Developing cooperative learning in EFL - Английский язык - Дипломные работы

Информация о документе

Цена	9000UZS
Размер	76.6KB
Покупки	0
Дата загрузки	29 Июнь 2021
Расширение	docx
Раздел	Дипломные работы
Предмет	Английский язык

Developing cooperative learning in EFL

Купить

Developing cooperative learning in EFL 1

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

Introduction The actuality of the research. Cooperative learning promotes academic achievement, which is relatively easy to implement. Children's improved behavior and attendance, and increased interests for learning language at schools make this topic actual to investigate. While life is going on, education, depending on the demands of time, will gradually develop and renovate and as our previous president I. Karimov estimated, all of the nation hope that our future is in the hands of reliable youth. 1 In order to radically improve the system of higher education, to completaly re vise the content of cadres, to create the necessary conditions for the training of highly qualified specialists in accordance with the international standards, proceeding from the priorities of socio-economi

The aim of the theme. Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy involving children's participation in small group learning activities that promote positive interaction. This study discusses the reasons for using cooperative learning in centers and classrooms, ways to implement the strategy, and the long-term benefits for children's education. The object of the theme : building and promoting cooperation at primary schools The subject of the theme is cooperation building strategies, factors to make students learning language easy. The tasks of the theme . - To study, analyze, and sum up the role of cooperative learning in learning foreign languages; - To analyze the major results achieved in the studied field; - To examine the effects of cooperative learning instruction on the stud

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

CHAPTER I. THE CONCEPT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING 1.1. Main peculiarities of cooperative learning Cooperative learning (CL) involves pupils working together in small groups to accomplish shared goals. These are firstly interdependence, where members of the group perceive that they cannot succeed in a task unless everyone succeeds, and that every member has a vital role to play. The second key ingredient consists of ensuring the necessary conditions for cooperative learning to thrive. This is termed as promotive interaction, which occurs when individuals encourage each other to achieve group goals underpinned by interpersonal and small group skills. Cooperative learning promotes academic achievement, is relatively easy to implement. Children's improved behavior and attendance, and increase

environments have more positive attitudes towards learning and develop higher self-esteem and self-confidence than in other classroom structures. Educational theory has even proposed a teaching approach, called cooperative learning, which is entirely built on the concept of peer collaboration, and this approach, according to Slavin has been `one of the greatest success stories in the history of educational research'. In the L2 field, various forms of peer cooperation have become well- established techniques (e.g. small group activities or project work in the spirit of communicative language teaching), which is due to the fact that peer interaction is seen in modern language teaching methodologies as a prerequisite to building the learners' communicative competence. 4 What are the r

also means that in such setups the likelihood of `free-riding' (i.e. doing very little while reaping the benefits of others' performance) decreases. - Cooperation is also motivating because the knowledge that one's unique contribution is required for the group to succeed increases one's efforts. Cooperative situations generally have a positive emotional tone, which means that they generate less anxiety and stress than other learning formats. - Cooperative teams are by defition autonomous (because they have to work a lot without the immediate supervision of the teacher), and autonomy is a powerful contributor to motivation . The satisfaction that students experience after they successfully complete a task together is increased by the shared experience and the joint celebrati

- Resources are either limited so that they need to be shared (e.g. one answer sheet per team) or they are such that they need to betted together (e.g. everybody receives a different section of an article). - Certain class rules are set that emphasise team responsibility (e.g. no one can proceed to some new material before everybody else in the team has completed the previous assignment). 3. Learners should be given some advance training of group skills (e.g. listening to each other; giving reasons in arguments; organising and coordinating the team's work) and they should be asked to react from time to time on how the cooperative work has gone and what could be improved. Increase student motivation by promoting cooperation among the learners. More specifically: - Set up tasks in which

manifested by members seeking each other out, providing mutual support, and making each other welcome in the group. 1.2. Elements and types of cooperative learning Cooperative learning (CL) has been described as one of the most widely investigated educational approaches 6 . Hundreds of studies have cited its benefits, and Johnson and Johnson 7 , Slavin and Sharan have produced extensive reviews of these: According to Johnson and Johnson 'Surprisingly, although cooperative learning is believed to be the most effective among three primary styles of teaching and learning (individualistic, competitive, and cooperative), it remains the least used in classroom settings' . Applied to the classroom, Cohen 8 defined cooperative learning as: 'Students working together in a group small en

'CL refers to any of a variety of teaching methods in which pupils are placed in small groups to help one another learn academic content. ' This indicates that cooperative learning is a broad concept with a range of methods; the key factor being that pupils are placed in small groups and help one another with academic tasks. Johnson and Johnson 9 state simply that 'cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals'. The key aspects concern joint working with a shared purpose.It is also important to clarify the distinction between cooperation and collaboration; terms which are often used interchangeably, but which have different meanings. Collaborative learning includes the notion of pupils working together on a shared project. However, what distinguishes cooperativ

From the foregoing, the definition of cooperative learning underpinning this research will therefore be: pupils working together in small groups on a joint task which ensures interdependence and promotive interaction, underpinned by the pre-requisite small group and social skills. A range of different approaches to CL have emerged. These vary in essence from those that present strategies that are applicable across the curriculum and age ranges, to those that are embedded within a defined curriculum. Nevertheless, certain essential ingredients are common to all. Johnson et al (1994) set out two basic elements which include positive interdependence, derived from the social interdependence theory, and which has expanded to include individual and group accountability. The other key element: pr

learning and that of the group. This exists when the performance of each individual member of a group impacts on others and the individual is held accountable by other members, for contributing his or her fair share to the group's success. Hooper et al (1989) found that cooperation resulted in higher achievement when individual accountability was ensured, than when it was not. Increasing individual accountability also impacts on interdependence amongst a group. One factor that has been shown to impact on individual accountability, is the size of the group and as team size increases, accountability reduces . Promotive Interaction. Promotive Interaction provides the conditions for positive interdependence to occur. It occurs as individuals encourage each other's efforts to achieve jo

2. Small group skills - these need to be explicitly taught and involve the skills of encouragement, management, communication and conflict control. The need for interpersonal and small group skills is the bedrock of working cooperatively. These need to be clearly taught and pupils need to be motivated to use them. In particular, group members must: • get to know and trust each other • communicate effectively with each other • accept and support each other • be able to resolve conflicts constructively 3. Face-to-face interaction - this involves ensuring the physical layout of the classroom is conducive to CL These key elements vary according to different researchers into CL (for example, Slavin, 1996, Kagan, 1994), although there is common agreement on the vital ingredients of positive inte

2. Teams – games – tournaments 3. Group investigation 4. Constructive controversy 5. Jigsaw procedure 6. Student Teams achievement divisions 7. Complex Instruction (CI) 8. Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) 9. Cooperative Learning Structures 10. Cooperative Integrated Reading & Composition (CIRC) The following section discusses these, together with the main research findings for each. Learning Together (Johnson and Johnson, 1975) This method when it was first developed did not set out specific detail for implementation. It was typically described as a method in which: 'students worked as a group to complete a single group product, shared ideas and helped each other with answers to questions, made sure all members were involved and understood group answers, and asked for help from each

4. Groups should be arranged in circles to help communication. 5. Materials should promote interdependence, such as only one copy of materials per group, to facilitate sharing. 6. Roles should be assigned to pupils in groups to ensure interdependence. 7. The task must be clearly structured and explained. 8. Positive goal interdependence should be structured, i.e. by the group producing a single product. 9. Individual accountability should be ensured so that all members of the group contribute. 10. Inter-group cooperation should be provided. 11. The criteria for success should be explained. 12. The desired behaviours should be stated from a clear hierarchy of skills. 13. Pupils' behaviour should be monitored continually. 14. Task assistance should be provided. 15. Intervention to teach

This approach also sets out a developmental approach for teachers, from initial use to 'mechanical use', using particular guidance; to finally 'routine use' where 'teachers automatically structure cooperative learning situations without conscious thought or planning' . This process, Johnson and Johnson state, may take up to two years. Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) (Devries & Edwards, 1974). In this approach, members of each group complete a drill with the computer, which is accompanied by discussion in groups and then pupils compete in teams. This process goes on for some time with the top scoring student in each team moving to a group of higher achieving students, and the bottom scoring student moving down a group. Prizes are awarded at the end of the tournament. I

In contrast, in competitive individualistic situations, the motivational system promoted is predominately extrinsic reward, such as recognition for individualachievement. This key difference in introducing competition into CL is found in other forms of CL as will be discussed later. Group Investigation - Yael and Shlomo Sharan (1994) 16 . In this version, CL centres on a problem-solving approach which has four elements, combined simultaneously: 1. Investigation: this refers to the organisation and procedures necessary for carrying out inquiry-based learning. 2. Interaction: this identifies the interpersonal, or social, dimension of the learning process. 3. Interpretation: this occurs between group members and on an individual cognitive level, as the pupils co-construct knowledge. Individua

Stage 6: Teacher and pupils evaluate their projects A study by Sharan & Shachar (1988) where the teachers used the method for several months before beginning to research the impact, found very large positive effects 17 . This approach is suitable for open-ended problem-solving tasks and requires a clearly staged approach which could be highly suitable for some curriculum areas. There are, however, limitations in the age groups for which this is suitable, as it requires pupils to take considerable responsibility for deciding how to go about their learning. Constructive Controversy (Johnson and Johnson, 1995) Johnson and Johnson state that 'creating intellectual conflict (controversy) to improve academic learning is one of the most powerful and important instructional tools' . 18 The

Johnson and Johnson, (1995) report that pupils derive many academic and social benefits from participating in such controversies, however this approach is only suitable to certain types of activity or curriculum area. This method also could only be used by older children with the skills and maturity to carry out such tasks. Jigsaw - is one of the earliest of the cooperative learning methods to be used. In Jigsaw, each pupil in a small group is given unique information on a topic studied by the whole group. After pupils have studied their sections, they reform in 'expert groups' with their counterparts from other groups to discuss the information. Next, the pupils return to their groups and teach their team mates what they have learned. In this way each member of the home group play

They then work with other experts from other teams on the same material and return to teach the topic to their fellow team members. This is followed by an assessment of some form for the whole team. Individual successes are thus dependent on the contribution of each member. Studies of the success of this method have shown that there were significant positive effects particularly in certain subjects, e.g. geography (Mattingly and Van Sickle, 1991) with no significant improvement in other areas. Student teams (STAD) - Robert Slavin (1985). 19 Student team learning methods incorporate the concept of individual accountability and equal opportunity to succeed, but also include the use of team rewards. Teams usually consist of four members who are mixed in gender, ability and ethnicity. The teac

Complex Instruction - Cohen 21 has incorporated various multiple intelligence factors into tasks so that all members of the class may have an opportunity to contribute. In this way, Cohen has sought to address the issue of perceived pupil status. Cohen et a l (1999) argue that complex instruction alleviates these problems. Research by Cohen and Lotan (1997) showed that using curricula specially designed for complex instruction, students gained significantly more than students in comparison classes on questions requiring higher-order thinking, although not on factual recall. These activities fit the need for cooperative learning tasks to be open-ended which then increases the need for interaction. It also provides for multiple-ability tasks which needs the teacher to 'convince their st

lesson. To be effective, it requires a thorough knowledge of pupils' abilities by the teacher. Complex Instruction requires a different classroom management system where authority is delegated to the group. This is helped through particular strategies such as activity cards for the task, stating specific cooperative learning behaviours necessary for the task and a set of procedural roles for each member of the group. The process of developing complex instruction says Cohen 22 takes a long time. She recommends a staff development process that takes a year to provide teachers with the theoretical understanding and practical experience necessary to maintain high quality implementation. During the following school year, researchers follow the teachers into the classrooms and provide feedba

This method provides a bridge from paired to small group work, and requires considerable interpersonal and small group skills from pupils, to work effectively. In addition, the contentious aspect of competition between groups is introduced. The Structural Approach - Spencer Kagan (1994) 23 . Kagan has devised structures, or social interaction sequences, which enable the teacher to transform existing lessons into a cooperative format by using simple strategies. These strategies, or structures, are content-free mechanisms and widely transferable across the curriculum, an example being, think-pair-share, where pupils are asked a question, given time to think; then they discuss with a partner before sharing with the class. Another example is 'numbered heads' where each member of the te

method is designed to be flexible, although it is easiest to use with university level students. This adaptation has not been extensively researched, however, other than ascertaining predominately positive responses from students who have used it. Kagan's structural approach presents many benefits, principally to the wide application across the curriculum. Kagan has also identified particular advantages in improved ethnic relations (Kagan et al, 1985b) from this approach. For many of the structures, these can be applied across the age ranges. The author's research has reinforced this (2007), however, there is a danger that teachers use a number of the structures without understanding the key elements of CL, or ensuring that the necessary small group skills are in place. In this cas

results and the STAD produced the most favourable. This would seem to show that the inclusion of extrinsic rewards does produce gains in achievement. However Complex Instruction (Cohen, 1994b) does not include rewards and when compared to STAD in promoting achievement including higher order thinking, complex instruction was found to produce significant gains. Cohen (1994b) comments that Slavin's reward interdependence is necessary in collaborative seatwork. Where the task involves challenging and interesting group tasks, this motivation does not appear necessary. It might therefore be summarised from this that the nature of the task makes a significant difference. One of the arguments against offering rewards on a competitive basis, has been the negative effects on relationships betwee

Cohesiveness is often manifested by members seeking each other out, providing mutual support, and making each other welcome in the group. What is even more important from our perspective is that student motivation tends to increase in cohesive class groups. This is due to the fact that in such groups students share an increased responsibility for achieving the group goals, they `pull each other along' and the positive relations among them make the learning process more enjoyable in general. While there are too few rewards in school teaching, one of the most satisfying is the pride of accomplishment that comes from teaching in a classroom that has developed this level of cohesiveness. Whether or not a class becomes a cohesive community is not simply a question of luck. There are a numbe

4. Cooperation between members for common goals: student collaboration can be successfully promoted by including certain tasks such as role-play performances, problem solving activities, project work, filling in worksheets, and preparing group reports, which require the preparation of a single `group product. 5. The rewarding nature of group experience: a commonplace yet true order to help learners to get to know each other better, you can include special `ice- breaking activities' at the beginning of a new course. These are designed to set members at ease, get them together. The rewarding nature of group experience: a commonplace yet true is that the more people enjoy the learning process in the class, the more they will want to belong to the class . 6. Successful completion of whole-

. Try and promote interaction, cooperation and the sharing of genuine personal information among the learners. . Use ice-breakers at the beginning of a course. . Regularly use small-group tasks where students can mix. . Encourage and if possible organise extracurricular activities and outings. . Try and prevent the emergence of rigid seating patterns. . Include activities that lead to the successful completion of whole-group tasks or involve small-group competition games. . Promote the building of a group legend. Establishing constructive group norms Summing up, we can say that encouraging cooperation between students is such a powerful means of increasing student motivation. Basically, cooperation is a definite `plus'. Studies from all over the world are unanimous in claiming that stu

Research conducted in many different subject areas and various age groups of students has generally shown positive effects for CL in the following areas: academic achievement, development of higher order thinking, self-esteem and self- confidence as learners, inter-group relations including friendships across racial and ethnic boundaries, social acceptance of mainstreamed students labelled as disabled, development of social skills, and the ability to take the perspective of another person. What are the key findings from research? Johnson and Johnson (1989, 2001), Slavin (1990), and Sharan (1990) all identify three main categories of advantages: (1) Achievement. Over 375 studies in the past 100 years (Johnson and Johnson, 1994) have shown how working together to achieve a common goal produc

higher levels of cognitive functioning. This he found was due to the peer interaction which clarified misunderstandings and developed problem-solving skills. 26 The ESRC funded SPRinG project (Blatchford et al, 2005) also found a positive impact on pupils' academic progress. At Key Stage 1 the benefits were found in reading and mathematics; in Key Stage 2 particularly in problem-solving and inferential thinking and in Key Stage 3 there were benefits to higher cognitive levels. (2) Inter-personal relationships. Over 180 studies have been conducted since the 1940s (Johnson and Johnson, 1989) which have shown that CL experiences promote greater inter-personal skills. In (1983) Johnson et al found that cooperative learning supported interpersonal skills amongst students from different ethn

esteem and greater social competencies than competing with peers or working independently (Johnson and Johnson, 1983, Johnson and Johnson, 1997). Jordan and Metais (1997) found given training in social skills, pupils demonstrated greater social interactions and that the interpersonal relationships of previously isolated students improved. Gillies (2003) analysis of five studies showed that provided small group work is carefully structured to promote effective cooperation, that over time and with practice the 'more cohesive the groups became as members strove to facilitate each other's learning' 27 . CL is becoming one of the greatest and most widely educational practices in almost every school, college, and university because research has shown that it is a pedagogical instruct

A method that teachers routinely use to manage children in the classroom is the use of r[ewards. Cohen summarises the controversy surrounding this issue when related to CL: 'no aspect of cooperative learning has been as controversial as the issue of giving rewards to groups on a competitive basis' 29 . She goes to describe the ideological controversy over cooperation versus competition. This has been researched heavily by Slavin 30 who reviewed 41 studies that contrasted cooperative approaches and he came to the conclusion that: achievement is enhanced by cooperative learning when cooperating pupils are rewarded as a group, while each pupil is individually accountable for his or her learning (1983a). This was developed into the technique known as STAD (Student Team Achievement Divi

met. Cooperative learning increases student motivation by providing peer support. As part of a learning team, students can achieve success by working well with others. Students are also encouraged to learn material in greater depth than they might otherwise have done, and to think of creative ways to convince the teacher that they have mastered the required material. Cooperative learning helps students feel successful at every academic level. In cooperative learning teams, low-achieving students can make contributions to a group and experience success, and all students can increase their understanding of ideas by explaining them to others . Components of the cooperative learning process as described by Johnson and Johnson (1984) are complimentary to the goals of early childhood education.

'If children do not learn successful strategies for interacting with their peers, the classroom environment will be peppered with disruptions and academic learning is likely to be seriously undermined. ' (2003:19) In Johnson and Johnson's meta-analysis of 1989 over 500 studies were found but only four related to preschool children. However, the small body of research suggests that young children benefit from cooperative learning. Although positive outcomes were found, certain conditions were necessary for success: the classroom needs to be seen as a safe place for all pupils; the children possess the social skills necessary to interact with peers and a collaborative and trusting relationship with the teacher is established. When using CL in the early years the following differe

• the tasks should demand the sharing of responsibility so that group and individual learning goals are met in a collaborative way. Cooperative learning strategies in use Foyle and Lyman (1988) identify the basic steps involved in successful implementation of cooperative learning activities: 1. The content to be taught is identified, and criteria for mastery are determined by the teacher. 2. The most useful cooperative learning technique is identified, and the group size is determined by the teacher. 3. Students are assigned to groups. 4. The classroom is arranged to facilitate group interaction. 5. Group processes are taught or reviewed as needed to assure that the groups run smoothly. 6. The teacher develops expectations for group learning and makes sure students understand the purpose o

Teachers’ role in cooperative learning Research into the role of the teacher in CL highlights how profoundly CL differs from other methods of teaching. (Harwood, 1989) found the role changes when pupils are working in small groups, although the self-directed nature of talk disappears when the teacher is present with groups. Ashman and Gillies (2003) summarise the benefits of the changing role of the teacher as: 'perhaps the greatest benefit of peer mediation derives from the type and level of interaction that occurs in a context in which the responsibility for learning does not rest solely with the teacher but is shared among teacher and students.' 32 . The management of cooperative learning is also complex for the teacher, particularly if groups are working on different tasks. Del

groups and roles, and selecting materials and time. Because teachers in CL classes perform considerably different roles from those they are used to play in traditional settings, Johnson and Johnson (1999; cited in Gillies et al., 2008) made a classification of three major types of CL in an attempt to clarify the teacher's roles in each of them. Those types are: Formal Cooperative Learning, Informal Cooperative Learning, and Cooperative Base Groups. Formal Cooperative Learning It is the type of CL where students join together in order to perform a specific task such as writing a report or carrying out a project. The learners' teams are formed to last from one class session to several weeks; they work on the task until it is finished and their cooperative outcome is assessed. Accordi

students to be constructive. While monitoring, Richards and Rodgers 34 (suggest that teacher sought to speak less and redirect students by asking them questions to challenge their consideration of the problem as well as give them feedback. d. His/her other responsibility is to evaluate students' learning and contribution, and serve as a guide and a director while group members discuss how well they functioned. This takes place when the teacher decides to end the lesson. Furthermore, s/he encourages students to adopt a plan for effective changes in group procedures and to celebrate their efforts. Informal Cooperative Learning It is a type of CL where students work cooperatively to fulfil a common goal on a precise task explicitly instructed and which requires a specific product (for exa

order to obtain satisfactory results from this type of instruction, teachers should follow this procedure: a. They divide the class into groups of two or three members and ask students to react to questions that require four to five minutes reflection to reach an agreed answer. The discussion that occurs between students helps them build knowledge and have an idea about the lesson content. Teachers choose to work with pairs or triads to ensure individual accountability. b. They arrange the time of the session by segmenting it into 10-15 minutes parts. After each segment, the pairs engage in cooperative work to answer a specific question that requires about three minutes discussion. During these three minutes, each student answers the question, shares it with his/her partner, and integrates

Researchers (Cross, 2003; Ellis, 2003; Willis, 1999) admit that the teacher, in any CL type, should explain to the students the objectives of the group task and the way they will be graded. S/he should act as a facilitator and guide to give feedback and assistance when necessary. Although students are responsible for carrying out tasks and managing their learning, the teacher still controls the class and has the power to give an end to the cooperative activity if necessary. Another important task for the teacher to perform is designing groups. Ellis (2003) points out that groups of four are highly recommended because they can be split up into pairs, and that heterogeneous teams result in better academic achievement. In order to create heterogeneous groups, some teachers prefer to choose st

Time Keeper - keeps track of the time limits; Language Leader - encourages everyone to use the second language to the extent previously agreed upon by the class and teacher; Checker- checks to see that all group members have understood; Encourager (also called Cheerleader) - encourages everyone to participate and leads the celebration of success; Reporter- reports the group's work to other groups; Questioner - asks questions to prompt the group to go more deeply and broadly into their task; Paraphraser - restates what the previous speaker said to check comprehension; Praiser - compliments groupmates for their ideas and their role in the group; Conflict Creator -plays the role of devil's advocate bringing out opposing points of view and other possibilities; Sound Hound - makes sure

work, direct their own strategies of learning and assess their cooperative product. Additionally, students need to follow the classroom discipline and the teacher's rules; that is, equality reigns in the room and no student is given the power to dominate the talking or the direction of the group work - they should obey the teacher's instruction to proceed effectively. 2.3. Research Findings David and Roger Johnson (1989) have shown that there have been more managed studies of CL than any other teaching methodology. Robert Slavin (Slavin, 1999) stated: 'No classroom instructional method has ever been as extensively and rigorously evaluated as co-operative learning.' The prolific amount of research studies into CL range widely in terms of specific aspects researched, yet seve

The importance of ensuring interdependence is shown by a range of studies (e.g. Johnson et al, 1990). This can be achieved in different ways including resource interdependence where, for example, only one worksheet is provided for the group. In contrast goal interdependence is a concept developed by Deutsch (1962) which means that individuals can only achieve a goal if the others in the groups also achieve theirs. The Johnson model advocates both resource and goal interdependence. However neither guarantees interaction, nor motivation to do so. Cohen views resource interdependence as limited, and cites Johnson, Johnson and Stanne, (1990) where simple resource interdependence was associated with the poorest results. This resource interdependence is also present in Aronson et al's, (1978

best examples in the literature of the social construction of knowledge' (Cohen, 1994a: 5). Barnes and Todd's work also showed that pupils need both social and cognitive skills for effective interaction. Explicit talk to support problem-solving is an aspect researched by Chang and Wells (1987), who concluded that in order to be effective, groups must manage the process of solving problems with explicit talk. They defined learning as problem- solving, and to work together students need to identify specific goals and then carry out a plan-do-review procedure. Vedder (1985) also sees cooperative learning as a result of an explicit process, which expounds the role of pupils controlling each other's learning. Vedder, however, was disappointed at the level of talk that takes place in

task. This therefore ensures the key element of interdependence. With complex instruction, interdependence is also established by each member of a group being responsible for the success of the rest. In this method of CL, groups have a weekly skills building activity. The other key difference between studies by Webb (1991) and Cohen (1986) lies in the nature of task, with many algorithmic mathematics tasks having one right answer. Open-ended tasks, in contrast allow the group to exchange ideas and come up with creative solutions. This led Cohen to the following general proposition: 'Given an ill-structured problem and a group task, productivity will depend on interaction.' A key factor was also found to be: 'The most consistent, positive predictor or achievement in these studie

to be predicated on the nature of the task: such as, the recall of material; understanding of reading matter, or application of procedures in a routine way. Controversy research (Johnson and Johnson, 1985) shows how procedures such as having pupils argue different positions on a topic and being assigned group roles can foster high level discussion. When the group is working on open-ended problems, the use of roles in groups can also foster interaction. Zack (1988) showed that the use of a facilitator role was associated with increased talking and working together on problems in maths and science. Cohen, Lotan and Leechor, (1989) used the role of the reporter whose job was to encourage the group to think and talk together and to create answers on the specific form. This showed a greater amo

latter is provided. The school thus becomes a microcosm of society, by having students work together cooperatively, embedding values of mutual support, which in turn supports consensual peace. Veenman, Kenter and Post (2000) found that although cooperative learning was not commonly used in primary schools in Holland, research identified improved social benefits; improved self esteem; time on task and more positive attitudes to school subjects. However, implementation was not so successful if it did not include sufficient team work skills and: 'regularly reviewing the rules for effective cooperation is certainly needed for the cooperation to work well and particularly in the first years of implementing CL.' (2000:299) Specific teaching of such skills is therefore an important factor

'When the teaching objective is learning for understanding and involves higher order thinking, task arrangements and instructions that constrain and routinize interaction will be less productive than arrangements and instructions that foster maximum interaction, mutual exchange and elaborated discussions. ' 39 The Structure of Groups The nature and construction of groups is a further issue and Cohen (1994a) cites the considerable research that shows the beneficial effects of heterogeneous groups on low-achieving students. Swing and Peterson (1982) found that in heterogeneous groups, students of low and high ability gained particularly. There is also evidence that lower achieving students benefited by interaction with higher achieving students when tasks demand higher order thinking

accounted for due to the task, and the experience of the teacher. They found no evidence that one form of grouping was uniformly superior for promoting achievement of all students. Low ability students gained most from being placed in heterogeneous groups and in contrast average ability students gain most from being placed in homogeneous groups. With regard to motivation of pupils Lou et al (1996) found it did not follow automatically when pupils are placed in groups and that it depended on other factors, such as assigning roles and ensuring all pupils contribute can support motivation. Smaller size teams of three to four also seemed to be most beneficial than larger groups. They also found CL, with outcome interdependence, helps facilitate small group learning as does teacher training and

teachers and some kinds of instructional materials. Furthermore, peer input may be of a particularly high interest level. 2. Input from fellow learners is likely to be more comprehensible. Indeed, peers' lack of proficiency may be a blessing in disguise, as it renders them much less likely to use vocabulary that is not yet in students' receptive repertoires. 3. Peer groups may provide a more motivating, less anxiety-producing environment for language use, thus, increasing the chances that students will take in more input. This is in line with the affective filter hypothesis which, like the input hypothesis, is a component of the Monitor Model of L2 acquisition (Krashen, 1981). Speaking in front of only 1-3 fellow students may be a more comfortable experience compared to having to s

2. In cooperative learning, teachers can encourage more negotiation for meaning by allowing groups to try to sort out their own communication difficulties without teacher intervention, although teachers do stand ready to help if, after trying, groups remain confused. 3. Cooperative learning activities provide a context in which students may be more likely to interact than in a whole class setting. 4. Long (1996) proposes that group activities can encourage students to interact with each other in a way that promotes a focus on form, that is, "to attend to language as object during a generally meaning-oriented activity" (p. 429). Such a focus on form can be encouraged when grammar constitutes at least one aspect of group tasks. Examples of making grammar an aspect of groups' task

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

CONCLUSION In the research paper I tried to deal with role of cooperative learning and highlight its importance in learning language. My aim was to emphasize that cooperative learning is a teaching strategy involving children's participation in small group learning activities that promote positive interaction. This study discusses the reasons for using cooperative learning in centers and classrooms, ways to implement the strategy, and the long-term benefits for children's education. I also dealt with motivation as an essential factor for language learners and classified its types – extrinsic and intrinsic, with the emphasis on the teacher´s personality which influences the students´ willingness to participate actively in the learning process. I mentioned native speakers as a great

In the practical part of my thesis I mentioned the advantages of cooperative learning as well as different techniques for correcting mistakes in either accuracy or fluency communicative activities and also described the roles of a teacher and requirements which he or she has to fulfil to manage the roles successfully. In short, recent foreign language teaching/learning researches have shifted their focus towards innovative methods which encourage learners' autonomy and responsibility for their own learning process. In this sense, CL has been developed to assist learners to change their statutes to be active participants instead of passive members and to get involved in what they are doing to achieve successfully their objectives. This teaching technique tries to help teachers, to adopt

References 1. Karimov I.A “Uzbekistan is on the threshhold of the XXI century”. Tashkent 1992.pp 1-5 2. Cohen, E. 1994. Designing Groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. 3. Gillies, R. M. and Ashman, A. F. (Eds.). (2003). Co-operative Learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes of Learning in Groups. London: RoutledgeFalmer. 4. Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A., and Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The Teacher's Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. New York: Springer. 5. Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., and Vedder, P. (2007). Exploring the Links between Students' Engagement in Cooperative Learning, their Global Preferences and Appraisals of Instructional Conditions in the Classroom. Learning and Instruction, 17, 673-87. 6. Hilke, E. V. (1990). Cooperative Lea

11. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2001). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155 Ж 177). New York: Oxford University Press. 12. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second- language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning 44, 493-527. 13. Senge, P. (Ed.). (2000). Schools that learn: A fieldbook for teachers, administrators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday. [-10-] 14. Sharan, S., Shachar, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. 15. Sharan, Y. (2002). Essential features of a teacher education program for cooperati

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

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

Купить