International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature

E-ISSN: 2200-3452 & P-ISSN: 2200-3592

www.ijalel.aiac.org.au

Investigation of Cooperative Learning Techniques and Attitudes in Language Learning Classrooms

Safaa Mohammad Alhebaishi*

Taibah University, College of Education, Department of Curricula and Teaching Methods, Almadinah, Saudi Arabia
Corresponding Author: Safaa Mohammad Alhebaishi, E-mail: dr.safaa93@yahoo.com

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history The study investigates the Cooperative Learning (CL) techniques implemented by intermediate
Received: December 10, 2018 school language teachers and examines students’ attitudes regarding the use of CL in language
Accepted: February 20, 2019 classes. To realize the objectives of the study, two instruments were used to collect data:
Published: March 31, 2019 observation reports and an attitude questionnaire. Observation were conducted in 31 classrooms
Volume: 8 Issue: 2 in 12 intermediate public schools, and the attitude questionnaire was administered to 547 students.
Advance access: February 2019 The observation results revealed that CL was not accurately implemented in a majority of the
classrooms. Language teachers made several mistakes in the implementation of CL techniques.
Furthermore, the results of the attitude questionnaire showed that the students’ attitudes towards
Conflicts of interest: None CL were positive.
Funding: None
Key words: Cooperative Learning Techniques, Students’ Attitudes, Language Classrooms

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW because the purpose of all three terms is to minimize com-
petitive individual learning by engaging students in support-
Definition
ive group learning experiences. The three methods utilize
Cooperative learning (CL) is an instructional method in student diversity to establish mutual engagement, equal
which students learn by helping each other in an education- participation and social interaction among them. However,
al setting. It is a set of instructional activities that reqiure researchers have clarified that the three methods are differ-
learners to work in small heterogeneous groups (Slavin, ent. Woolfolk (2004) explained that group work is different
1987). CL is “a form of active learning designed to enhance from CL in that group work involves simply placing stu-
individual learning via student group interaction” (Riley & dents together and giving them a task to perform, however,
Anderson, 2006, p.130). Johnson and Johnson (2008) de- group work may not lead to actual cooperation. In contrast,
fined CL as “the instructional use of small groups so that Macpherson (2015) illustrated that the scope of CL extends
students work together to maximize their own and each oth- beyond simply grouping students and assigning them tasks.
er’s learning” (p.26). It is a teaching strategy that promotes Rather, CL requires students to cooperate among themselves
socialization and learning among students in classes ranging and depend on each other to perform classroom tasks (Peter-
from kindergarten through college across different subject son & Skiba, 2002).
areas (Cohen, 1994). According to Jacobs, Power and Loh Comparing cooperative and collaborative learning,
(2016), CL involves “principles and techniques for helping Richards and Rodgers (2001:192) opined that “coopera-
students work together more effectively” (p. ix). Doymus tive learning is a part of a more general approach known
(2008) stated that CL is an instructional technique in which as collaborative learning”. Therefore, collaborative learning
students work together in small structured groups to accom- is used as an umbrella term for a number of instructional
plish shared goals. Johnson and Johnson (2009) described methods that involve mutual effort from active groups to
CL as a student-centred pedagogy in which the teacher’s role achieve a common goal or complete a task (Nelson, 2007).
changes from being the deliverer of information to the facil- Yang, Chan, Ho, and Tam (2005) indicated that the main fo-
itator of students’ learning, as students acquire knowledge cus of cooperation is working together, whereas collabora-
and create their own meanings. Norman (2005) added that tion focuses on the process of working together. Similarly,
“CL is important for creating inclusive classroom environ- Oxford (1997:443) pointed out that “cooperative learning is
ments that meet the needs of all students because it takes more structured, more perspective to teachers about class-
heterogeneity into account, encouraging peer support and room techniques, more directive to students about how to
connection” (p. 3). work together in groups than collaborative learning”. Fur-
A review of the literature reveals that the terms “cooper- thermore, Rockwood (1995) distinguished between the two
ative learning”, “collaborative learning” and “group work” methods from the perspective of the teacher’s role as fol-
are sometimes used interchangeably which is reasonable lows: in a CL classroom, the teacher is the authority centre

Published by Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.2p.219
220 IJALEL 8(2):219-230

and more closed-ended group tasks are used; in contrast, in a To encourage positive interdependence, all group members
collaborative learning classroom, the authority is transferred should work together and need each other to accomplish
to groups, who are often assigned more open-ended tasks. the assigned task, and each member’s contribution should
help the group achieve its goals. (4) Promotive interaction,
Theoretical Background which occurs when there is close physical proximity be-
tween group members so that they can see each other, listen
The theoretical foundation of the CL concept is largely rooted to others, and participate in face-to-face discussions, should
in and influenced by several theories and approaches, such as be encouraged. Promotive interaction in turn helps students
the humanistic approach, constructivism, socio-cultural the- communicate easily and develop personal rapport. (5) Si-
ory and second language acquisition theories (Jacobs, 2004; multaneous interaction, which happens when the entire class
Stepanovienė, 2013). CL emphasizes the importance of stu- works simultaneously, should also be promoted. In simulta-
dent autonomy and a supportive learning environment in the neous interaction, all students are engaged in contributing to
learning process, which are basic principles of the human- group work, unlike in traditional classrooms, where students
istic approach. When students work together, they support
spend much of their time listening to a teacher or a select-
each other, listen to each other, manage diversity, and coop-
ed student. (6) Individual accountability, which is based on
erate among themselves to solve problems. This approach
the idea of equal participation, should be supported. Every
reduces fear and stress and, correspondingly, increases moti-
member should have a role to play, contribute to the group’s
vation. The socio-cultural theory perceives learning as a so-
success and exhibit mastery of the assigned learning mate-
cial process rather than an individual process that takes place
rial. (7) Students should develop interpersonal skills, which
through interactions among people. Dewey (1938) stated
include learning the skills required for effective cooperation,
that individuals tend to discover knowledge and construct
such as communicating successfully, establishing good re-
meaning through personal experience and peer interactions
in a supportive environment. Similarly, Piagt (1964) argued lationships, sharing resources, expressing ideas, managing
that social experience, knowledge, language, rules, values disagreements, resolving conflicts, and making decisions.
and morality are acquired through interaction with others. (8) Group processing, which reflects both the contribution
Furthermore, Vygotsky (1978, cited in Almula,2017) stated of each member to group work and the group’s progress to-
that learners can exchange ideas and knowledge to achieve wards accomplishing its goals, should occur Group members
shared goals in a CL environment. He added that social in- should send and receive feedback to take relevant action or
teraction helps foster a positive learning environment that make decisions to improve the quality of group work.
results in greater achievement for all group members. Fur-
thermore, the advantages of CL can be applied to Karshen’s Cooperative Learning Techniques
second language acquisition theory, which implies the im-
portance of improving language acquisition by providing Although there is sufficient evidence in the research liter-
learners with opportunities to communicate and negotiate ature regarding the benefits of CL, no one has specifically
meaning in a social context (Richard, 2005). In a CL en- recommended that students should always work in groups.
vironment, learners have numerous opportunities to nego- To ensure successful CL implementation, Brown (2001),
tiate meaning by listening to each other, asking questions, Richards and Renandya (2001), and Gillies (2007) recom-
exchanging ideas, discussing issues, clarifying concepts, and mended that the implementation of the following techniques
defending their opinions. This environment enables a high is essential.
degree of comprehensible input and maximizes the amount
of student talk, which facilitates language learning. The Introducing CL to students
principles of communicative language teaching are also ap-
plicable to CL. Both communicative language teaching and Professional teachers should provide their students with
CL concentrate on the importance of social interaction and clear and sufficient explanations of CL before implement-
communication among students, emphasize self-autonomy, ing it. They should provide information on different aspects,
consider more communicative language functions and en- such as team building, effective cooperation with group
able students to establish close relationships with their peers. members, assignment of roles and responsibilities, and as-
sessment procedures.

Cooperative Learning Principles

Giving instructions
To enjoy the maximum benefits from CL implementation,
Jacob, Power, & Loh (2002) and Gillies (2007) stated that Teachers should provide students with instructions and di-
groups should be established according to the following rections that precisely describe what the students are expect-
important principles. (1) Cooperation should be framed as ed to do, what skills they should develop, what signals and
a value by encouraging students to consider mutual assis- expressions to use while responding to their teacher, and
tance as an aim and to prefer cooperation over competitive what behavioural conduct they should internalize during
individual work. (2) Heterogeneous grouping, which in- group work. Furthermore, it is important to establish class-
volves working with diverse individuals rather than individ- room rules and norms that guide students to contribute, help,
uals that students prefer to work with, should be used. (3) interact, share, and overcome difficulties.
Investigation of Cooperative Learning Techniques and Attitudes in Language Learning Classrooms 221

Establishing a supportive climate monitor, observer, facilitator, reflector, investigator, checker,

The successful implementation of CL requires teachers to and elaborator. Another important aspect of assigning roles
build a supportive, relaxed atmosphere in which students is ensuring that the roles are compatible with the activity
can help each other learn flexibly, safely and comfortably. type and that the roles are rotated frequently so that students
Further, research shows that the classroom seating arrange- can perform new roles.
ment and physical environment affect the type and amount
of communication, social interaction, and student behaviour Introducing tasks
desired in CL (Cornell, 2002). If teachers require students to
The teacher’s duty is to design or select tasks that are ap-
work together, they should avoid seating arrangements suit-
propriate for CL. Tasks should be structured so that students
ed for lecture-based classrooms such as rows and columns cooperate with each other to achieve common goals. For
fixed to the floor that hinder communication and cooperation example, students can work in groups to solve a problem,
among students. In the CL classroom, students should sit discuss an issue, share ideas, develop a product, prepare a
close to each other along a round or square desk. The closer presentation, and design a project. After selecting a task, the
together the students sit, the more calmly they work and talk. teacher must introduce the task and provide sufficient infor-
However, there should be sufficient space among them to mation to students, such as the defined objectives, criteria
help them maintain eye contact and share materials without for success, and required skills. Furthermore, the teacher is
hindering the activities of others. expected to explain the major concepts and strategies neces-
sary to complete the task.
Forming groups
Groups are formed in various ways. (1) Heterogeneous Setting a time limit
groups are formed according to students’ academic ability, Time limits are useful since they help students develop their
proficiency level, gender, and race. This group type is the time management skills, particularly when one student in
most preferable since heterogeneity allows the inclusion of each group is acting as a time checker. The teacher may ex-
diverse abilities, styles, skills and experiences; hence, it in- tend the time limit if it is exceeded; however, most groups
creases students’ opportunities to benefit from one another. tend to work within the time limit.
(2) Homogenous groups are formed based on similar charac-
teristics, such as gender, performance, or proficiency level.
(3) Random groups are formed without considering any par- Monitoring the task
ticular factor. It is an easy grouping technique and conveys The teacher should constantly walk around CL groups to
the idea that one can work with anyone. (4) Interest groups monitor the groups’ activities. During this step, the teacher
are formed according to individual interests such as friend- can respond to students’ questions, clarify doubts, facilitate
ship or cliques. communication, correct mistakes, manage overly dominant
and passive students, reduce noise levels, motivate students,
and provide feedback.
Selecting the group size
The best option is to keep groups small. Smaller groups
can perform activities more quickly than larger groups. The Advantages of Cooperative Learning
use of smaller groups increases the amount of student en- Earlier research has confirmed that the incorporation of
gagement and participation and requires fewer management CL in teaching is advantageous to students. Jacobs, Power
techniques. Although large groups are advisable for big and Loh (2016: p. xi) stated that CL can benefit students
tasks or complex projects, they are more difficult to manage in the following areas: “improved achievement, increased
and might easily cause a student to be left out or neglected. motivation, improved collaboration skills, improved stu-
Experts on CL recommend that teachers start by grouping dent attitudes towards learning, and greater opportunities
students into pairs and then into groups of four. Cohen and for teachers to assess student learning”. Alhabeedi (2015)
Lotan (2014) stated that groups of four are favourable for found that CL promoted students’ participation, motivation,
constructive discussion and powerful collaboration. This sense of responsibility and desire for challenges. Erdem
group size enables members to maintain physical proximity (2009, p. 2) summarized the advantages of CL as follows:
and listen to conversation attentively and establish eye con- “CL supports learning and academic success of the students,
tact with group members. increases keeping useful information in mind longer, helps
feel satisfied while learning, improves communication skills,
develops social skills, enhances self-respect, improves meta
Assigning roles
cognitive thinking skills, and helps students express their
Assigning roles is a method to minimize conflict and reduce ideas during discussions and be critical”. Kagan (1994, cit-
misbehaviour in a group. By assigning roles, a teacher allots ed in Koutselini, 2009) explained that CL provides students
each member a function to perform so that a student knows with a wide range of experiences, such as active learning
what is expected of him/her. Some examples of roles can opportunities, and enhances communication skills, high-
be carried out by students are data recorder, timekeeper, er-order thinking skills, and social skills, which are vital for
222 IJALEL 8(2):219-230

success in today’s world. According to Johnson and Johnson grammar, discourse and pronunciation errors, but in group
(2009), CL has positive outcomes not only for students’ ac- work, students may sometimes neglect to provide feedback
ademic achievement but also for their psychological health on errors to their peers, and at other times, they may not be
and social interaction. Students are more likely to form aware that their peers have committed errors. Certainly, a
friendly relationships, trust one another, and influence one teacher can correct students’ errors in teacher-fronted class-
another in CL classrooms than in competitive classrooms es; however, she/he cannot stand behind students’ backs to
(Deutch, 1992). Friendly relationships and trust lead to a correct every mistake they make (Salas, 2005).
reduction in stress in class and increases in students’ mo-
tivation (Slavin,1995). CL also promotes inter-group rela-
Cooperative Learning in Language Classrooms
tionships with individuals from different cultural and ethi-
cal backgrounds (Slavin & Cooper,1999). CL is used as a CL is particularly beneficialwhen it is used in English class-
teaching strategy to understand how to manage conflicts and rooms. It gives language learners more opportunities to listen
develop appropriate interpersonal skills (Cowie & Berdond- to the foreign language (FL) and use more complex language
ini,2001). Furthermore, CL is considered a tool that prepares while interacting with group members (Bruner, 1974). Long
students to acquire and develop generic skills that prepare and Porter (1985) highlighted some benefits of group activ-
them for their work lives. These skills include “team work ities over individual activities in learning a FL such as more
skills; analytic and cognitive skills; collaborative skills such opportunities to use the target language, more practice of
as conflict and resolution management; and organizational various language functions, a wider range of opportunities
and time management skills” (Natoli, Jackling & seelanatha, for error correction and utterances completion, and more
2014: p.118). processes for the negotiation of meaning. Harmer (2007)
stated that CL is one of the best strategies that can be used by
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students to learn a lan-
Challenges of Cooperative Learning guage thoroughly. He stated the following advantages of this
Teachers and students may encounter some challenges to strategy: increased speaking opportunities for each learner,
successful CL implementation such as the following exam- development of personal relationships, enhanced exchange
ples. (1) Some group members may lack commitment to CL of opinions, improved negotiation skills, and promotion of
implementation efforts due to their reluctance to work. Fur- learner autonomy. Wahyukti (2017) stated that CL enhances
thermore, some may prefer not to share their ideas or partici- English language acquisition by decreasing students’ learn-
pate in group discussion, whereas others may dominate group ing anxiety, encouraging their active participation, increasing
work and ignore their colleagues (Friedman, Cox, & Maher, the amount of student talk, and providing a non-threatening
2008). (2) Unequal efforts resulting from different working classroom environment. McGtoarty (1989) argued that CL
abilities and proficiency levels of group members potentially activities foster both comprehension and production of the
resulting in time wastage. Low achievers require more time FL by students. When students work in groups, they coop-
to comprehend task requirements, whereas high achievers erate to correct their mistakes and clarify misunderstandings
find it inconvenient to explain each detail to low achievers in communication by rephrasing or correcting their group
and, hence, undertake the majority of the work to avoid time members’ statements. Kagan (1995) and Lin (2006) clarified
wastage (Alfaris, 2017). Similarly, low- proficiency students that CL creates an interactive learning environment in which
find it difficult to negotiate meaning and correct each other’s students can improve their L2 acquisition by using various
mistakes, which may cause them to lose confidence and de- methods to negotiate meaning. When students cooperate in
velop language anxiety. (3) Low- proficiency student some- a language classroom, they obtain more opportunities to lis-
times code-switch to comprehend their tasks and enhance ten to each other, ask for repetition or clarification, exchange
interpersonal interactions (Alhedan, 2014). High proficiency ideas, defend opinions, complete tasks, think about problems
students code-switch as well if the teacher does not insist on and propose solutions. Within-group interaction and coop-
using L2 for communication and explanation. (4) Poor CL eration facilitate the negotiation of comprehensible input
techniques which may be attributed to several reasons such and help learners to modify their output and make it more
as misconceptions regarding CL, a lack of previous knowl- meaningful to others. In addition, Richards (2005) affirmed
edge and training on CL, a lack of proper planning, inap- that group work helps learners to negotiate more since the
propriate implementation, and negative attitudes towards CL presence of a comfortable environment assists them in ne-
(Saborit et al., 2016). (5) Unfair assessment which occurs gotiating with others without pressure. Zhang (2010) stated
when passive participants are granted equal scores as com- that the incorporation of CL into FL classrooms had positive
pletely active participants (Natoli, Jackling, and Seelanatha, outcomes, such as enhancing the necessary academic and so-
2014). (6) Noise problems, which are caused when group cial skills of students.
members work on CL activities and speak at the same time to Previous research on teaching EFL has documented sev-
accomplish their tasks, thereby bothering other colleagues. eral positive effects of and students’ attitudes towards CL
(7) Behavioural management can become problematic if compared with individual learning. Some researchers, such
teachers lose control over student misbehaviours, particular- as Storch (2005), Shehadeh (2011), and Kwon (2014), stud-
ly those related to discipline, such as resolving conflicts and ied students’ attitudes, benefits and concerns regarding writ-
managing trouble makers. (8) Group members sometimes ing in pairs or groups. In general, the attitudes of the study
commit errors while performing their tasks, such as lexical, participants were mainly positive. In Storch’s (2005) study,
Investigation of Cooperative Learning Techniques and Attitudes in Language Learning Classrooms 223

the majority of the participants believed that collaborative classrooms. The incorporation of appropriate CL techniques
writing provided them with opportunities to learn from each represents a real challenge for language teachers. Further-
other, share ideas and improve accuracy. The common con- more, Xuan (2015) stated that many English teachers do not
cerns were the low proficiency levels of some participants adopt this method in their classes since they find it difficult to
and reluctance to provide feedback. Shehadeh’s (2011) find- implement it in English teaching. Most of them make serious
ings revealed that collaborative writing was effective in im- mistakes when implementing CL techniques in their lessons.
proving students’ L2 writing. It had a significant effect on For example, I observed the following errors: (1) the overuse
content, organization and vocabulary but not on mechanics of the CL strategy, some teachers assume that CL should be
or grammar. Kwon (2014) found that some students faced utilized in every lesson and that it suits all activities; (2) the
difficulties in group writing, including differences in pro- use of the CL strategy as a supplementary activity during
ficiency levels, difficulties in following decision-making the evaluation process at the end of the lesson; (3) errors in
processes, and peer relationship problems. Murad (2015) the physical classroom setup that may hinder effective CL
investigated Kurdish students’ attitudes towards the use of application; (4) the use of inappropriate grouping techniques
group work in EFL classrooms. The results indicated that or group sizes, with the use of groups either too small or
students had both positive and negative opinions regarding too large to accomplish the task, the use of unequal group
group work. Some students preferred group work since pos- sizes in the same class, and the formation of groups accord-
itive collaboration among group members helped them learn ing to students’ interests (fringing groups); (5) challenges
from each other and finish their tasks in a short period. On posed by group work control and management, such as as-
the other hand, some students preferred not to share their signing roles, handling overly dominant or overly passive
ideas with others, and others disliked group work and con- students, managing conflicts, and responding to students’
sidered it a time for relaxation. misbehaviours and time management; (6) teachers’ failure
Ruiz’s (2014) study revealed that group work is a good to supply students with sufficient directions and instruc-
technique to reduce anxiety and that it provides students with tions, and their ignorance of the development of students’
a secure and comfortable environment that enhances FL oral academic and social skills; (7) the issue of unequal engage-
proficiency. Jahanshahi (2013) found that working in groups ment and interactions among group members; (8) a lack of
and inter-group cooperation significantly affected students’ monitoring of student learning while working in groups; (9)
willingness to communicate using the target language. The a lack of teacher knowledge or teacher training, which may
findings of Shih, Chern and Liang’s (2002) study revealed affect successful implementation; and (10) the use of the na-
that CL enhanced learners’ oral communicative competence tive language as a tool for explanation and communication
and their motivation to learn English. Gömleksiz (2007) found among group members, which minimizes their opportunities
that CL promoted students’ positive attitudes towards learning to practice the target FL.
English. It improved students’ vocabulary knowledge and pro- In reviewing the CL literature, the researcher found that
moted interactions among students as well. Nausheen, Alvi, the majority of studies have been conducted to highlight the
Munir and Anwar (2013) showed that university students had advantages of CL for students (Othman & Murad, 2015) and
positive attitudes towards CL. They perceived its advantag- show that CL is more effective than traditional learning strat-
es, such as satisfaction, enjoyment, better understanding and egies (Erdem, 2009; Shih, Chern, & Liang, 2002; Mahmoud,
support from peers. Burke (2011) stated that CL enhanced stu- 2014). Furthermore, some attention has been paid to eval-
dents’ motivation to obtain better grades, their feelings of be- uating the techniques of effective CL implementation and
ing engaged, and their satisfaction with education. Gonzales how they may affect students’ attitudes towards CL. Simi-
and Torres (2016) and Er and Aksu Ataç, (2014) revealed that larly, studies conducted in the Saudi setting have investigat-
the majority of students preferred CL to individual learning ed the effectiveness of CL in improving language skills and
because CL helped them to better understand study contents developing positive attitudes, motivation, and self-autonomy
and participate in classroom activities. among students (Almashjari, 2013; Bawazeer, 2013; Mah-
moud, 2014); have revealed the benefits and difficulties of
implementing CL in EFL classrooms (Alfares, 2017; Raja,
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Qureshi & Albesher, 2017); or have highlighted the urgent
For many years, language instructors have been using var- need to provide CL implementation training to the major-
ious active learning strategies to promote participation and ity of Saudi teachers (Almula, 2017). Therefore, the cur-
interaction among learners. One of the most common among rent study could significantly contribute to the CL literature
these strategies is CL. The numerous advantages of CL in FL since, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no similar
classrooms cannot be ignored. It has proved its significance study has been conducted in Saudi Arabia to investigate the
in increasing students’ motivation, communication and col- CL techniques implemented by language teachers in EFL
laboration. However, unless it is carefully implemented, stu- classrooms.
dents and teachers might find CL frustrating.
As part of my work in mentoring and coaching preser-
vice teacher trainees in practicum courses, I have attended QUESTIONS
many CL classes for both experienced and novice language 1. What are the techniques implemented by language
teachers with trainees. Through observation, I found that CL teachers while implementing CL activities in FL class-
techniques are not successfully implemented in many FL rooms?
224 IJALEL 8(2):219-230

2. What are the attitudes of FL intermediate students procedures of observation techniques. The questionnaire’s
towards implementing CL in FL classrooms? reliability was examined by applying Cronbach’s alpha
method. The Cronbach’s alpha value was.783, indicating
that the questionnaire was reliable.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study investigates the techniques used by EFL teach-
ers when incorporating CL into Saudi English classrooms. RESULTS
It also clarifies how Saudi intermediate FL students perceive Results of the Observation Reports
CL. Such information may be important for the following
Analysis of the observation data collected on 12 items in 31
purposes:
EFL classrooms revealed the following techniques used by
• The findings of the study may contribute insights and
EFL teachers in CL activities.
information to the current CL literature.
• The findings may function as guidelines for language
teachers who utilize CL to improve FL students’ com- Accuracy of the implementation techniques
munication and interaction.
The results revealed that 19.35% of the language teachers
• The study aims to draw teachers’ attention to some of
implemented CL techniques accurately, whereas the ma-
the implementation difficulties encountered in applying
jority, 80.64%, committed either major or minor mistakes
CL techniques.
during CL implementation, suchas, choosing inappropriate
• The findings may also help language teachers under-
activities due to any one of the following reasons: selection
stand how FL students perceive CL so that they can
of activities more suitable to individual work, selection of
consider such attitudes to better meet the needs of their
activities unsuitable for the group size, selection of boring
students.
or non- challenging activities, problems related to class-
• The study could provide suggestions for improving CL
room and time management, failure to engage all group
training programmes for in-service teachers and recog-
members in group activities and failure to monitor students
nize the factors that affect CL implementation.
during group work or provide them with clear and suffi-
• The study may encourage stake holders in teacher ed-
cient instructions. Inaccurate CL implementation might be
ucation programmes to make future decisions to train
attributed to the teacher’s misconceptions of CL principles
student teachers on the appropriate practical and peda-
and techniques; their insufficient training in practical imple-
gogical implementation of CL.
mentation; or their negative beliefs, attitudes or experiences.

METHODOLOGY
Classroom seating arrangement (rows, clusters, circle,
Participants semi-circle)
The study sample included 611 Saudi female EFL students The observation results revealed that the physical setup of
studying in 31 classrooms at 12 intermediate public schools tables and chairs in all the observed classrooms (31class-
in Almadinah City, KSA. Their ages ranged between 12- rooms) were clusters. The cluster seating arrangement was
15 years. Their ages ranged between 12 and 15 years. fixed in all classes and for all activities. Students were seated
in groups around tables from the beginning of the school day
untill the end. This situation reflects a shift from the tradi-
Instruments tional classroom setup which typically consists of rows and
Two instruments were used to collect data: classroom obser- columns of fixed seats, to a more flexible design that encour-
vation reports and an attitudes questionnaire. The observa- ages interaction and collaboration among learners. It also
tion reports covered areas related to CL techniques such as reveals a widespread tendency among intermediate-school
classroom organization, group formation, group size, time teachers to implement active learning strategies, such as CL.
lines, group instructions, classroom management, student The cluster seating arrangement in all observed class-
engagement, and CL activities. The questionnaire comprised rooms is considered a double-edged sword. Although it
16 items measuring students’ attitudes towards CL. Eight reflects the increasing tendency in intermediate schools
items were favourable, and eight were unfavourable. The to encourage the use of active learning strategies to shift
items were rated on a 3-point Likert scale, with the options from teacher-centred to student-centred classrooms, it also
of agree, undecided, and disagree. The students’ responses demonstrates the over use of CL in such classrooms. It is
were respectively scored 3, 2, and 1 for the favourable items known that changing from one seating arrangement to anoth-
and 1, 2, and 3 for the unfavourable items. To determine the er is beneficial to students and can significantly affect perfor-
validity of the two instruments, an expert panel evaluated mance. Most students like to change the physical classroom
the relevance of the contents of both the instruments to the setup. The use of a single seating arrangement for all sub-
field of the study. To compute the reliability of the observa- jects, lessons, and activities is not a recommended approach.
tion, the inter-rater reliability method was used to check the The typical classroom design should be harmonious with the
level of agreement between the two raters (the researcher students’ needs, the teaching strategies and the class size.
and preservice teachers), who agreed on the principles and Furthermore, the use of the cluster arrangement has some
Investigation of Cooperative Learning Techniques and Attitudes in Language Learning Classrooms 225

issues over the long term: it prevents some students from and activities, expecting students to read the question or the
facing the teacher when the teacher is explaining or talking; activity and appropriately respond to it. Providing students
it increases distraction, noise levels and side talking; it re- with clear instructions or rules before carrying out CL activ-
quires teachers to expend more effort on establishing rules to ities is a fundamental step that helps ensure that the activity
manage students’ behaviour. is meaningful for students. In addition, students also recog-
nize the expected behaviours and rules to be followed while
performing the task, which assists the teacher in managing
Group formation and size
student behaviour during CL sessions.
The results showed that all groups in the 31observed class-
rooms were friendship groups. Regarding the group size, it
was noted that in 11 (35%) classes, there were 4 students in Assignment of roles
each group; in 14 (5.16%) classes, there were 6; in 3 (9.67%) The findings revealed that a large percentage of teachers,
classes, there were 7 to 8; in 3 (9.67%) classes, the size of 89.12%, did not assign roles to group members while im-
the groups was not equal. Big groups were present in crowd- plementing CL, which. was disappointing. By assigning
ed classrooms. An amazing finding was that the group size roles, a teacher gives each student a responsibility to do
was fixed regardless of the task nature, requirements or something, which enhances the individual’s accountability.
complexity. It encourages mutual participation and discourages group
Regarding the group formation technique, all classes work dominance. Roles should vary according to the nature
used the friendship formation technique, which is based on of the tasks being assigned. Some examples of suggested
giving students the chance to select the group mates whom roles are facilitator, recorder, reflector, noise monitor, and
they like. A possible explanation for the use of this tech- time keeper. Furthermore, roles should be rotated frequently
nique is that it is intended to make students feel comfort- to provide every student an opportunity to practice various
able and to avoid fighting among group members. Certainly, roles and realize each role’s expectation. The rotation of
there is evidence that students benefit most from working roles enables students to acquire social, communication and
with friends, as they tend to accept more learning respon- leadership skills.
sibilities and are more motivated to achieve their learning
goals than when working with students who are not friends
(Abrami, Chambers, Poulsen, DeSimone, & Howden, Types of CL activities
1995). However, friendship grouping may not be the best The results indicated that 48.38% of teachers chose to use
group formation technique in the CL classroom. Some re- workbook activities as part of CL, such as reading or listen-
searchers have advocated the use of heterogeneous groups. ing comprehension questions, grammar exercises, vocabu-
Slavin (1993) indicated that heterogeneous grouping based lary matching questions, and writing and spelling activities.
on abilities benefits student learning. Heterogamous group- In contrast, 51.61% of teachers designed CL activities that
ing reflects the real authentic world outside the classroom were not included in students’ textbooks, such as language
where different people interact and communicate with each games, role playing, and brainstorming.
other. Students have the opportunity to listen to diverse per-
spectives and exchange ideas. In addition, they learn how
Appropriateness of activities to CL
to work and socialize with people unknown to them, which
could improve their social skills. The results indicated that 61.29% of CL activities were
Regarding group size, notably, the majority of the groups suitable for CL implementation whereas 38.70% were not
had 4 to 6 members, which is considered an ideal group size, suitable for group work since they could be performed as
to some extent. Two implementation mistakes pertaining to individual work. This finding shows that a high percentage
the group size technique were noticed during observation: of teachers designed activities that were appropriate to CL
(1) the group size was fixed irrespective of the amount of and group size, whereas other teachers selected drills and
work required for the specific task at hand; and (2) in some exercises that were available in students’ textbooks, some
classes, the group size was not equal within the same class of which were inappropriate for either CL or group size. CL
due to the simultaneous presence of groups with 5, 6 and activities should stimulate learning, thinking, and communi-
7 members. The ideal group size should correspond to the cation with group members rather than merely emphasizing
work load. the completion of tasks or drills included in textbooks for
individual practice. Moreover, the amount of work required
for the assigned activity should match group size to ensure
Provision of time limits and clear instructions
the active participation of all members.
It was found that approximately 51.61% of teachers estab-
lished time limits before assigning group activities, where-
as 48.38% neglected to employ this technique. The results Matching CL activities to group size
revealed that the majority of teachers, 87.09%, provided stu- It was observed that CL activities were suitable for the group
dents with clear instructions before assigning group activi- size in 64.51% of the classes, whereas there was no match
ties; however, 12.90% of the teachers did not. The teachers between CL activities and group size in 35. 48% of the class-
who did not provide clear instructions distributed worksheets es. Easy activities were often assigned to large groups.
226 IJALEL 8(2):219-230

Native language use the classrooms, not all the group members were engaged
Students’ native language (Arabic) was used in 84.52 % of since some members were ignored or neglected. Further-
the classrooms for discussion and communication among more, the results indicated that the CL workload was carried
group members. During group discussions and interactions, out mainly by the high-achieving students in 45.16% of the
a large percentage of language classrooms allowed students observed classrooms. To overcome this situation, teachers
to switch to the native language to facilitate comprehension; should establish good group dynamics to maximize produc-
however, they provided their answers in English. It seemed tive work, clarify expectations and learning outcomes, avoid
easier for students to clarify their view points, share their selecting tasks that are unsuited for group work, and monitor
ideas, solve problems, and explain concepts in their native students during CL activities.
language. Teachers did not draw the attention of students to
the use of English for communication. Rather, they were more Monitoring CL groups
concerned with supplying the final product in English alone.
Unfortunately, the majority of language teachers, 63.82%,
did not monitor or circulate throughout the classroom while
Noise level groups were performing their tasks, which may have reduced
The majority of the classes, 54.83%, were noisy during the the effectiveness of CL implementation. Teachers should
implementation of CL activities, but in 45.16% classes, the move between groups to perform the following: clarify mis-
groups worked and cooperated quietly. Teachers can reduce conceptions, answer questions, make students aware of time
the noise level of classes by performing the following: (1) limits, reinforce appropriate behaviour, manage dominant
establish rules and instructions to help manage classroom students, offer help, solve problems, and provide feedback.
behaviour; (2) assign one student per group to be the noise
monitor, whose function is to encourage the group to coop- Results of the Attitude Questionnaire
erate actively, yet quietly; (3) allow students to sit close to-
gether to not only help reduce noise levels but also foster This section helps to answer the second research question and
cooperation; and (4) use signals to gain students’attention, presents the descriptive statistics, including the frequency,
for instance, using cards or a ringing bell to inform students percentage, mean, and standard deviation values. The results
to work more quietly. of the attitude questionnaire analysis depicted in Table (1)
reveal that the participants agreed on the items included in
the questionnaire, with a total mean of 2.4100 out of 3.00.
Student engagement and work load This finding indicates that students had favourable attitudes
The results showed that group members were engaged during towards CL. They perceived beneficial effects of CL in the
CL in 54. 83%, of the classrooms; however, in 45. 16% of English classroom, such as sharing ideas and views, receiv-

Table 1. Results of the attitude questionnaire

No. Statement Agree Undecided Disagree M SD R *Sig
no. % no. % no. %
1 CL helps me carry out assignments 514 2 94 2.6890 0.72306 2 Agree
more quickly 84.28% 0.34% 15.38%
2 CL helps me comprehend knowledge 448 5 158 2.4746 0.87624 6 Agree
better 73.32% 0.83% 25.85%
3 CL helps me exchange ideas and 524 2 85 *2.7185 0.69374 1 Agree
viewpoints with group members 85.76% 0.24% 13.91%
4 CL helps me develop language skills 383 11 217 2.2717 0.95377 12 Undecided
62.68% 1.81% 35.51%
5 I like to work in a group of highly 511 9 91 2.6874 0.71666 3 Agree
competent students 83.63% 1.48% 14.89%
6 CL helps me promote better social 476 10 125 2.5745 0.80913 5 Agree
skills 77.90% 1.65% 20.45%
7 CL enables me to get help from group 505 9 97 2.6678 0.73502 4 Agree
members 82.65% 1.48% 15.87%
8 I get the grade I deserve when I work 2.3110 0.93644 11 Undecided
in a group 64.15% 2.79% 33.06%
9 Not all students are equally cooperative 335 11 265 1.8854 0.98512 16 Undecided
in performing group activities 54.82% 1.81% 43.37%
10 I often do not have a real role in my 230 16 365 2.2209 0.96255 15 Undecided
CL group 37.64% 2.63% 59.73%
(Contd...)
Investigation of Cooperative Learning Techniques and Attitudes in Language Learning Classrooms 227

Table 1. (Continued)
No. Statement Agree Undecided Disagree M SD R *Sig
no. % no. % no. %
11 I consider working in the group a break 219 14 378 2.2602 0.95439 14 Undecided
from the English class routine activities 35.84% 2.3% 61.86%
12 Working in a group makes me less 175 15 421 2.3895 0.90833 9 Disagree
understanding of others 28.64% 2.46% 68.90%
13 I prefer to switch to my native 219 12 380 2.2635 0.95521 13 Undecided
language when communicating with 35.84% 1.97% 62.19%
my group members
14 My group members do not respect my 203 13 395 2.3142 0.93884 10 Undecided
feelings or opinions 33.22% 2.14% 64.64%
15 I do not like to work with people who 168 12 431 2.4304 0.89240 7 Disagree
are different from me 27.49% 1.97% 70.54%
16 I think I can learn English better if I 272 21 318 2.4026 0.89713 8 Disagree
work individually 44.51% 3.45% 52.04%
Total *M Total *SD
2.41008 0.39384

ing help from group members, carrying out activities more comfortable for some students to explain their ideas to their
quickly, promoting social skills, and comprehending knowl- group members than the use of English, and hence, students
edge better. CL provided opportunities for students to obtain were unable to decide whether CL could help them improve
assistance from peers. Students may pay more attention to various language skills.
clarifications provided by their peers than to those provided
by a teacher. CL also created a supportive atmosphere that
CONCLUSIONS
helped students to enhance their communication and social
skills, since they could interact with different individuals to The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to investigate the
exchange various experiences and viewpoints. Students were CL techniques implemented by language teachers in EFL
motivated to use CL because group members cooperated to classrooms and (2) to examine intermediate school stu-
perform assignments more quickly. In general, students felt dents’ attitudes towards CL. Accordingly, two research in-
that they could learn English better through CL than through struments were used to collect data from 31 language class-
working individually. rooms: (1) analyzing observation reports and (2) an attitude
The results revealed some problematic and controversial questionnaire. The results collected from observation anal-
issues related to CL, as well, such as issues pertaining to ysis revealed that CL was overused in language classrooms.
assessment, student engagement, the assignment of roles, Although teachers routinely used CL as an instructional
group dominance, and native language use. Students had con- strategy, they made mistakes in implementing techniques,
tradicting viewpoints regarding these issues. They seemed such as determining group formations and sizes, providing
generally unsatisfied with the assessment techniques used instructions, assigning roles, selecting appropriate CL ac-
by teachers. The observation analysis showed that the same tivities, managing CL groups, monitoring and evaluating
score was allotted to all group members regardless of their groups.
actual participation. Students also expressed their concerns Further, analysis of the observation reports indicated that
regarding student engagement since not all group members teachers were unable to differentiate between CL and group
were equally engaged in group activities. This issue is close- work. The majority of them organized a physical classroom
ly related to two important issues: the assignment of roles setup appropriate for CL, distributed tasks and asked stu-
and group dominance. Unequal effort among group mem- dents to work together under the assumption that these steps
bers can be attributed to either teachers’ negligence to assign indicated CL. Usually, in this situation, the high achievers of
a definite role to each group member or their lack of moni- the groups assumed the responsibility of providing answers.
toring which allowed some students to dominate group work Further, most of the selected activities were drills and exer-
and others to consider it a break from their usual classroom cises that did not stimulate thinking or cooperation and con-
routine. Furthermore, the findings revealed students’ contra- sequently were inappropriate for CL. Another major mistake
dictory views regarding native language use and whether CL was that students were allowed to use their native language
could help them improve their language skills. Sometimes, during group discussions and communication, which did not
students switched to their native language to clarify points help them improve their language competency. One of the
or communicate with group members since, as noted in the main reasons for implementing CL in language classrooms
observations, a large percentage of language classrooms is to encourage students to produce linguistic output and in-
allowed students to use their native language during group teract among themselves to correct or modify their output.
discussion. The use of the native language makes it more The language teachers’ overuse of CL along with implemen-
228 IJALEL 8(2):219-230

tation difficulties indicated that although they acknowledged Bruner, J. (1974). Toward a theory of instruction. Cam-
the benefits of CL, they had either insufficient training or bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
background knowledge regarding its implementation. Fur- Burke, A. (2011). Group work: How to use groups effective-
thermore, language teachers had misconceptions regarding ly. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 11(2):87-95.
group work and CL. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions
However, the results collected from the attitude ques- for productive small groups. Review of Educational Re-
tionnaire revealed that students had positive attitudes to- search, 64: 1-35.
wards CL. They considered CL to be beneficial since it Cohen, E. & Lotan, R. (2014). Designing group work: Strat-
helped them acquire knowledge, support each other, per- egies for the heterogeneous classroom. Third edition:
form assignments quickly and promote social skills. This Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
finding agreed with the findings of Nausheen, Alvi, Munir Cornell, P. (2002). The impact of changes in teaching and
and Anwar (2013), Mahmoud (2014), Murad (2015), Gon- learning on furniture and the learning environment. New
zales and Torres (2016), and Almulan (2017). Furthermore, Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92: 33-42.
the students expressed some concerns regarding CL. For Cowie, H. & Berdondini, L. (2001). Children’s reactions to
example, they sometimes received scores that they did not cooperative group work: A strategy for enhancing peer
deserve, had no specific roles in their groups, expended relationships among bullies, victims, and bystanders.
unequal efforts compared to that of their group members Learning and Instruction, 11: 517-530.
and were in conflict with their group members. Based on Deutsch, M. (1992). The effects of training in cooperative
its findings, the current study recommends that FL teach- learning and conflict resolution in an alternative high
ers should attend workshops providing practical training school. Teacher College International Centre for Coop-
for CL implementation and deepen their understanding of eration and Conflict Resolution. New York, NY: Teacher
the major differences between group work and CL. Fur- College, Columbia University.
ther studies are required to clarify the relationship between Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York:
language teachers’ perceptions of CL and their classroom Collier Macmillan.
practices and the correlation between CL implementation Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching chemical bonding through
and variables such as teacher age, gender, experience, and jigsaw cooperative learning. Research in Science and
training. Technological Education, 26 (1):47–57.
Er, S., & Aksu Ataç, B. (2014). Cooperative learning in ELT
classes: The attitudes of students towards cooperative
REFERENCES
learning in ELT classes. International Online Journal of
Abrami, P., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., DeSimone, C., & Education and Teaching, 2 (1), 109-122.
Howden, J. (1995). Classroom connections: Under- Erdem, A. (2009). Preservice teachers’ attitudes towards
standing and using cooperative learning.Toronto, Ontar- cooperative learning in mathematics course. Procedia:
io: Harcourt Brace. Social and Behavioral Science, 1:1668- 1672.
Alfares, N. (2017). Benefits and difficulties of learning in Friedman, B., Cox, P., & Maher, L. (2008). An expectancy
group work in EFL classes in Saudi Arabia. English theory motivation approach to peer assessment. Journal
Language Teaching, 10 (7):247-256. of Management Education, 32: 580–612.
Alhabeedi, E. (2015). Increasing students’ participation Gillies, R. (2007). Cooperative learning: Integrating theory
by using cooperative learning in library and research and practice. Sage Publications: USA.
course. Master ’s Thesis. University of New York at Fre- Gömleksiz, M (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning
donia. (jigsaw II) method in teaching English as a foreign lan-
Alhedan, A. (2014). Group work in ESL: A teacher’s per- guage to engineering students (Case of Firat University,
ceptions and application. Arab English World, 5 (4): Turkey). European Journal of Engineering Education,
469‑483. 32 (5): 613-625.
Almashjari, A. (2013). The effectiveness of cooperative Gonzales, W. & Torres, P. (2016). Filipino ESL learners atti-
learning on EFL proficiency: A case study of the grade tudes toward cooperative learning and their relationship
ten female classroom in the new developed project in to reading comprehension. TESOL International Jour-
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Master’s Thesis, King Saud Uni- nal, 11(2):70-90.
versity. Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teach-
Almula, M. (2017). An investigation of cooperative learning ing (4th ed.). Edinburgh: Pearson Education Ltd.
in a Saudi high school: A case study on teachers’ and Jacobs, G. (2004). Cooperative learning: Theory, principles,
students’ perceptions and classroom practices. Doctoral and techniques. Paper presented at the First Interna-
Dissertation. University of Leicester. tional Online Conference on Second and Foreign Lan-
Bawazeer, K. (2013). Using group learning strategies to en- guage Teaching and Research. Retrieved from https://
hance the acquisition of English in Saudi Arabia. Arab www.researchgate.net/publication/254097701.
World English Journal, 4 (1):48-48. Jacobs, G., Power, M., & Loh. (2016). The teacher’s source-
Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive book for cooperative learning: Practical techniques, ba-
approach to language pedagogy. New York, NY: Addi- sic principles and frequently asked questions. Skyhorse
son Wesley Longman, Inc. publishing: NewYork.
Investigation of Cooperative Learning Techniques and Attitudes in Language Learning Classrooms 229

Jahanshahi, E. (2013). The effect of group work on students’ Othman, H., & Murad, I. (2015). A study on Kurdish stu-
willingness to communicate. Master’s thesis. Shahid dents’ attitudes to group work in the EFL classroom. Eu-
Rajaee Teacher Training University. ropean Scientific Journal, 2(11): 290-303.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Social interdependence Peterson, R., & Skiba, R. (2002). Safe & responsive schools
theory and cooperative learning: The teacher’s role. In guide. Retrieved from: https://k12engagement.unl.edu/
R. M. Gillies, A. F. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The Chap%201-6.pdf
teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. E. Ripple
the classroom: An introduction (pp. 9-37). New York: & V. N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered: A report
Springer. of the conference on cognitive studies and curriculum
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2009). An educational psy- development (pp. 7-20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
chology success story: Social interdependence theo- Raja, M.; Qureshi, A. & Albesher, K. (2017). Application
ry and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, of cooperative learning strategies for students’focused
38: 365‑379. teaching in EFL class: An experimental study in the
Kagan, S. (1995). We can talk: Cooperative learning in the summer remedial course for adult learners. Journal of
elementary ESL classroom. Retrieved from: https:// Language Teaching and Research, 8 (2): 237-252.
www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/dr_spencer_kagan/ Richards, J., & Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in lan-
ASK40.pdf Koutselini, guage teaching: An introduction of current Practice.
M. (2009). Teacher misconceptions and understanding of Cambridge University Press: New York.
cooperative learning: An introductory study. Journal of Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods
Classroom Interaction, 43 (2): 34-44. in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
Kwon, C. (2014). Student perspectives on group work and sity Press: New York.
use of L1: Academic writing in a university EFL course Richards, J. (2005). Communicative language teaching to-
in Thailand. Second Language Studies, 33(1):85-124. day. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative learning in the science class- Riley, W., & Anderson, P. (2006). Randomized study on the
room. Science Teacher, 73(5):34-39. impact of cooperative learning distance education in
Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage public health. The Quarterly Review of Distance Educa-
talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarter- tion, 7 (2): 129-144.
ly, 19 (2), 207-228. Rockwood, H. (1995). Cooperative and collaborative
Macpherson, A. (2015). Cooperative Learning group activ- learning. The National Teaching& Learning Forum,
ities for college courses. Surrey, BC Canada: Kwantlen 4 (6): 8-9.
Polytechnic University. Ruiz, C. (2014). The use of group work activities to foster
Mahmoud, M. (2014). The effectiveness of using the co- EFL oral production and reduce anxiety on intermedi-
operative language learning approach to enhance EFL ate students. A paper submitted to the School of Human
writing skill among Saudi university students. Journal Sciences in Partial fulfillment of the degree of BA in En-
of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3): 616-625. glish and French. University of Narino.
McGroarty, M. (1989). The benefits of cooperative learning Saborit, J., Fernandez-Rio, J., Antonio, J., Estrada, C., &
arrangements in second language acquisition. NABE Aalonso, D. (2016).Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions
Journal, 13 (2): 127-143. towards cooperative learning implementation: influence
Murad, I. (2015). A study on Kurdish students’ attitudes to of continuing training. Teaching and Teacher Education,
group work in the EFL classroom. European Scientific (59): 438-445.
Journal, 11(11):290-303. Salas, M. (2005). Grouping techniques in an EFL classroom.
Natoli, R., Jackling, B., & Seelanatha, L. (2014). The impact Revista Electrónica”Actualidades Investigativas en Ed-
of instructor’s group management strategies on students’ ucacion”, 5, 1-14.
attitudes to group work and generic skill development. Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of col-
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 9 (2): 116-132. laborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language
Nausheen, M., Alvi, E., Munir, S. & Anwar, R. (2013). Atti- Writing, 20(4): 286-305.
tudes of postgraduate students towards cooperative learn- Shih, Y., Chern, C., & Liang, T. (2002). Implementing coop-
ing. Journal of Educational Research, 16 (2): 107-115 erative learning in EFL teaching: process and effects.
Nelson, A. (2007). Teacher training course. Dehli, India: A thesis submitted to the Graduate Institute of English.
Global. National Taiwan Normal University.
Norman, D. (2005). Using STAD in an EFL elementary Slavin R. (1987). Cooperative learning: Student teams. What
school classroom in South Korea: Effects on student research says to the teachers? Washington, DC: National
achievement, motivation, and attitudes toward coopera- Education Association.
tive learning. Asian EFL Journal, 35(3): 419-45. Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research,
Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative and practice. (2nd edition). Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon.
learning, interaction: Three communicative strands in Slavin, R. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades:
the language classroom. The Modern Language Jour- Achievement effects and alternatives. Elementary
nal,81: 443-456. School Journal, 93(5): 535–552.
230 IJALEL 8(2):219-230

Slavin, R., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup re- Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology. Boston, MA:
lations: Lessons learned from cooperative programs. Pearson Education, Inc.
Journal of Special Issues, 55: 647-663. Xuan, L. (2015). Application of cooperative learning ap-
Stepanovienė, A. (2013). Cooperative learning in the context proach. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions toward
of foreign language teaching and learning. Scientific Ar- cooperative learning. Unpublished Master thesis. Uni-
ticles, 9: 246-254. versity of New York at Fredonia.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, Yang, A., Chan, A., Ho, L., & Tam, B. (2005). Does an open
and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language forum promote learning among students? Collabora-
Writing,14 (3): 153-173. tive-learning approach. The Asian EFL Journal,7 (2):
Wahyukti, T. (2017). Enhancing students’ cooperative learning in 88-93.
an EFL classroomthrough lesson study. Advances in Social Zhang, Y. (2010). Cooperative language learning and foreign
Science, Education and humanities Research, (109):288- language learning and teaching. Journal of Language
292. 4th Asia Pacific Education Conference (AECON 2017). Teaching and Research, 1(1): 81-83.