1. Introduction

2. Background of Cooperative Learning

3. Methods
    3.1 Jigsaw
    3.2 Group Investigation
    3.3 Student Teams Achievement Divisions
    3.4 Learning Together / Learning Circles

4. Theoretical Perspectives on Cooperative Learning and Achievement

    4.1 Motivational
    4.2 Social Cohesion
    4.3 Cognitive Perspectives
        a. Developmental
        b. Cognitive Elaboration

5. Research

6. Outcomes of Cooperative Learning in the Second Language Classroom
    6.1 Input 12
    6.2 Output 13
    6.3 Context 14

7. Implications

References 
 

1. Introduction

Communication has long been the desired outcome of second language classrooms. Much research, such as that done by Kasanga (1996), Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, and Linnell (1996), and Salaberry (1997), has shown that as opportunities to use the language in meaningful situations increases, so does the acquisition of the second language. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss a method of increasing those opportunities to increase language use, cooperative learning.

Cooperative learning refers to a method of instruction whereby student work together in groups to reach common goals. Within cooperative learning, students benefit from sharing ideas rather than working alone. Students help one another so that all can reach some measure of success. This is in contrast with the traditional method where students work individually or competitively. In the traditional method, students are generally concerned with improving their own grade, and goals are individualistic rather than group-wide.

This paper will review some of the literature concerning cooperative learning, beginning with look at the background and some of the more popular methods of cooperative learning. A number of the perspectives of cooperative learning will then be presented, followed by a discussion of the some of the studies that have been conducted. The next section will deal with the outcomes of second language acquisition in cooperative learning situations. Finally, implications for the second language classroom will be discussed. Throughout the paper, cooperative learning will be discussed with reference to second language education.

2. Background

Slavin (1995) points out that the history of cooperative learning can be traced back as far as the seventeenth century. He cites such educational theorists as Comenius in the seventeenth century, Rousseau in the eighteenth century, Pestalozzi in the nineteenth century and Dewey in the early twentieth century, who held some form of cooperation among students as essential to learning. Slavin also refers to Piaget and Vygotsky’s developmental theories which emphasized the importance of discussion and joint problem solving among peers. Social interdependence theory, according to Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1994a) can trace its roots back to Koffka in the early 1900’s. These theories will be discussed later in this paper. Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1994b) also state that nearly 600 experimental and over 100 correlational studies have been conducted on cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts to learn since 1898.

Cooperative learning, therefore, is not new to education. Although the term may not have been used, cooperative learning in some form has been happening for decades.

3. Methods

In spite of the extensive background of cooperative learning, research on specific methods dates back to 1970. This paper will now briefly review some of these methods.

It is important to realize that within the definition of cooperative learning, there is an enormous diversity of cooperative approaches. Methods may be informal, where students simply work together on their own individual work. Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1994a) refer to informal cooperative learning as short meetings, often between pairs, to simply discuss and share information from a lecture, movie, etc. Methods may also be quite formal, where structure is imposed, with specific ways of forming teams. Students may be working together on projects or creative activities or an specific content. All members may be working on a different portion to bring together as a whole or they may all be working on the some task. Even numbers in groups may vary from as low as 2 to more than 6. Groups may be together for short lengths of time or months. Generally, however, some form of cooperation is taking place. Some of these general methods work better than others, as will be seen later.

Many researchers have studied various methods and have very specific descriptions of some cooperative learning methods which they have discovered to have proven successful in some areas. Some of these methods are the Jigsaw, Group Investigation, Student Teams Achievement Divisions, and Learning Together.

3.1 Jigsaw

The jigsaw method was designed by Elliot Aronson (1978). In this method, students are assigned to teams to work on academic material which is broken down into sections. Team members read their own individual sections, then meet in expert groups to discuss their sections. Students then return to their teams and take turns teaching their group members about their sections.

This would be useful in a second language classroom for a reading selection. In their expert groups, students could discuss new vocabulary in addition to important ideas in the reading before reporting back to their groups. this would be very conducive to discussion and negotiation in the target language due to the explanation of new material that other group members have not seen. As seen in research by Pica (1994), negotiation has been shown to improve student comprehension. However, it is important that the teacher prepare the students to read, to ensure good comprehension of the material.

3.2 Group Investigation

This method was developed by Shlomo Sharan (1988). In this method, groups take on topics within a unit studied by the entire class. The groups break these topics into tasks within the group and carry out the activities necessary to prepare group reports, which are presented to the class as a whole.

This method could lend itself to creative projects in the second language classroom. Groups would be given a theme to prepare and would be required to break that into smaller topics for research and discussion. Many opportunities for meaningful language use would take place.

3.3 Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD)

In STAD, Slavin (1982) says that students should be assigned in groups of four which are totally heterogeneous. The teacher presents a lesson and students then work within their teams to ensure that all team members have mastered the lesson. Students than take individual quizzes. Success is based on improvement, that is, quiz scores are compared to past averages and points are awarded based on the degree to which they exceed those past performances. Team scores are obtained by summing those points. Slavin points out that this is most appropriate for teaching well-defined objectives.

With reference to the second language classroom, this may be useful for grammatical forms as well as vocabulary. The form or vocabulary would be introduced and taught to the class. Students would then be responsible for ensuring that they have mastered the material, with the help of their team members. Teams could be given worksheets or other materials. In this type of cooperative learning activity, students would be learning specific grammatical forms or vocabulary, and in addition, they would be given the opportunity to communicate in the target language, thus using the language in a meaningful way.

3.4 Learning Together / Learning Circles

Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1994a, 1994b) assert that there are five essential elements that must be structured in a cooperative learning lesson. Positive interdependence refers to each group member realizing that they are part of a group and that, as a group, they must "sink or swim together" (p. 9). A second element, individual and group accountability, refers to the necessity of each group member being accountable for a fair share of the work and to the group being accountable for achieving its goals. Working together, helping, and generally promoting each other within the group are all part of the third element, promotive face-to-face interaction. A forth essential element is that students need to be taught appropriate small group skills. According to the authors of this method, "cooperation and conflict are interrelated" (p.11) and students need to know how to manage conflicts constructively. The fifth element in this model is group processing. This is essentially an evaluation of how the group is working, what they are doing right and what needs to be improved.

This model seems to be much more group skills based than the others. The focus appears to be on the actual cooperation, getting along together in the group. This is certainly a necessary part of group learning.

4. Theoretical Perspectives on Cooperative Learning and Achievement

4.1 Motivational Perspectives

Motivational perspectives (Slavin 1995a, 1995b) on cooperative learning mainly focus on the reward or goal structures. In this perspective, cooperative learning creates situations whereby individual personal goals can only be achieved if the group is successful. According to Slavin,

"Rewarding groups based on group performances (or the sum of individual performances) creates an interpersonal reward structure in which group

members will give or withhold social reinforcers (e.g. praise, encouragement)

in response to groupmates task-related efforts." (Slavin, 1995a)

Therefore, motivation is based upon the fact that group incentives induce students to encourage goal-directed behaviours within the group. Methods developed in relation to motivational theory have group rewards built in. In Slavin (1995) for example, students can earn certificates or other recognition based on average team scores.

Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec (1995a) give grades based on group performance. Slavin (1995), however, points out that use of rewards must be based on the individual learning of all group members, that is, the average scores on quizzes which student stake without teammates help. In order for the team to succeed, all team members must have learned. According to Slavin, this is important so that one or two students don’t do all the work.

In conclusion, within the motivational perspective, there seems to be some disagreement among researchers of exactly what is necessary for cooperative learning to be successful. Not all researchers view the same types of motivation as useful.

4.2 Social Cohesion Perspective

The social cohesion perspective focuses on the fact that students want one another to succeed and that is why they help one another learn. The main difference between the motivational and social cohesion perspectives lies in the fact that the former emphasizes that group members help each other partly because it benefits themselves as well, whereas the latter holds that they help their team because they care about the group.

The Jigsaw method mentioned in the previous section is of the social cohesion perspective. Teambuilding and cohesiveness building activities are important to this theory. Students simply present to each other, without any reward.

The learning circles model has many elements which fall into the category of the social cohesion perspective. This model focuses on such characteristics as desired behaviors, positive interdependence and roles of group members. They focus on building a good team which will work well together. However, they also include the motivational perspective by offering incentives, often in the form of group grades.

In conclusion, this model is very similar to the motivational perspective in that it emphasizes motivational explanations for the effectiveness of cooperative learning. However, as was mentioned, where motivational theorists believe that students are motivated for themselves, social cohesion theorists believe that students are motivated for each other’s benefit.

4.3 Cognitive Perspectives

The third major perspective is that of the cognitive, which holds that interactions among students will increase achievement due to the mental processing which takes place. the following two perspectives are variations of the cognitive perspective.

a. Developmental Perspectives

The primary assumption of the developmental perspective is that interaction among students increases their mastery of the concepts in the tasks. Theorists such as Vygotsky (1978) hold the view that learning first takes place in interaction among students before it becomes mental processes for the individual. Piaget (1926) held the view that certain knowledge can only be learned in interaction with others. From this perspective, the effects of cooperative learning on achievement would depend on the use of cooperative tasks. It is the opportunity for students to discuss, argue, and hear viewpoints of other members of the group which is the critical element of cooperative learning.

b. Cognitive Elaboration Perspectives

This perspective is based on research in cognitive psychology which holds that learners must engage in some sort of cognitive restructuring or elaboration of material if information is to be retained in memory and related to information already in memory. With respect to cooperative learning this perspective takes the view that one of the most effective means of elaboration is explaining the material to someone else. Students take roles as recaller and listener. They read a section of text, and then the recaller summarizes the information while the listener helps by correcting errors and helping to think of way to remember the ideas. (Slavin 1995a)

In summary, these two types of cognitive theory are similar in that they both place emphasis on the necessity of interaction among students for mental processing. However, they do look at cognitive learning in slightly different ways.

5. Research

Research in cooperative learning is varied. This next section will discuss some of the studies and research findings in cooperative learning.

According to Slavin (1995), of forty-three studies of cooperative learning methods that provided group rewards based on the sum of group members individual learning, i.e. the motivational perspective, thirty two found positive effects on achievement. Studies of methods that used group goals based on a single group product or provided no group rewards found few positive effects.

With respect to the social cohesion perspective, achievement outcomes are unclear. Research on the jigsaw has not generally found positive effects on achievement. (Slavin 1995). However, studies of forms of jigsaw that have added some type of group rewards have found positive achievement outcomes (Matingly & Van Sickle, 1992).

The Johnson’s methods have not been found to increase achievement over individual methods unless group rewards were added. In a study by Jacob, Rottenberg, Patrick, and Wheeler (1996), the learning together method was used. The study took place in a social studies classroom of English second language students. The researchers found only 71 instances of positive opportunities to use the second language over 8 3/4 hours of interaction. They also found that more than half of those involved helping with academic terms rather than focusing on second language skills, and that there were some instances of missed opportunities and negative input. This teacher in the study, however, did not explicitly have second language acquisition as a goal for her use of cooperative learning. Therefore, the fact that students simply wanted to finish to work for the social studies class was also a contributing factor in the missed opportunities. It is important to realize that the 71 instances of positive opportunities were still probably more than would have occurred in a traditional method.

Group investigation has also been found to significantly increase student achievement (Sharan & Schacter 1988). However, Slavin (1995) attributes the success of group investigation to the fact that groups are evaluated based on their group products, which are composed of unique contributions made by each group member. As a result, this method may be using a form of the group goals and individual accountability which is viewed as essential by motivational theorists.

From the cognitive development perspective, Slavin (1995) points out that there is little evidence from classroom experiments that cooperative methods which depend solely on interaction will produce higher achievement. However, he also states that these processes are important "mediating variables" to explain the effects of group goals and tasks on achievement.

Szostek (1994) conducted an informal study of cooperative learning in a Spanish honors foreign language classroom. She found that the point system designed by Slavin did not work well due to the students high marks to begin with. She suggested that the "intrinsic rewards of working together successfully" (p. 257) seemed to be enough. However, it is important to remember that these where high achieving students, and very probably highly motivated, to begin with. Her results were in the form of outside observation and student questionnaires. Generally, students and observers were very positive about the cooperative learning experience in this study.

Careen (1997), in a study of cooperative learning in a grade 6 French foreign language class, found that although all groups showed improvements in oral performance and aural comprehension, cooperative learning benefited weaker and average ability students more that higher ability students. .This study compared cooperative learning and traditional classroom methods. Her study also showed that students of all levels in the cooperative learning groups acquired significantly more vocabulary than that of the traditional method. More importantly, the use of the language increased in the cooperative learning situation.

In conclusion, there is well documented evidence that cooperative learning is an effective method for increasing second language acquisition. In addition, it appears that many of the more successful methods seem to have overlapping theories, which seems to suggest that no one theory should be depended upon for second language teachers.

6. Outcomes of Cooperative Learning in the Second Language

Classrooms

Kagan (1995) states that language acquisition is determined by a "complex, interaction of a number of critical input, output and context variables." He also states that cooperative learning has a dramatic positive impact on these critical variables.

As has been seen thus far, much of the research suggests that cooperative learning is an effective method of classroom organization. This next section will deal more specifically with specific outcomes of cooperative learning in the second language classroom.

6.1 Input

According to Kagan (1995), language is best acquired when input is comprehensible, developmentally appropriate, redundant and accurate.

In cooperative group settings, students need to make themselves understood so they adjust their language to suit the members of that group. As a result, there is a much higher proportion of comprehensible input. Students can check for understanding and adjust their speech much easier in a small group than a teacher can in front of the class, simply due to numbers.

Language also needs to be developmentally appropriate. According to Vygotsky (1978), the zone of proximal development is the difference between what a student can do alone and what he/she can do with supportive collaboration. The next step in language acquisition will be stimulated if it is in the zone of proximal development. Cooperative learning helps bring students to the proximal level due to its very nature of collaboration.

Kagan states that cooperative learning is a "natural source of redundant communication". Students will all speak in different ways on the some topic, thus ensuring that input is received repeatedly form various sources.

Although lack of accuracy is a disadvantage in cooperative learning groups due to peer output being less accurate than teacher output, Kagan feels that it should not be a deciding factor in choosing a traditional approach over a cooperative approach. It is more important to have frequent opportunities to produce output as this has a greater chance of producing speech acquisition than the formal accurate input provided by the teacher.

6.2 Output

According to Kagan (1995), "language acquisition is fostered by output that is functional and communicative, frequent, redundant, and consistent with the identity of the speaker". Cooperative learning is the ideal situation for communicative output.

Language is best acquired when it is used in a way that is meaningful to the student. Cooperative learning provides opportunities for students to express themselves in a functional manner which is personally relevant to them. Students are using the language for a specific purpose, usually to meet certain group goals.

The cooperative learning setting also provides for frequent use of the language. The fact that students are in small group settings allows for much greater opportunities for language use than the traditional classroom.

Redundancy is important with regards to output as well as input. Students who are speaking on a topic get many more chances to speak about that some topic than they would in a traditional classroom.

Kagan also refers to output needing to be "identity congruent". The cooperative group provides for less formal language use which is closer to the identity of many students than that of the traditional, formal classroom.

6.3 Context

The third variable that Kagan refers to is context. Language which occurs in a context that is "supportive and motivating, communicative and referential, developmentally appropriate and feedback rich" will be much more likely to be acquired. Kagan lists a number of reasons of why students are more motivated and feel more support in a cooperative classroom.

"(1) They are more frequently asked questions;

(2) they need to communicate to accomplish the cooperative learning projects;

(3) peers are far more supportive than in the traditional classroom because they are all

on the same side;

(4) cooperative learning structures demand speech;

(5) students are taught to praise and encourage each other; and

(6) students are made interdependent so they need to know what the others know."

(Kagan 1995)

It is obvious, therefore, that cooperative learning situations generally provide for a better

learning environment for second language acquisition.

A communicative/referential context is much the same as the meaningful situations which was mentioned earlier. Cooperative learning presents many communicative situations in a meaningful manner because the situations are real and not contrived. That is, students are speaking about real events and objects and negotiating meaning, to accomplish real goals.

Students also find it much easier to talk to a peer in a small group than to a whole class. Therefore they have more opportunities to communicate at the level developmentally appropriate for them.

Finally, the immediate feedback that students give to one another in cooperative group settings leads to easier acquisition of vocabulary and forms. There is less chance of the self-consciousness and anxiety of the traditional classroom.

To summarize, cooperative learning provides opportunities for students to develop and improve their second language acquisition. Because language acquisition is determined by input, output and context variables, and because cooperative learning provides for those variables, second language acquisition and cooperative learning are, as Kagan (1995) puts it, a "natural marriage".

7. Implications

The most obvious implication for the use of cooperative learning in the second language classroom would seem that it would certainly improve student opportunities for language use. Students would be placed in situations whereby they would be required to use the language as well as hear and comprehend.

Undoubtedly, modification by negotiation would become very important as students try to make themselves understood in the second language within their cooperative groups. Studies by Pica (1994) and Long (1985) have shown that learners can comprehend and recall better when modification by negotiation has taken place.

However, cooperative learning in its many methods and forms is not the solution to all second language acquisition. As Szostek (1994) states:

"...cooperative learning is not a panacea. It cannot and should not be used to

replace all other types of teaching and learning." (p. 259)

Pica (1994) made a similar point with the statement:

"The recent proliferation of writing on SLA theory helps researchers begin to

understand why no one experience, activity, or endowment can account for all of

L2 learning." (p. 517)

Having said that, there are a number of implications to placing too much emphasis on cooperative learning.

As was already stated, communication between learners does not lend itself to grammatically correct forms. As a result, too much peer input and little teacher input could cause students to acquire grammatically incorrect phrases. This could also lead to fossilization, whereby students continue to use incorrect forms of the second language. This applies as well to pronunciation. During cooperative sessions, teachers need to be aware of this and make note of them so that they might correct the obvious errors which impede language acquisition in another class.

It should also be noted that when there is only interaction between learners, those learners can only be a limited source of input and output. It is important that students have opportunities for more advanced input, such as from the teacher. Input from authentic sources which students could work on in their groups would also be very beneficial.

In addition, there are implications for students who are higher achievers. If students are placed in heterogeneous groups, will this hold back the stronger students who need to explain things to the weaker students, or will it simply strengthen their own knowledge? In Careen (1997), higher achieving students only improved marginally. More research evidently needs to be conducted in this area.

Another question that seems to be unanswered is the problem of rewards and grades when students work together as groups. Much of the research seems to suggest that rewards are necessary and that these rewards should be given based on individual performance on a task within the group. However, as was already discussed, there does

seem to be some contradictory evidence to this which suggests that intrinsic motivation is enough. Much more research needs to done in this area.

Further implications for research include a need for development of cooperative curriculum. Research has moved beyond the question of whether or not cooperative learning is effective. The question now is what are the most effective ways of implementing it effectively in the second language classroom? If teachers are going to use more cooperative learning in language classrooms, it would be useful to have a well-researched cooperative curriculum.

In addition, teachers need to be properly inserviced on cooperative learning theories and methods. Evidently, there is a great deal of information to sort out. However, if cooperative learning is to be successful, teachers need to be aware of what research has shown to work. They also need practical knowledge with examples. It is not enough to simply give teachers a book. Teachers would like to know that it works in similar situations to their own. Otherwise, they will continue to use what they see as reasonably successful in their own classrooms, without really understanding what cooperative learning can do for their students. Most people are resistant to change. They need to be convinced that it is worth the effort.

In conclusion, cooperative learning is not perfect and much research needs to conducted. Clearly, however, it can be a very useful instructional strategy when used effectively and in conjunction with other teaching methods. Cooperative learning will undoubtedly have a great impact on future learning in the second language classroom.

References

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1994b). The New Circles of Learning,

Cooperation in the Classroom and School. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kagan, S. (1995). We Can Talk: Cooperative Learning in the Elementary ESL Classroom. Elementary Education Newsletter, 17(2).

Kasanga, L.A. (1996). Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 52(4), 611 - 639.

Mattingly, R. M., & Van Sickle, R. L. (in press). Cooperative Learning and Achievement in Social Studies: Jigsaw II. Social Education.

Pedersen, J. E., & Digby, A. D. (Ed.) (1995). Secondary Schools and Cooperative Learning, Theories, Models, and Strategies. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Piaget, J. (1926). The Language and Thought of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on Negotiation: What does it Reveal About Second-Language Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3),

493 - 527.

Pica, T., et. al. (1996). Language Learners’ Interaction: How Does it Address the Input, Output, and Feedback Needs of L2 Learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59 - 84.

Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The Role of Input and Output Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(2), 422 - 451.

Sharan, S., & Shachar, C. (1988). Language and learning in the Cooperative Classroom. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Slavin, R. E. (1982). Cooperative Learning: Student Teams. Washington, D.C: National Education Association.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice. (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (1995a). Cooperative Learning among Students: Theory, Research, and Implications for Active Learning. http://www.scov.csos.jhu.edu/sfa/cooplearn.htm

Slavin, R. E. (1995b). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What we know, What we need to know. http://www.scov.csos.jhu.edu/sfa/cooplear.html

Szostek, C. (1994). Assessing the Effects of Cooperative Learning in an Honors Foreign Classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 27(2), 252 - 261.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Allison Chafe
1998

Back to home page