) heterogeneous groups with stable membership where relationships are clearly established. 16

This approach also sets out a developmental approach for teachers, from initial use to 'mechanical use', using particular guidance; to finally 'routine use' where 'teachers automatically structure cooperative learning situations without conscious thought or planning' . This process, Johnson and Johnson state, may take up to two years. Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) (Devries & Edwards, 1974). In this approach, members of each group complete a drill with the computer, which is accompanied by discussion in groups and then pupils compete in teams. This process goes on for some time with the top scoring student in each team moving to a group of higher achieving students, and the bottom scoring student moving down a group. Prizes are awarded at the end of the tournament. In a comparison of classes where prizes were awarded individually against another with prizes for top scoring groups, (Devries & Edwards, 1974), the class with the combined individual and group rewards did significantly better 14 . This method is complex to organize and has more limited application to different ages of pupils and different areas of the curriculum. In addition, the introduction of a highly competitive element in this method of CL is the subject of considerable debate, centering on the use of intrinsic rather than extrinsic rewards (Johnson and Johnson, 1989, Brown and Thomson, 2000). Johnson and Johnson found that: 'Striving for mutual benefit results in an emotional bonding with collaborators liking each other, wanting to help each other succeed, and committing to each other's well-being. These positive feelings toward the group and the other members may have a number of important influences on one's intrinsic motivation to achieve and actual productivity'. 15 14 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). "Cooperative learning methods: A meta- analysis." [Retrieved July, 2000]: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html. 15 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). "Cooperative learning methods: A meta- analysis." [Retrieved July, 2000]: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html. 17

In contrast, in competitive individualistic situations, the motivational system promoted is predominately extrinsic reward, such as recognition for individualachievement. This key difference in introducing competition into CL is found in other forms of CL as will be discussed later. Group Investigation - Yael and Shlomo Sharan (1994) 16 . In this version, CL centres on a problem-solving approach which has four elements, combined simultaneously: 1. Investigation: this refers to the organisation and procedures necessary for carrying out inquiry-based learning. 2. Interaction: this identifies the interpersonal, or social, dimension of the learning process. 3. Interpretation: this occurs between group members and on an individual cognitive level, as the pupils co-construct knowledge. Individuals' understanding is enhanced by joint interpretation. 4. Intrinsic motivation: this refers to the engagement and emotional involvement of pupils in the topic. The goal is to trigger personal interest in the subject and thus motivated to carry out the task. This approach encourages higher-order thinking skills by comparing, contrasting and integrating a range of ideas, concepts and findings. Pupils are encouraged to take an active part in planning their learning goals and thus gain more ownership over the learning. The stages in which this approach is carried out are as follows: Stage 1: Class decides on subtopics and organises into research groups Stage 2: Groups plan their investigations Stage 3: Groups carry out their investigations Stage 4: Groups plan their presentations Stage 5: Groups make their presentations 16 Sharan, S., Shachar, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. 18

Stage 6: Teacher and pupils evaluate their projects A study by Sharan & Shachar (1988) where the teachers used the method for several months before beginning to research the impact, found very large positive effects 17 . This approach is suitable for open-ended problem-solving tasks and requires a clearly staged approach which could be highly suitable for some curriculum areas. There are, however, limitations in the age groups for which this is suitable, as it requires pupils to take considerable responsibility for deciding how to go about their learning. Constructive Controversy (Johnson and Johnson, 1995) Johnson and Johnson state that 'creating intellectual conflict (controversy) to improve academic learning is one of the most powerful and important instructional tools' . 18 The format for structuring this approach consists of: 1. A topic is selected by the teacher which can be divided easily into two clear positions (for and against). 2. Pupils are placed in groups of four, divided into two pairs, with each pair given a 'for and against' position. 3. Each pair then learns the position and arguments, researches further information, and prepares a series of persuasive arguments. 4. The teacher emphasizes the importance of reaching a consensus. 5. Each pair presents its position. 6. Discussion time is provided with pairs asking for evidence for the differing positions. 7. The pairs reverse the positions and present the opposite arguments. 7. The groups then reach a decision by consensus followed by either writing a group report or take a test on both positions individually. 17 Sharan, S., Shachar, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. 18 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). "Cooperative learning methods: A meta- analysis." [Retrieved July, 2000]: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html. 19

Johnson and Johnson, (1995) report that pupils derive many academic and social benefits from participating in such controversies, however this approach is only suitable to certain types of activity or curriculum area. This method also could only be used by older children with the skills and maturity to carry out such tasks. Jigsaw - is one of the earliest of the cooperative learning methods to be used. In Jigsaw, each pupil in a small group is given unique information on a topic studied by the whole group. After pupils have studied their sections, they reform in 'expert groups' with their counterparts from other groups to discuss the information. Next, the pupils return to their groups and teach their team mates what they have learned. In this way each member of the home group plays a vital role and the group cannot succeed unless everyone contributes. The findings by Aronson et al (1978) showed five major benefits when using the jigsaw technique. Firstly, pupils showed increased likely for team-mates without decreasing their liking for others in the classroom. Secondly, both white and black children showed increased liking for school than in competitive classrooms. Thirdly, it increased self-esteem and fourthly, pupils cooperated more and viewed others in the class as a learning resource and finally pupils showed improved academic achievement and this was maintained. Bottery reported similar findings working in an inner-city primary school in the north of England. He also noted that 'the almost total absence of 'chalk and talk' by the teacher allowed the children to feel much more active and important in the learning process' . Various models of Jigsaw have been explored, which demonstrate that they create positive interdependence and individual accountability. However, this method can be complex to organise in terms of materials, and it may work better for some topics (e.g. those that are sequential) than for others. An adaptation of Elliot Aronson's Jigsaw technique (1978), called Jigsaw II involves pupils working in four-member, heterogeneous teams as in Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), discussed below. They read narrative materials and each member is given a special area in which to become an expert. 20

They then work with other experts from other teams on the same material and return to teach the topic to their fellow team members. This is followed by an assessment of some form for the whole team. Individual successes are thus dependent on the contribution of each member. Studies of the success of this method have shown that there were significant positive effects particularly in certain subjects, e.g. geography (Mattingly and Van Sickle, 1991) with no significant improvement in other areas. Student teams (STAD) - Robert Slavin (1985). 19 Student team learning methods incorporate the concept of individual accountability and equal opportunity to succeed, but also include the use of team rewards. Teams usually consist of four members who are mixed in gender, ability and ethnicity. The teacher presents the lesson, and then pupils work in teams to ensure that all members have mastered the objective. Pupils then take individual tests on the material and scores are averaged for teams and compared with past scores, with teams rewarded for meeting certain criteria. Slavin (1983a) conducted 46 experiments in elementary and secondary schools in the United States and control groups showed a favourable effect in a large number of these experiments. Of 29 separate studies on STAD (reported in detail in Salvin 1996:20), 69% were found to have significant positive effects and no effects were negative. The introduction of competition between teams has led to fierce debate, as discussed previously, for although Slavin holds that some form of reward is necessary to maintain motivation, Johnson and Johnson (1989) and Brown and Thomson (2000) hold that competition is not an essential requirement and state: 'The introduction of competition seems more likely to lead to performance goals rather than mastery goals as well as encouraging extrinsic motivation.' 20 19 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 21

Complex Instruction - Cohen 21 has incorporated various multiple intelligence factors into tasks so that all members of the class may have an opportunity to contribute. In this way, Cohen has sought to address the issue of perceived pupil status. Cohen et a l (1999) argue that complex instruction alleviates these problems. Research by Cohen and Lotan (1997) showed that using curricula specially designed for complex instruction, students gained significantly more than students in comparison classes on questions requiring higher-order thinking, although not on factual recall. These activities fit the need for cooperative learning tasks to be open-ended which then increases the need for interaction. It also provides for multiple-ability tasks which needs the teacher to 'convince their students that there are different ways to be 'smart'' , although these will not solve status problems which may be based on race or gender. Nevertheless, complex instruction offers two strategies to minimise status problems: 1. The multiple-abilities treatment. This concerns broadening conceptions of being 'smart'. It is grounded in the teacher's public recognition of the wealth of intellectual abilities and the value given to them. A task would begin by stating the different skills and abilities necessary for completion and pupils are convinced that the task is different to ones they traditionally complete in the classroom. Pupils are reminded that no one has all the abilities necessary. 2. Assigning competence to low-status pupils. This must be a public statement that recognises the different contribution that different pupils make. It is a positive evaluation that is specific that tells the pupil and group exactly what he or she did well. It must also make the intellectual ability demonstrated relevant to the work of the group. It is strongest when it is made on the spot during group work. Cohen found that it is easier for teachers to take notes on pupils' contributions and assign competence later, perhaps during a plenary, or at the start of another 20 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 21 Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. 22

lesson. To be effective, it requires a thorough knowledge of pupils' abilities by the teacher. Complex Instruction requires a different classroom management system where authority is delegated to the group. This is helped through particular strategies such as activity cards for the task, stating specific cooperative learning behaviours necessary for the task and a set of procedural roles for each member of the group. The process of developing complex instruction says Cohen 22 takes a long time. She recommends a staff development process that takes a year to provide teachers with the theoretical understanding and practical experience necessary to maintain high quality implementation. During the following school year, researchers follow the teachers into the classrooms and provide feedback. Teachers then receive further training for two days mid-year, during which time they look at status problems in more depth and, in small groups, teachers reflect on the social structure of their own classrooms. This approach is, as its name implies, complex. It requires time to implement and a detailed knowledge by the teachers of the pupils in their classes to work effectively. There may also be limitations of application to different age groups and types of task. Team-Assisted Individualisation or Team-Accelerated Instruction (TAI ) TAI was designed by Robert Slavin (1985) to combine the motivational aspect of group rewards with an individualised instruction programme appropriate for the level for each pupil. This method consists of small heterogeneous groups with each pupil working on an individualized unit of work. Team members check each other's answers and help each other to take a test through discussion and peer tutoring. Team scores are then compiled from average marks over a period with teams whose scores reach a certain level, receiving a group reward in the form of a certificate. Six studies reported by Slavin (1996) all found statistically significant positive effects on comprehension, or in mathematics tests, using this method. 22 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 23

This method provides a bridge from paired to small group work, and requires considerable interpersonal and small group skills from pupils, to work effectively. In addition, the contentious aspect of competition between groups is introduced. The Structural Approach - Spencer Kagan (1994) 23 . Kagan has devised structures, or social interaction sequences, which enable the teacher to transform existing lessons into a cooperative format by using simple strategies. These strategies, or structures, are content-free mechanisms and widely transferable across the curriculum, an example being, think-pair-share, where pupils are asked a question, given time to think; then they discuss with a partner before sharing with the class. Another example is 'numbered heads' where each member of the team is given a number and then they are asked to find the answer to a particular question or problem. After an allotted time, the teacher selects one member of the team by calling out a number, to explain the answer. In this way every member of the team has to be prepared to answer and is encouraged to contribute to the team. He identifies six primary purposes for the structures: (i) class-building (ii) team-building (iii) communication (iv) information-sharing (v) mastery (vi) concept development/thinking skills Kagan has also developed a particular cooperative learning strategy called 'Co op Co-op' which was designed for training teachers. This involves training in the basic principles and philosophy followed by steps which resemble the Group Investigation approach (Sharan and Sharan, 1994). One difference is that the teams work together to produce something that is of benefit to the whole class. The 23 Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, Ca: Kagan Publishing 24

method is designed to be flexible, although it is easiest to use with university level students. This adaptation has not been extensively researched, however, other than ascertaining predominately positive responses from students who have used it. Kagan's structural approach presents many benefits, principally to the wide application across the curriculum. Kagan has also identified particular advantages in improved ethnic relations (Kagan et al, 1985b) from this approach. For many of the structures, these can be applied across the age ranges. The author's research has reinforced this (2007), however, there is a danger that teachers use a number of the structures without understanding the key elements of CL, or ensuring that the necessary small group skills are in place. In this case, CL has very limited benefits. Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) (Steven, Slavin, and Associates, 1987) This approach consists of three principal elements: using core reading books and related activities, direct instruction in reading comprehension, and integrated arts/writing. In all of these pupils work in heterogeneous teams, and activities following a cycle of: teacher presentation, team practice, including paired work, peer-reassessment, additional practice and testing. Studies by Stevens et al (1987) and Madden et al (1983) showed overall positive results on reading comprehension. This method is incorporated within the Success for All programme (Slavin, 1996) and where there is clear guidance to teachers, can be followed successfully. It is, like other methods, dependent on teacher understanding of CL and pupil skills in implementing it. Such a wide array of types of cooperative learning has led to comparative research on the benefits of it. This is the subject of the next section. Another study (Okebukola, 1985) compared TGT, STAD, Jigsaw and the learning together model (Johnson and Johnson, 1975). This found on a test of science achievement, that whilst all methods achieved better results than individual or whole class work, the Learning Together model produced the least favourable 25

results and the STAD produced the most favourable. This would seem to show that the inclusion of extrinsic rewards does produce gains in achievement. However Complex Instruction (Cohen, 1994b) does not include rewards and when compared to STAD in promoting achievement including higher order thinking, complex instruction was found to produce significant gains. Cohen (1994b) comments that Slavin's reward interdependence is necessary in collaborative seatwork. Where the task involves challenging and interesting group tasks, this motivation does not appear necessary. It might therefore be summarised from this that the nature of the task makes a significant difference. One of the arguments against offering rewards on a competitive basis, has been the negative effects on relationships between groups. Miller, Brewer and Edwards (1985) examined varied reward structures as did Johnson, Johnson and Maruyama, (1983), and they concluded that class relationships could be damaged by competition between groups. There is also evidence to show that introducing competition is particularly disadvantageous for certain categories of students, e.g. minority ethnic groups (Widaman and Kagan, 1987). In addition, the effect of participating in a less successful team using STAD procedures was negative for those students who were characterized as exhibiting 'learned helpless' manifestations and had no effect on those students characterized as 'mastery-orientated'. In spite of these studies, Slavin claims the evidence linking STAD to gains in cross-racial friendships is strong. 1.3. Creating a cohesive learner group Many methods have been developed extensively. However, there are increasingly a range of other cultural contexts where CL has been developed. It is crucial that any analysis of research into the results of CL, also considers the impact of the particular culture. Before turning to a more detailed analysis of such research findings, it is first useful to review the benefits that have been shown to accrue. A cohesive learner group is one which is `together'; in which there is a strong `we' feeling; and which students are happy to belong to. That is cohesiveness refers to the members' commitment to the group and to each other. It is the `magnetism' or `glue' that holds the group together. 26

Cohesiveness is often manifested by members seeking each other out, providing mutual support, and making each other welcome in the group. What is even more important from our perspective is that student motivation tends to increase in cohesive class groups. This is due to the fact that in such groups students share an increased responsibility for achieving the group goals, they `pull each other along' and the positive relations among them make the learning process more enjoyable in general. While there are too few rewards in school teaching, one of the most satisfying is the pride of accomplishment that comes from teaching in a classroom that has developed this level of cohesiveness. Whether or not a class becomes a cohesive community is not simply a question of luck. There are a number of specific factors that can positively contribute to the process, and many of these are within the teacher's control. In the following, I will list ten important factors along with some practical examples and suggestions 24 . 1. The amount of time spent together and the shared group history: there isn't much you can do about this one . . . 2. The extent to which group members can learn about each other: In to memorise each other's names, and to share personal information. Later on in the course you can provide further opportunities for students to learn more about each other by personalising certain language tasks or by choosing, in preference, activities with a potential for eliciting genuine personal information. 3. Proximity (i.e. physical distance such as sitting next to each other), contact and interaction: You may want to move students round from time to time to prevent the emergence of rigid seating patterns. Also, activities such as pair work, small group work, role-play and project work are very effective in allowing people to come into contact and interact with one another. Extracurricular activities and outings are also good ways of providing opportunities for contact and interaction. 24 Ehrman, M. E. and Z. Doemyei 1998. Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Language Education: The Visible and Invisible Classroom. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. 27

4. Cooperation between members for common goals: student collaboration can be successfully promoted by including certain tasks such as role-play performances, problem solving activities, project work, filling in worksheets, and preparing group reports, which require the preparation of a single `group product. 5. The rewarding nature of group experience: a commonplace yet true order to help learners to get to know each other better, you can include special `ice- breaking activities' at the beginning of a new course. These are designed to set members at ease, get them together. The rewarding nature of group experience: a commonplace yet true is that the more people enjoy the learning process in the class, the more they will want to belong to the class . 6. Successful completion of whole-group tasks and a sense of group achievement: you may occasionally include whole-group tasks or projects which generate a satisfying visible product, or conclude in the solving of a puzzle or problem, after which the group can congratulate themselves on their achievement. 7. Intragroup competition: small group `fun' competitions (i.e. games in which small groups compete with each other) promote inter member relationships. You may want to put students together who would not normally make friends easily. 8. Common threat (e.g. the feeling of fellowship before a difficult exam) or joint hardship that group members have experienced (e.g. carrying out some tough task together): these create solidarity among the `fellow-sufferers', but we are not sure how far we can take the practical implications of this . . . Investing in the group: it has been found that when members spend a considerable amount of time and effort contributing to the group goals, this will increase their commitment towards these goals. Therefore eliciting some significant investment early in the group's life may work towards group cohesiveness. It is really important to promote the development of group cohesiveness. More specifically: 28

. Try and promote interaction, cooperation and the sharing of genuine personal information among the learners. . Use ice-breakers at the beginning of a course. . Regularly use small-group tasks where students can mix. . Encourage and if possible organise extracurricular activities and outings. . Try and prevent the emergence of rigid seating patterns. . Include activities that lead to the successful completion of whole-group tasks or involve small-group competition games. . Promote the building of a group legend. Establishing constructive group norms Summing up, we can say that encouraging cooperation between students is such a powerful means of increasing student motivation. Basically, cooperation is a definite `plus'. Studies from all over the world are unanimous in claiming that students in cooperative environments have more positive attitudes towards learning and develop higher self-esteem and self-confidence than in other classroom structures. CHAPTER II. THE ADVANTAGES OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND RESEARCH FINDINGS 2.1. Advantages of Cooperative Learning Cooperative Learning has been among the most widely investigated approaches in the educational research literature. Hundreds of studies have compared the effects of CL with other instructional methods such as the lecture method or individualized instruction. Many of these studies coincided with the flowering of the cooperative learning movement in the 1980s. Nevertheless research is ongoing as is evidence by the large number of publications and journal articles reported in the International Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education (IASCE) newsletter. Latterly research has revolved around specific issues, age groups or cultural contexts, and in some countries, such as the UK, research has more recently gained pace. 29

Research conducted in many different subject areas and various age groups of students has generally shown positive effects for CL in the following areas: academic achievement, development of higher order thinking, self-esteem and self- confidence as learners, inter-group relations including friendships across racial and ethnic boundaries, social acceptance of mainstreamed students labelled as disabled, development of social skills, and the ability to take the perspective of another person. What are the key findings from research? Johnson and Johnson (1989, 2001), Slavin (1990), and Sharan (1990) all identify three main categories of advantages: (1) Achievement. Over 375 studies in the past 100 years (Johnson and Johnson, 1994) have shown how working together to achieve a common goal produces higher achievement and greater productivity than working alone. In 1981 Johnson and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 122 studies examining cooperative learning and its impact on achievement. This showed that cooperation promotes higher achievement for all age groups and for a variety of tasks. The cooperation also improved the more group members were required to produce a group product. CL also results in process gain (i.e. more higher level reasoning), greater transfer of what is learned within one situation to another and more time on task. Slavin (1989) reviewed 60 studies of cooperative learning and found that gains in academic achievement were maximised if group goals and individual accountability by members of the group were embedded. He found that motivation was enhanced through use of STAD 25 . Sharan (1980) reviewed five methods of cooperative learning including Jigsaw, Teams-games-tournaments, student team learning, leaning together and group investigation. He found that children perform more effectively in small groups than traditional whole class settings and the group investigation method produced 25 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Ha ll 30

higher levels of cognitive functioning. This he found was due to the peer interaction which clarified misunderstandings and developed problem-solving skills. 26 The ESRC funded SPRinG project (Blatchford et al, 2005) also found a positive impact on pupils' academic progress. At Key Stage 1 the benefits were found in reading and mathematics; in Key Stage 2 particularly in problem-solving and inferential thinking and in Key Stage 3 there were benefits to higher cognitive levels. (2) Inter-personal relationships. Over 180 studies have been conducted since the 1940s (Johnson and Johnson, 1989) which have shown that CL experiences promote greater inter-personal skills. In (1983) Johnson et al found that cooperative learning supported interpersonal skills amongst students from different ethnic groups, and mixed ability and disability. They then focused on variables that impact on cooperative learning and achievement. Johnson and Johnson (1985) identified eleven variables that impact on cooperation, productivity and inter- personal attraction. These variables were grouped into three clusters: cognitive process variables (i.e. quality of learning), social variables (i.e. mutual support among group members), and instructional variables (i.e. type of task). While the effect of each of these variables, requires further verification, it did suggest that the processes may promote higher achievement and liking amongst students, including, managing controversy, time on task, sharing and processing information, peer support, peer group involvement in learning, interaction between students of different ability, perceived psychological support, positive attitudes to subject areas and perceptions of fairness of assessment. Blatchford et al (2005) also found particularly in Key Stage 2 advantages in reducing differences between boys and girls of different ability levels in contributions to group work. (3) Psychological health and social competence. Working co-operatively with peers and valuing co-operation results in greater psychological health, higher self- 26 Sharan, Y. (2002). Essential features of a teacher education program for cooperative learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 68-74. 31

esteem and greater social competencies than competing with peers or working independently (Johnson and Johnson, 1983, Johnson and Johnson, 1997). Jordan and Metais (1997) found given training in social skills, pupils demonstrated greater social interactions and that the interpersonal relationships of previously isolated students improved. Gillies (2003) analysis of five studies showed that provided small group work is carefully structured to promote effective cooperation, that over time and with practice the 'more cohesive the groups became as members strove to facilitate each other's learning' 27 . CL is becoming one of the greatest and most widely educational practices in almost every school, college, and university because research has shown that it is a pedagogical instruction with numerous positive effects on students' academic and social achievement as well as on their psychological well-being (Kagan, 1994). For instance, Long and Porter (1985; cited in Paulston and Britanik, 1995: 79) admit that group work results in: "(1) increasing the quantity of language practice opportunity; (2) improving the quality of student talk; (3) creating a positive affective climate in the classroom; (4) individualising instruction; and (5) increasing student motivation." Almost all educational theorists (Johnson et al., 1994; Arnold, 1999; Slavin, 1983, 2006; Gillies and Ashman, 2003; Gillies et al., 2008; Roberts, 2004, 2005) who have carried out experiences on group work instruction summed up the most important benefits of CL, if implemented appropriately, in the following nine points: reducing anxiety, fostering higher order and critical thinking skills, increasing students' retention, promoting interaction, developing communication skills, elaborating social interaction skills, increasing motivation, building student self-esteem and self-confidence, and promoting higher academic achievement, class attendance, and positive attitudes. 28 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards 27 Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A., and Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The Teacher's Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. New York: Springer. 28 Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A., and Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The Teacher's Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. New York: Springer. 32

A method that teachers routinely use to manage children in the classroom is the use of r[ewards. Cohen summarises the controversy surrounding this issue when related to CL: 'no aspect of cooperative learning has been as controversial as the issue of giving rewards to groups on a competitive basis' 29 . She goes to describe the ideological controversy over cooperation versus competition. This has been researched heavily by Slavin 30 who reviewed 41 studies that contrasted cooperative approaches and he came to the conclusion that: achievement is enhanced by cooperative learning when cooperating pupils are rewarded as a group, while each pupil is individually accountable for his or her learning (1983a). This was developed into the technique known as STAD (Student Team Achievement Divisions) where students take a test and receive an individual score. These are then averaged and a team score awarded. Certificates are awarded to the teams with the highest scores. A critique of Slavin's approach is that he compares STAD to non-cooperative approaches and not to different methods of CL. Bossert comments that 'Slavin has not clearly tested the value of group contingencies within the Student Team Learning methods.' (1988:233). Vedder (1985) was also highly critical of Slavin's review for this reason and for the fact that he counted as positive those results where only a minority of students improved. Nevertheless Slavin identifies an important factor in motivating individuals to interact in a group. Cohen feels, however, that researchers should move on from: 'the fruitless debates about intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and goal and resource interdependence that have tied the field into theoretical and ideological knots for some time. ' 31 According to Glasser (1986), children's motivation to work in elementary school is dependent on the extent to which their basic psychological needs are 29 Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. 30 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 31 Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. 33

met. Cooperative learning increases student motivation by providing peer support. As part of a learning team, students can achieve success by working well with others. Students are also encouraged to learn material in greater depth than they might otherwise have done, and to think of creative ways to convince the teacher that they have mastered the required material. Cooperative learning helps students feel successful at every academic level. In cooperative learning teams, low-achieving students can make contributions to a group and experience success, and all students can increase their understanding of ideas by explaining them to others . Components of the cooperative learning process as described by Johnson and Johnson (1984) are complimentary to the goals of early childhood education. For example, well-constructed cooperative learning tasks involve positive interdependence on others and individual accountability. To work successfully in a cooperative learning team, however, students must also master interpersonal skills needed for the group to accomplish its tasks. Cooperative learning has also been shown to improve relationships among students from different ethnic backgrounds. Slavin (1980) notes: "Cooperative learning methods embody the requirements of cooperative, equal status interaction between students of different ethnic backgrounds..." For older students, teaching has traditionally stressed competition and individual learning. When students are given cooperative tasks, however, learning is assessed individually, and rewards are given on the basis of the group's performance (Featherstone, 1986). When children are taught the skills needed for group participation when they first enter a structured setting, the foundation is laid for later school success. CL in the Early Years Developing the use of CL with children in the early years is a more recent theme of research. Battistich and Watson (2003) discuss the paucity of research overall in this respect. Nevertheless they emphasise the importance of cooperative learning for promoting young children's social and emotional development and state: 34

'If children do not learn successful strategies for interacting with their peers, the classroom environment will be peppered with disruptions and academic learning is likely to be seriously undermined. ' (2003:19) In Johnson and Johnson's meta-analysis of 1989 over 500 studies were found but only four related to preschool children. However, the small body of research suggests that young children benefit from cooperative learning. Although positive outcomes were found, certain conditions were necessary for success: the classroom needs to be seen as a safe place for all pupils; the children possess the social skills necessary to interact with peers and a collaborative and trusting relationship with the teacher is established. When using CL in the early years the following differences in its use need to be noted, (Battistich and Watson, 2003): • Group size - it is better to work in pairs (Watson et al, 1988). • Level of teacher support and structuring of activities is higher They also notes the following special considerations, however, overall analysis of research shows that these are elements required regardless of age: • Direct instruction of social skills is required • Careful observation by teachers is necessary • Appropriate intervention by teachers is required • Opportunities for reflection on success are also necessary They conclude that there may be some common themes which apply to the use of cooperative learning strategies for adult learners: • the cooperative task should be demanding, new, yet achievable • groups should be hetereogenous • the model of cooperative learning should be simple because of the limited amount of time available for classes • there needs to be time allowed to establish a sense of cohesion • time should be given to practise group processes, team building skills and cooperative social skills 35

• the tasks should demand the sharing of responsibility so that group and individual learning goals are met in a collaborative way. Cooperative learning strategies in use Foyle and Lyman (1988) identify the basic steps involved in successful implementation of cooperative learning activities: 1. The content to be taught is identified, and criteria for mastery are determined by the teacher. 2. The most useful cooperative learning technique is identified, and the group size is determined by the teacher. 3. Students are assigned to groups. 4. The classroom is arranged to facilitate group interaction. 5. Group processes are taught or reviewed as needed to assure that the groups run smoothly. 6. The teacher develops expectations for group learning and makes sure students understand the purpose of the learning that will take place. A time line for activities is made clear to students. 7. The teacher presents initial material as appropriate, using whatever techniques she or he chooses. 8. The teacher monitors student interaction in the groups, and provides assistance and clarification as needed. The teacher reviews group skills and facilitates problem-solving when necessary. 9. Student outcomes are evaluated. Students must individually demonstrate mastery of important skills or concepts of the learning. Evaluation is based on observations of student performance or oral responses to questions; paper and pencil need not be used. 10. Groups are rewarded for success. Verbal praise by the teacher, or recognition in the class newsletter or on the bulletin board can be used to reward high-achieving groups. 2.2. The role of teachers and students in cooperative learning 36

Teachers’ role in cooperative learning Research into the role of the teacher in CL highlights how profoundly CL differs from other methods of teaching. (Harwood, 1989) found the role changes when pupils are working in small groups, although the self-directed nature of talk disappears when the teacher is present with groups. Ashman and Gillies (2003) summarise the benefits of the changing role of the teacher as: 'perhaps the greatest benefit of peer mediation derives from the type and level of interaction that occurs in a context in which the responsibility for learning does not rest solely with the teacher but is shared among teacher and students.' 32 . The management of cooperative learning is also complex for the teacher, particularly if groups are working on different tasks. Delegating authority to allow children to solve problems showed that those classrooms that did so successfully had greatest learning gains (Cohen, Lotan & Leechor, 1989). In addition when cooperative learning tasks are problem-solving or discovery tasks, it is necessary for the teacher to avoid direct supervision and to ensure talking and working together within groups (Perrow, 1967). For many teachers this was difficult as there was a fear of loss of control of the class (Cohen and Intili, 1981) although the introdu[ction of a system of self-monitoring by students helped, alongside roles in groups, and training in cooperative learning skills. Richards and Rodgers 33 (2001: 199) summarise what teachers should do when adopting group work instruction, saying that: The teacher has to create a highly structured and well-organized learning environment in the classroom, setting goals, planning and structuring tasks, establishing the physical arrangement of the classroom, assigning students to 32 Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A., and Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The Teacher's Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. New York: Springer. 33 Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. 37

groups and roles, and selecting materials and time. Because teachers in CL classes perform considerably different roles from those they are used to play in traditional settings, Johnson and Johnson (1999; cited in Gillies et al., 2008) made a classification of three major types of CL in an attempt to clarify the teacher's roles in each of them. Those types are: Formal Cooperative Learning, Informal Cooperative Learning, and Cooperative Base Groups. Formal Cooperative Learning It is the type of CL where students join together in order to perform a specific task such as writing a report or carrying out a project. The learners' teams are formed to last from one class session to several weeks; they work on the task until it is finished and their cooperative outcome is assessed. According to Johnson and Johnson (1999; cited in Gillies et al., 2008), in a formal CL class, the teacher has to perform several tasks. a. S/he has to make decisions before structuring this activity through setting academic and social skills objectives, determining how many students are required to create a group, deciding on the way to choose students (randomly or according to some criteria), assigning roles to group members, and arranging the room and the material. b. His/her duty is also to explain the task and the way to complete it successfully. S/he establishes positive interdependence and individual accountability as well as clarifies what social skills and behaviours are to be used. In addition, there is extensive focus on intergroup cooperation to avoid any kind of competition among group members. c. His/her other role is to monitor students' performance and intervene when difficulty and disagreement appear in a group. During the task, the teacher moves around the class and observes the groups to collect data on students' promotive interaction and their use of effective interpersonal and small group skills; thus, s/he creates individual accountability and encourages 38

students to be constructive. While monitoring, Richards and Rodgers 34 (suggest that teacher sought to speak less and redirect students by asking them questions to challenge their consideration of the problem as well as give them feedback. d. His/her other responsibility is to evaluate students' learning and contribution, and serve as a guide and a director while group members discuss how well they functioned. This takes place when the teacher decides to end the lesson. Furthermore, s/he encourages students to adopt a plan for effective changes in group procedures and to celebrate their efforts. Informal Cooperative Learning It is a type of CL where students work cooperatively to fulfil a common goal on a precise task explicitly instructed and which requires a specific product (for example, a written answer). The groups are formed temporarily, i.e., they last from a few minutes to a single class session. Johnson and Johnson 35 (1999; cited in Gillies et al., 2008) believe that the aim of structuring this type of team learning is to make students focus more on the material to be learnt, help them expect what the lesson will be about, guarantee material cognitive processing and rehearsal, summarise previous knowledge to facilitate the next session, and finally provide closure to an instructional session. Informal CL is regarded as a practical method because the groups can be organised at any time in a class of any size in order to check the students' understanding and to afford opportunities for practice. Researchers (like Johnson and Johnson, 1999) state that the major role of the teacher in implementing Informal CL is to keep students as much as possible actively involved in the process of learning. That is, students engage in pre- and post-lesson discussions as well as in pair discussions throughout the lesson. In 34 http://www.sedl.org/pubs/teaching 35 Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A., and Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The Teacher's Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. New York: Springer. 39

order to obtain satisfactory results from this type of instruction, teachers should follow this procedure: a. They divide the class into groups of two or three members and ask students to react to questions that require four to five minutes reflection to reach an agreed answer. The discussion that occurs between students helps them build knowledge and have an idea about the lesson content. Teachers choose to work with pairs or triads to ensure individual accountability. b. They arrange the time of the session by segmenting it into 10-15 minutes parts. After each segment, the pairs engage in cooperative work to answer a specific question that requires about three minutes discussion. During these three minutes, each student answers the question, shares it with his/her partner, and integrates it with his/her group-mate's to come up with a consensus answer. After that, the teacher may ask students to reveal their findings to the whole class to ensure individual accountability. Then, s/he may structure group processing and reward learners for their efforts. c. At the end of the lesson, they assign tasks of four or five minutes in which students summarise what has been studied, or prepare for homework. Cooperative Base Groups Cooperative Base Groups are "long-term, heterogeneous CL groups with stable membership" 36 (Johnson and Johnson, 1999; cited in Gillies ). The groups are created to last from one semester to a whole year in which students are required to help each other achieve academic goals. In this type of CL, teachers present and teach the needed social skills. They form heterogeneous groups of three or four, plan regular meetings, assign the groups tasks and requirements to be accomplished in each meeting and ensure the implementation of CL elements. On the other hand, students have to ensure that all members complete the task, provide assistance to build interpersonal bounds and check understanding. 36 Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A., and Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The Teacher's Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. New York: Springer. 40

Researchers (Cross, 2003; Ellis, 2003; Willis, 1999) admit that the teacher, in any CL type, should explain to the students the objectives of the group task and the way they will be graded. S/he should act as a facilitator and guide to give feedback and assistance when necessary. Although students are responsible for carrying out tasks and managing their learning, the teacher still controls the class and has the power to give an end to the cooperative activity if necessary. Another important task for the teacher to perform is designing groups. Ellis (2003) points out that groups of four are highly recommended because they can be split up into pairs, and that heterogeneous teams result in better academic achievement. In order to create heterogeneous groups, some teachers prefer to choose students randomly, mixing males with females, verbal with quiet students, high-achieving with low- achieving learners. Others give students freedom to select their partner (but this may end up with homogeneous groups (Cohen, 1994)). Others prefer to take into consideration students' prior achievement (for example, from a pre-test), ethnicity and gender. Teachers also should structure tasks so that each participant in a group has the opportunity to contribute with something to complete it successfully. Learners' Role in Cooperative Learning Unlike what happens in a teacher-fronted class, group work instruction gives students an active role. It alters their roles from passive recipients of knowledge to active seekers and analysers of information. Instead of sitting quiet and listening to the teacher lecturing, in a CL environment, students are responsible for completing the task on their own and ensuring their group-mates' understanding of the assigned material as well as participating, talking and interacting effectively with each other. Another way of promoting output in cooperative learning groups is for each student to have a particular role to play in the group. A wide variety of roles exists depending on the task to be performed and the particular students who will be performing it. Examples of roles (Jacobs, Power, & Loh, 2002) include: Facilitator (also called Coach) - keeps the group on task and checks that everyone knows what the instructions are; 41

Time Keeper - keeps track of the time limits; Language Leader - encourages everyone to use the second language to the extent previously agreed upon by the class and teacher; Checker- checks to see that all group members have understood; Encourager (also called Cheerleader) - encourages everyone to participate and leads the celebration of success; Reporter- reports the group's work to other groups; Questioner - asks questions to prompt the group to go more deeply and broadly into their task; Paraphraser - restates what the previous speaker said to check comprehension; Praiser - compliments groupmates for their ideas and their role in the group; Conflict Creator -plays the role of devil's advocate bringing out opposing points of view and other possibilities; Sound Hound - makes sure the noise level does not go too high; Observer - notes how the group is working together; When groups are formed, Richards and Rodgers (2001: 199) explain that: The primary role of the learner is as a member of a group must work collaboratively on tasks with other group members. Learners have to learn teamwork skills. Learners are also directors of their own learning. They are taught to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning, which is viewed as a compilation of lifelong learning skills. Thus, learning is something that requires students' direct and active involvement and participation. In other words, students are expected to use interpersonal and small group skills. They, first, should perceive that group work is part of the course and should consider the task as challenging and interesting to get involved in the process of learning it. Second, while discussing and explaining concepts to each other, group members have to motivate, encourage and support their friends' efforts. Besides, they are required to listen carefully to the other team participants, share information or resources among them, respect others' opinions, resolve disagreements peacefully and offer feedback to each other in order to ameliorate their results. Furthermore, during the group task, learners plan their 42

work, direct their own strategies of learning and assess their cooperative product. Additionally, students need to follow the classroom discipline and the teacher's rules; that is, equality reigns in the room and no student is given the power to dominate the talking or the direction of the group work - they should obey the teacher's instruction to proceed effectively. 2.3. Research Findings David and Roger Johnson (1989) have shown that there have been more managed studies of CL than any other teaching methodology. Robert Slavin (Slavin, 1999) stated: 'No classroom instructional method has ever been as extensively and rigorously evaluated as co-operative learning.' The prolific amount of research studies into CL range widely in terms of specific aspects researched, yet several themes emerge from the findings which can be particularly relevant to effective implementation. The analysis of research which follows will be driven by these themes, namely: 1. The level of interdependence present; i.e. the extent to which pupils perceive that they can only succeed in a task if they support each other. 2. Developing and incorporating talk for learning. 3. Specific teaching of teamwork and communication skills. 4. The nature of the task should lend itself to cooperative group work. 5. The structure of groups, i.e. the mix of pupils in a group. 6. The role of the teacher as a facilitator of learning. 7. Inclusion of intrinsic or extrinsic rewards. 8. Starting CL work with very young children. 9. Assessment of cooperative group work. Each of these themes will now be examined. Ensuring interdependence 43

The importance of ensuring interdependence is shown by a range of studies (e.g. Johnson et al, 1990). This can be achieved in different ways including resource interdependence where, for example, only one worksheet is provided for the group. In contrast goal interdependence is a concept developed by Deutsch (1962) which means that individuals can only achieve a goal if the others in the groups also achieve theirs. The Johnson model advocates both resource and goal interdependence. However neither guarantees interaction, nor motivation to do so. Cohen views resource interdependence as limited, and cites Johnson, Johnson and Stanne, (1990) where simple resource interdependence was associated with the poorest results. This resource interdependence is also present in Aronson et al's, (1978) jigsaw approach, although Huber and Eppler (1990) noted that slow learning members of a jigsaw team did not necessarily return from expert group sessions knowing more than their team members. This finding is not borne out elsewhere, for example Bottery (1990) where academic results, using jigsaw lessons, were consistently high. Interdependence also encourages pupils to engage in interaction which relates to the next theme. Developing and incorporating talk for learning The very nature of CL facilitates interaction amongst pupils. It was the work of Webb (1985) who showed the importance of the explanations that children were required to give that then impacted on the learning. However, in a more recent study (1995) Webb et al found that such explanations needed to be pitched appropriately for the pupil to benefit. Other studies (e.g. King et al,1998) found that pupils can be trained in questioning and giving explanations and that this together with peer tutoring showed greater academic achievement. Barnes and Todd's study (1977) became central to much later research. They conducted a qualitative analysis of the interaction in groups which showed the nature of understanding that arises from groups, the kinds of social and cognitive skills required for effective interaction and the effects on the interaction by the variation in tasks. Cohen describes the transcripts from this study as 'some of the 44

best examples in the literature of the social construction of knowledge' (Cohen, 1994a: 5). Barnes and Todd's work also showed that pupils need both social and cognitive skills for effective interaction. Explicit talk to support problem-solving is an aspect researched by Chang and Wells (1987), who concluded that in order to be effective, groups must manage the process of solving problems with explicit talk. They defined learning as problem- solving, and to work together students need to identify specific goals and then carry out a plan-do-review procedure. Vedder (1985) also sees cooperative learning as a result of an explicit process, which expounds the role of pupils controlling each other's learning. Vedder, however, was disappointed at the level of talk that takes place in small groups. From these studies, Cohen (1994a) propounded a generalisation: for pupils to engage in high-level interaction, they need specific development of skills for discourse and Barnes and Todd's work suggests that pupils also need support with interpersonal skills. Cohen also examined any possible correlation between the extent of interaction and academic achievement. Webb (1983, 1991) has reviewed studies in this area also, but the correlation shows wide inconsistencies, and presented no system of classroom management or special skills training. Cohen, however, found, using complex instruction (Cohen, 1994b), that 'simple measures of frequency of task-related interaction are related to gains on computation and mathematical concepts and applications as well as on content-referenced tests. ' 37 Leechor (1988) also concluded that task-related talk was a significant predictor of gains in mathematics. Cohen postulates that the reasons for the differences in findings are, first the working relationships between the group members and second, the nature of the task. A group task requires resources that are shared amongst the group and are unable to solve the problem or task without input from others. Group members must therefore exchange resources before completing the 37 Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press 45

task. This therefore ensures the key element of interdependence. With complex instruction, interdependence is also established by each member of a group being responsible for the success of the rest. In this method of CL, groups have a weekly skills building activity. The other key difference between studies by Webb (1991) and Cohen (1986) lies in the nature of task, with many algorithmic mathematics tasks having one right answer. Open-ended tasks, in contrast allow the group to exchange ideas and come up with creative solutions. This led Cohen to the following general proposition: 'Given an ill-structured problem and a group task, productivity will depend on interaction.' A key factor was also found to be: 'The most consistent, positive predictor or achievement in these studies is the giving of detailed, elaborate explanations.' (Cohen, citing Webb, 1983, 1991) 38 The giving of detailed explanations concurs with what Fletcher (1985) terms 'cognitive facilitation'. This concerns verbalizing decisions, and also what has been called 'think aloud problem-solving' (King, 1989). Research in this area has shown that structuring discussion can be beneficial. Yager (1985) studied the effects of structured oral discussion which included students being randomly assigned the role of 'learning leader' or 'learning listener'. The leader had to restate and summarise the main points of the lesson and the listener had to ask probing questions, encouraging better explanations. When compared with unstructured groups, the structured groups did significantly better on a unit test and later retention of material. This is similar to reciprocal teaching developed by Brown and Palinscar (1986) which structures interaction with questioning, clarifying, summarising and predicting. Here the pupils were given the role of teacher after 10 days of reciprocal teaching instruction, and working with groups independent of the teacher, made considerable gains compared to pupils working in traditional teaching situations. Structured oral discussion appears 38 Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press 46

to be predicated on the nature of the task: such as, the recall of material; understanding of reading matter, or application of procedures in a routine way. Controversy research (Johnson and Johnson, 1985) shows how procedures such as having pupils argue different positions on a topic and being assigned group roles can foster high level discussion. When the group is working on open-ended problems, the use of roles in groups can also foster interaction. Zack (1988) showed that the use of a facilitator role was associated with increased talking and working together on problems in maths and science. Cohen, Lotan and Leechor, (1989) used the role of the reporter whose job was to encourage the group to think and talk together and to create answers on the specific form. This showed a greater amount of interaction when the reporter role was used. Cohen describes the teacher's dilemma resulting from the above: 'If teachers do nothing to structure the level of interaction, they may well find that students stick to a most concrete mode of interaction. If they do too much to structure the interaction, they may prevent the students from thinking for themselves and thus gaining the benefits of the interaction.' (1994b:22) The social construction of knowledge facilitated by talk requires specific skills. These are the subject of the next key theme found in research into CL. Specific teaching of teamwork and communication skills Gillies and Ashman, (1996) examined the necessary pupil skills for CL to be effective and where explicit training was given, found greater success. In addition, Gillies and Boyle (2005) found that when teachers were trained to use cooperative learning, including scaffolding children's discussions, they were able to model helpful interventions which were in turn used by pupils. This study provided evidence of methods of extending children's thinking and encouraged their involvement with tasks. Johnson and Johnson (2005) propose that every CL lesson is a lesson in social skills and supports conflict resolution, particularly where specific teaching in the 47

latter is provided. The school thus becomes a microcosm of society, by having students work together cooperatively, embedding values of mutual support, which in turn supports consensual peace. Veenman, Kenter and Post (2000) found that although cooperative learning was not commonly used in primary schools in Holland, research identified improved social benefits; improved self esteem; time on task and more positive attitudes to school subjects. However, implementation was not so successful if it did not include sufficient team work skills and: 'regularly reviewing the rules for effective cooperation is certainly needed for the cooperation to work well and particularly in the first years of implementing CL.' (2000:299) Specific teaching of such skills is therefore an important factor in success of the use of CL. The Nature of the Task Examining studies of interaction, it is first important to ensure that the task lends itself to cooperative group work. Alongside this is the issue of motivating pupils to work as a group. Cohen (1994a) proposes that both goal and resource interdependence are necessary as neither alone will provide the group interaction. Tasks need to be clearly designed so pupils are required to support each other in the process, as in STAD which also includes group rewards. Sharan et al (1984) compared Slavin's STAD and the Group Investigation method (Sharan, 1990) and found that the latter fosters more extensive interaction and better achievement. This is because groups are required to plan the task, divide the labour, collect and organize the information and then give elaborate presentations to the class. The key difference here is that the information is not given by the teacher; the pupils have to gather the information from a range of sources. The task stresses problem- solving skills. Nystrand, Gamoran and Heck (1991) also found that the nature of the tasks affects the interaction and where students are required to define a problem and engage in autonomous production of knowledge, it was more effective. Cohen posits the following hypothesis therefore: 48

'When the teaching objective is learning for understanding and involves higher order thinking, task arrangements and instructions that constrain and routinize interaction will be less productive than arrangements and instructions that foster maximum interaction, mutual exchange and elaborated discussions. ' 39 The Structure of Groups The nature and construction of groups is a further issue and Cohen (1994a) cites the considerable research that shows the beneficial effects of heterogeneous groups on low-achieving students. Swing and Peterson (1982) found that in heterogeneous groups, students of low and high ability gained particularly. There is also evidence that lower achieving students benefited by interaction with higher achieving students when tasks demand higher order thinking. Tudge (1990) concluded that it was exposure to high-level reasoning that made a difference as to whether a student would learn from another of higher competence. Cohen concludes that: 'If the task is collaborative seatwork and if high-achieving students have the chance to give explanations, then heterogeneous groups will be especially beneficial for them.' She goes on to say 'the only result that seems to hold unconditionally is the benefit to the low achiever of being in a heterogeneous group as compared to a homogeneously low-achieving group.' 40 A further meta-analysis has been produced by Lou, et al (1996) of 'within-class grouping' (1996). Lou et al set out to answer the following questions: 1. How much does placing students in small groups facilitate learning? 2. Which factors explain variability in findings? 3. Which type of grouping is best and under what conditions? The meta-analysis confirmed the positive effects of placing students in groups for learning; however the size of the effects varied. Variable findings could be 39 Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press 40 Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press 49

accounted for due to the task, and the experience of the teacher. They found no evidence that one form of grouping was uniformly superior for promoting achievement of all students. Low ability students gained most from being placed in heterogeneous groups and in contrast average ability students gain most from being placed in homogeneous groups. With regard to motivation of pupils Lou et al (1996) found it did not follow automatically when pupils are placed in groups and that it depended on other factors, such as assigning roles and ensuring all pupils contribute can support motivation. Smaller size teams of three to four also seemed to be most beneficial than larger groups. They also found CL, with outcome interdependence, helps facilitate small group learning as does teacher training and experience in small groups. Promoting Cooperative Learning at Primary School Jacobs, Power, & Loh (2002, p. ix) define cooperative learning as "principles and techniques for helping students work together more effectively." A great deal of work has been done in the general area of the use of group activities in L2 instruction (Akcan, Lee, Ghaith, & Jacobs, 2003). Cooperative learning is a subset of that work. Following four hypotheses and theories related to L2 acquisition support the use of cooperative learning: The input hypothesis (Krashen & Terrell, 1983) states that we acquire a L2 as we comprehend meaning in that language in the form of written or spoken words. Thus, reading and listening provide input which our brains utilize to build language competence. Our knowledge advances as we understand input that is slightly above our current level of competence. Three ways that cooperative learning helps increase the quantity of comprehensible input are: 1. Peers can provide each other with comprehensible input. Groupmates provide an extra input source, in addition to teachers and instructional materials. Also, this peer input is more likely to be accessed outside the classroom than is input from 50

teachers and some kinds of instructional materials. Furthermore, peer input may be of a particularly high interest level. 2. Input from fellow learners is likely to be more comprehensible. Indeed, peers' lack of proficiency may be a blessing in disguise, as it renders them much less likely to use vocabulary that is not yet in students' receptive repertoires. 3. Peer groups may provide a more motivating, less anxiety-producing environment for language use, thus, increasing the chances that students will take in more input. This is in line with the affective filter hypothesis which, like the input hypothesis, is a component of the Monitor Model of L2 acquisition (Krashen, 1981). Speaking in front of only 1-3 fellow students may be a more comfortable experience compared to having to speak in front of the teacher and the entire class. A second hypothesis about second language learning that fits with cooperative learning is the Interaction Hypothesis which states that language learners increase the quantity of comprehensible input they receive by interacting with their interlocutors (the people with whom they are speaking). This interaction can foster negotiating for meaning. Pica (1994, p. 494) defines negotiation for meaning as "the modification and restructuring of interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility." Second language students negotiate for meaning by such means as requesting repetition, explanation and clarification. Reid (1993) states that negotiating for meaning can also take place during peer feedback on student writing. Cooperative learning may promote interaction in the following ways: 1. The literature on cooperative learning (e.g. Jacobs, Power,&Loh,2002) recommends that students different from each other on one or more variables become groupmates. This heterogeneity increases the likelihood that negotiation for meaning will be necessary. Furthermore, teachers often use the variable of second language proficiency when creating heterogeneous groups. This means that more proficient students will be available to attempt to facilitate comprehension of their less proficient peers. 51

2. In cooperative learning, teachers can encourage more negotiation for meaning by allowing groups to try to sort out their own communication difficulties without teacher intervention, although teachers do stand ready to help if, after trying, groups remain confused. 3. Cooperative learning activities provide a context in which students may be more likely to interact than in a whole class setting. 4. Long (1996) proposes that group activities can encourage students to interact with each other in a way that promotes a focus on form, that is, "to attend to language as object during a generally meaning-oriented activity" (p. 429). Such a focus on form can be encouraged when grammar constitutes at least one aspect of group tasks. Examples of making grammar an aspect of groups' tasks include: noticing tasks in which students analyze how a grammar point functions and formulate their own rule peer assessment in which students check each other's writing or speaking for particular grammar features, for example, in an English L2 class, the presence of plural -s. The teaching of collaborative skills can play a crucial role in promoting peer interaction, because these skills provide students with strategies for effective interaction. Examples include collaborative skills that second language learners can use to repair communication breakdowns, such as asking for: repetition, slower speed of speaking, louder volume, and explanation of words. Collaborative skills also prove useful when students understand the input they have received but wish to disagree or ask for further information, such as examples or applications. The Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985) proposes that in order for learners to increase their second language proficiency, they need to generate output, that is, produce language via speech or writing and receive feedback on the comprehensibility of their second language output. Input is necessary, but according to this hypothesis not sufficient for language learning. Output is seen to be another essential as it promotes fluency; pushes students to engage in syntactic processing of language (rather than only attending to meaning); gives students opportunities to test their hypotheses about what works and is acceptable in a 52

particular language and affords students opportunities to receive feedback from others. Cooperative learning, in contrast to teacher-fronted instruction, provides the possibility of a large increase in students' opportunities to create output, as many students are talking simultaneously, instead of one person, normally the teacher, doing all the talking. In cooperative learning, group interaction is structured in an attempt to balance the opportunities that each student has for creating output. This contrasts with the situation often seen in group activities in which more student talk exists, but a relatively small group of students take most of the speaking turns. 53

CONCLUSION In the research paper I tried to deal with role of cooperative learning and highlight its importance in learning language. My aim was to emphasize that cooperative learning is a teaching strategy involving children's participation in small group learning activities that promote positive interaction. This study discusses the reasons for using cooperative learning in centers and classrooms, ways to implement the strategy, and the long-term benefits for children's education. I also dealt with motivation as an essential factor for language learners and classified its types – extrinsic and intrinsic, with the emphasis on the teacher´s personality which influences the students´ willingness to participate actively in the learning process. I mentioned native speakers as a great source for our teaching practice and described the ways they may encourage the students to carry on studying a foreign language together in a friendly atmosphere. To feel confident while learning a foreign language, the students are supposed to be put in a „safe environment“. This prevents them from embarrassement or anxiety when they are asked to express themselves. I tried to explain this term and suggested possible ways to decrease students´ concern about learning language. Due to students´ different personalities and also abilities to speak a foreign language, I dealt with pair work and group work as the ways of organizing the class. I mentioned the advantages of this kind of work, especially reducing tension in class, creating a pleasant atmosphere and building up students´ independence and confidence. Cooperative learning was evaluated as more useful since it is closer to real-life situations and dealing with them is the main aim that the students are heading for. 54

In the practical part of my thesis I mentioned the advantages of cooperative learning as well as different techniques for correcting mistakes in either accuracy or fluency communicative activities and also described the roles of a teacher and requirements which he or she has to fulfil to manage the roles successfully. In short, recent foreign language teaching/learning researches have shifted their focus towards innovative methods which encourage learners' autonomy and responsibility for their own learning process. In this sense, CL has been developed to assist learners to change their statutes to be active participants instead of passive members and to get involved in what they are doing to achieve successfully their objectives. This teaching technique tries to help teachers, to adopt the new roles they are supposed to perform in order to obtain satisfactory results. They are expected to supervise, advise and cooperate with learners, taking into consideration their needs, their intellectual abilities and their learning styles to fulfil the set goals. Although cooperative techniques demand more efforts from both teachers and learners, they are believed to be of great effectiveness on learners' acquisition of the foreign language as compared to the whole-class instructional approaches and, therefore, are called to be applied in language classes to enhance and increase the use of the target language since group work emphasises communication, interaction and assistance among team members. 55

References 1. Karimov I.A “Uzbekistan is on the threshhold of the XXI century”. Tashkent 1992.pp 1-5 2. Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. 3. Gillies, R. M. and Ashman, A. F. (Eds.). (2003). Co-operative Learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes of Learning in Groups. London: RoutledgeFalmer. 4. Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A., and Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The Teacher's Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. New York: Springer. 5. Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., and Vedder, P. (2007). Exploring the Links between Students' Engagement in Cooperative Learning, their Global Preferences and Appraisals of Instructional Conditions in the Classroom. Learning and Instruction, 17, 673-87. 6. Hilke, E. V. (1990). Cooperative Learning. Bloomington, IN: PhiDelta Kappa, Educational Foundation. 7. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). "Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis." [Retrieved July, 2000]: Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publications. 8. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach. Oxford: Pergamon. 9. Liang, X., Mohan, B. A., & Early, M. (1998). Issues of cooperative learning in ESL classes: A literature review. TESL Canada Journal, 15(2), 13-23. 10. Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228. 56

11. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2001). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155 Ж 177). New York: Oxford University Press. 12. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second- language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning 44, 493-527. 13. Senge, P. (Ed.). (2000). Schools that learn: A fieldbook for teachers, administrators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday. [-10-] 14. Sharan, S., Shachar, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. 15. Sharan, Y. (2002). Essential features of a teacher education program for cooperative learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 68-74. 16. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 17. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235- 253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 18. Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society (ed. by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 19. Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Maria Abdullah George Jacobs 57

Web Resources 1. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Teaching Resources http://www.sedl.org/pubs/teaching University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning http://www.ku-crl.org Provides information about SIM, including a brochure, newsletters, resources, and Web sites for related topics and organizations. 2. www.myenglishpages.com 3. http://www.educationallearnig.com/educationalactivities-25.asp 4. http://www.teachnet.com/homeworkopoly 5. http://www.helium.com/items/694564-bingo-yelled-stood-doingcoe.k-state.edu/ ageducation 58

APPENDIX 1. Table 1. Ten Most Common Types of CL Method Developer/Researcher Learning Together & Alone (LT) Johnson & Johnson, 1975 Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) DeVries & Edwards, 1974 Group Investigation (GI) Sharan & Sharan, 1994 Constructive Controversy/Academic Controversy (AI) Johnson & Johnson, 1995 Jigsaw Procedure Aronson & Associates, 1978 Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) Slavin,1985 Complex Instruction (CI) Cohen, 1984, 1994a Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) Slavin & Associates, 1985 Cooperative Learning Structures Kagan, 1994 Cooperative Integrated Reading & Composition (CIRC) Stevens, Slavin, & Associates, 1987 60

Похожие

Context-based learning in EFL classes

Implementing effective techniques for developing efl learners’ listening skills

Developing Speaking Skills in Foreign Language Teaching

Motivational Teaching Strategies in Teaching Foreign

Efficient ways in teaching writing in esl classesfor b1 level students