Latest Entries »

 

Tugas Harian Microsoft Excel untuk kelas XI SMK silahkan buat dalam bentuk soft copy lalu kirim hasilnya ke email saya : putrabaelah@mail.com   lampiran ditunggu sampai hari sabtu tanggal 04 Agustus 2012 untuk melihat lampirannya silahkan klik link berikut ini :

Tugas harian XL Kelas XI

Application Letter

Application Letter
This Application letter told you how to make an apply in English if you need it please kli this link:

Jakarta, March 14, 2012
Attention To:
Human Resources Manager
PT. Bangun Persada
Jl. Daan Mogot No. 45 Blok A
Tangerang
Dear Mr. Sukarmadi,
I wish to apply for the position of Accounting Staff that was advertised on Tempo, March 12, 2012.
I have over one year experience as an Accounting with PT. Rizky Finance and have experience of a wide variety of pattern techniques. My computer skills are very good, and I have an excellent record as a reliable, productive employee.
I am looking for new challenges and the posistion of Accounting Staff sounds the perfect opportunity. Your organisation has an enviable record innovation in investor financial cosultant, and an excellent reputation as an employer, making the position even more attractive.
I enclose my CV for your inspection and look forward to hearing from you soon. I am available for interview at your convenience

Sincerely yours,

Ade Putra

Tangerang, March 15, 2012
Attention To:
Human Resources Department
Jl. Daan Mogot Km. 19.8
Tangerang

Dear Sir/Madam,
Having known about a vacancy advertised in front of this company, March 12, 2012, I am interested in the position of Secretary.
I am a 29 years old male, graduated from a reputable senior high school, having skill in English, both written and oral and also operating computer. I am a hard worker, able to work in individual and in team.
I would gladly welcome an opportunity to have an interview with you at your convenience. I hope my skills can be one of your company’s assets. I am looking forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you for your consideration and attention.

Sincerely yours,

Ade Putra

Enclosures :
– copy of ID Card
– copy of Final Certificate
– photo
– Curriculum Vitae

Tangerang

This articles describe how to teaching in creativeness and how to handle class in easily to manage class room who is need it please click the bellow :
TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS INCREASING IN PDF

this article tell us how to teach more effective and creative and acceptable when the class were running on the fact
if you are need this article please click this link :
teacher_effectiveness

mid bHS iNGGRIS kLS I smk

SOAL UJIAN BAHASA INGGRIS SMK KLS 1

Instruksi
Jawablah pertanyaan dibawah ini dengan memilih salah satu jawaban yang benar A, B, C atau D

1. When ……………………………. your sister?
a. did you see b. do you see c. was you saw d. had you seen

2. I ……………………………. her two days ago.
a. seeing b. saw c. see d. seed

3. Ina : Why are you sleepy in class?
Ines : Do I look sleepy, Na? I am not sleepy, but I have a painful stomach ache.
Ina : You should go to the doctor. Come on I’ll accompany you.
The underlined words express ……..
a. obligation b. satisfaction c. advice d. offering

4. What type of this ship is it?
a. cable ferry
b. cruise ship
c. cargo liner
d. crane vessel

5. He ……………………………. to the meeting on Wednesday because he was on holiday.
a. comes b. did not came c. did not come d. does not come

6. My father wanted to watch a soccer match on television ……… my mother was already watching another program.
a. but b. while c. or d. so

7. Where ……………………………. for your holidays?
a. did you go b. went c. do you went d. was you go

8. How long ……………………………. you to drive from Mecca to Medinna?
a. did it took b. did it take c. does it take d. do it took

9. Mother Theresa was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1979 for her work among the homeless.
The underlined word means … .
a. celebrated b. dedicated c. granted d. proved

10. What are they doing?
a. The woman is talking to her friend
b. The man is whispering something to his wife
c. The two woman are using glasses
d. The woman is whispering something to her friend

11. I don’t like dogs ___ jump on me.
a. whose b. that c.  d. whom

12. A : Have you heard that uncle Joe will come next week?
B : Oh. really? When did he tell you?
A : Last week.
The underlined sentence is used to express ……..
a. happiness b. surprise c. pleasure d. enjoyment

13. I ………………… a fantastic film at the cinema last week.
a. saw b. seeing c. seed d. see

14. “Watch the TV tonight. My daughter is on TV channel 5 at eight. She always makes me happy.” “Sure, I will.”
From the underlined words we know that the first speaker feels …….. her daughter.
a. angry with b. proud of c. worried about d. disappointed at

15. The batik dress mother gave me is old, its colour has faded. Its refers to …
a. mother b. old c. batik d. colour

16. “I am sorry I don’t know the answer, but I really wish I …”
a. know b. have known c. knew d. will know

Question 36 to 38 refer to the following article

At present, aeroplanes are playing a very important role to …..(17)….. one place to another. People can go round the world just in a two day flight by the world’s first supersonic airliner, Concorde, which …..(18)….. at a height of over 18.000 metres and …..(19)….. a speed of over 2.000 km per hour.

17. a. disjoin b. separate c. connect d. divide
18. a. goes b. drives c. flies d. comes
19. a. cuts b. continues c. reaches d. moves

20. My teeth were hurting ……… I made an appointment to go the dentist.
a. or b. so c but d. because

21. Mary introduced me to her former lecturer …….. she married after she had graduated.
a. of whom b. whom c. whose d. who

22. He …….. 20 years old when he started work.
a. were b. was c. is d. did

23. Have you seen ……… heard the latest musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber?
a. but b. or c. so d. while

24. Jaya : Why are you still here?
Didn’t you tell me that you would go to Jakarta today?
Setiadi : I would have been in Jakarta if the bus had not got an accident.
The underlined utterance means……….
a. Setiadi went to Jakarta b. The bus got an accident
c. Jaya went to Jakarta d. The bus was safe

25. If I find her address, I…………………… her an invitation.
a. will send b. would send c. sent d. send

26. I wanted to go to the rock concert ……… all the tickets were already sold out.
a. but b. so c. both d. and

27. If I don’t see him this afternoon, I …………………… him in the evening.
a. will phone b. phone c. phoned d. would phoned

28. Jack : Rita, …………
Rita : Pleased to meet you. Don.
Don : Pleased to meet you too.
a. I’d like you to meet my friend Don b. don’t you know Don is my friend
c. Don wants to meet you d. please introduce yourself to Don

29. Last Thursday our English teacher …… all the exercise.
a.corrected b. is correcting
c. has corrected d. has been correcting

30. I wanted to eat sushi for dinner ……… I went to a Japanese restaurant.
a. but b. and c. or d. so

31. Sam is the boy _____ shaved his head–he is completely bald now.
a. whose b. that c. which d. who

32. “I’m sorry for …… you all this trouble,
a. having b. creating c. causing d. making

33. A dishwasher is a machine ____ washes dishes.
a. who b. whose c. which d. that

34. X : Have you sent the letter?
Y : No, I haven’t finished typing it.
X : What? You … have sent it yesterday
Y : I’m sorry. I’ll send it immediately
a. may b. could c. would d. might

35. Which one of the statement is correct
a. canoe is the biggest one
b. speed boat is smaller than canoe
c. yatch is the biggest one
c. yatch is the same size as speed baot

36. Susi : Let’s go to the Jazz Festival tonight!
Yani : You go, please. Jazz is not my music. I’d, better go back to my books.
From the dialogue we know that Yani … Susi’s invitation.
a. prefers b. refuses c. ignores d. accepts

Question number 37 to 40 refer to the following passage

The Titanic was the biggest ship in the world at that time. It had good facilities such as: a fully air conditional cabin, restaurant, bar, mini shop, recreation space, ship’s band and singers, medical facilities, telephone, etc. When the Titanic sailed from Southampton to New York in April 1912 with 819 crews and 1316 passengers, it sank after it sailed for four days. It happened in North Atlantic Ocean. It hit a very big iceberg. Since there were not enough lifeboats and all the passengers or the crews were very afraid, the ship sank rapidly, most of passangers and crews sank and only few people was safe.

37. Where did the tragedy happen?
a. in the sea b. in the high way c. in the harbor d. In the air

38. It had good facilities. The underlined word refers to ….
a. the world b. the ship c. the time d. that biggest

39. Which line tells us that most of people died?
a.line 3 & 4 b. line 1 & 2 c. line 6 & 7 d. line 5

40. Where did the Titanic sink exactly?
a. Southeast continent b. in the sea
c. Atlantic ocean d. North Atlantic Ocean

SKRIPSI TUNE UP

SKRIPSI for TUNE UP

COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN AN ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
CLASSROOM

Judith Grundman

My research study and following paper resulted from the difficulties ESL students have
with social interactions in a school setting. Schools have the opportunity to help ESL
students develop socially by using appropriate instructional strategies and implementing
social skill instruction into the curriculum. Cooperative learning is one of the main
instructional strategies that can be used to create a non-threatening environment, which
encourages participation and promotes positive social interactions.

My review of literature provides evidence that improved social and affective
development is one of the positive outcomes of cooperative learning. My literature
review also establishes that cooperative learning activities are effective for the social and
academic success of ESL students.
The purpose of my study was to examine whether student participation increased when
cooperative learning structures were used in an ESL classroom. My study consisted of
five ESL students in second and third grade. Cooperative learning structures were
implemented into the ESL curriculum. Students were observed throughout the study on
the following areas of participation: being on-task, contributing ideas, helping
classmates, and asking for help.

The results indicated that student participation increased when ESL students were
engaged in cooperative learning activities. The results from my study concluded that
cooperative learning used in an ESL classroom: provided more opportunities for students
to listen and produce language, created strong friendship connections, supported first
language skills, improved classroom environment and student attitude, and encouraged
leadership skills and teamwork.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN AN ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
by

Judith Grundman
A Capstone submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in English as a Second Language Education
Hamline University Saint Paul, Minnesota August 2002

Committee:
Andreas Schramm
Julia Reimer
Lynn Sedivy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..1
Chapter Two: Literature Review……………………………………..………………………………..6
Social Development and Academic Achievement…………………………………6
Cooperative Learning………………………………………………………………7
Effectiveness of Cooperative Group Work………………………………………10
Overview of Selected Cooperative Learning Structures…………………………13
Rationale for Cooperative Learning in an ESL Classroom………………………17
Chapter Three: Methodology……………………………………………………………………..….21
Context and Subjects……………………………………………………………..21
Description of Cooperative Learning Activities…………………………………23
Assessment Materials…………………………………………………………….26
Description of Tools and Data Collection Procedure…………………………….27
Chapter Four: Results………………………………………………………………….……………….-.34
Chapter Five: Conclusion………………………………………………………..……………………58
Implications for Educators……………………………………………………….60
Recommendations for Future Research and Limitations…………………………60
Appendix A: Assessment Tools…………………………………………………………63
Appendix B: Diagram of Zone of Proximal Development………………………………69
Appendix C: Overview of Cooperative Learning Lesson Plans…………………………70
References………………………………………………………………………………..71

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Overview of Selected Structures…………………………………………..……14

Table 2. English Proficiency Level of Participants………………………………………23

Table 3. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student One……………………………38

Table 4. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Two…………………………..40

Table 5. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Three…………………………42

Table 6. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Four…………………………..44

Table 7. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Five……………………………46

Table 8. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student One……………….47

Table 9. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student Two………………48

Table 10. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student Three……..……..49

Table 11. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student Four………….…50

Table 12. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student Five…………..…51

Table 13. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student Goals………..…..52

Table 14. Student Cooperative Learning Log Results: Question One……………………53

Table 15. Student Cooperative Learning Log Results: Question Two…………………..54

Table 16. Student Cooperative Learning Log Results: Question Three…………………55

Table 17. Student Cooperative Learning Log Results: Question Four…………………..56

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student One…………………………..37

Figure 2. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Two………………………….39

Figure 3. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Three…………………………41

Figure 4. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Four………………………….43

Figure 5. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Five………………………….45

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Forming positive relationships with peers and developing socially are extremely
important for all children. Children who have difficulties in these areas are more likely to
suffer from problems in other areas of their lives, for example they may have a low sense
of self-esteem and underachieve in academic work. When a child relates well to others it
promotes positive feelings toward self and others (Cowie, Smith, Boulton & Laver,
1994).

Social interactions can be difficult for English as a Second Language (ESL)
students. Being surrounded by a new language and culture make interacting with adults
and peers more challenging. As an ESL teacher in an elementary school, I have noticed
that ESL students struggle socially with peer acceptance, positive inter-group relations,
friendship and self-esteem. Specifically, ESL students lack the knowledge of when and
how to use the following social skills in a group setting: asking for help or clarification,
using quiet voices, participating actively, respecting others, describing feelings, taking
turns, sharing ideas and opinions, encouraging others’ participation, and staying on task.

Unfamiliarity with English and school in general causes ESL students to struggle with
social relationships, social skills and to need extra time to make friends (Madrid, 1993).
These problems with social development might decrease if ESL students are given social
skill instruction and opportunities to interact with peers.

Schools have the opportunity to help ESL students adjust socially. Two ways
schools can contribute to the social development of ESL students are by creating a non-
threatening environment and implementing social skill instruction into the curriculum.

First schools have the opportunity to create a non-threatening environment, which
means that the school and classroom environment should be one where there is minimal
risk, and a sense of belonging. Activities should be meaningful and collaborative, where
students are encouraged to become responsible for their own learning as well as helping
others to learn (Madrid, 1993). ESL students in my classes are reluctant to share their
ideas and opinions in large and small group settings. It seems critical to create a climate
of trust that encourages children to participate and take risks in a non-threatening
environment. My experiences demonstrate that trust and a feeling of belonging appear to
be key factors to strengthen student relationships and to support academic achievement.
The environment should also allow students to interact with their peers in a natural
setting. Opportunities for talk are especially important for students who are learning a
new language. Lack of proficiency in the language of instruction is an important factor in
the lower academic achievement of minority students. Cummins attributes the failure of
many minority students to develop the language skills necessary to achieve academic
success to the teacher-centered methodology that is used in many classrooms. An
interactive environment, on the other hand, develops higher level cognitive skills and
meaningful, communicative language skills (Coelho, 1994).

Another opportunity for schools to help students adjust socially is by integrating
social skills instruction into the curriculum. The mainstream teachers and principal in my

school have expressed concern that ESL students have difficulty making friends in a
mainstream setting and have struggled with adult and peer social interactions. They have
requested that social skills be taught during my ESL classes. I have also noticed students
struggling with social issues in my ESL classroom. Some ESL students feel distant from
their peers, have problems with friendships, and are reluctant to ask for help. These social
skill problems can be viewed as educational opportunities to help develop appropriate
curriculum for ESL students. Every social skill problem is an important piece of
curriculum not yet acquired, and it tells us what the students need to learn. For example,
if students are off-task, it is because they need to learn how to monitor their behavior,
check to see if it is on-task, and adjust accordingly. Staying on task is a social skill that
can be learned, similar to any other skill (Kagen, 1994). Implementing social skill
instruction into the curriculum might reduce the social difficulties many ESL students
encounter.

Cooperative learning is one of the main instructional strategies that can be used to
promote positive social interactions and to create an appropriate learning environment for
ESL students. Chapter Two of this paper will review literature, which provides evidence
that improved social and affective development is one of the positive outcomes of
cooperative learning. Students placed in a cooperative group, feel a sense of belonging.
They learn to ask for and receive help. As others ask for their input, they learn that their
suggestions are valued. They learn that their success is linked to the success of others.
Group participation is learned along with other social skills necessary for working
together (Madrid, 1993).

The following experience of Whe, a five-year old Cambodian boy illustrates one
benefit of cooperative learning: the power to help ESL students adjust to the social and
academic demands of school. Whe was enrolled in kindergarten in the middle of the year
and cried when his father dropped him off at the classroom. The other students were
working in pairs, studying beginning sounds. Not having much success in calming him
down, the teacher asked him to join two students who were looking through magazines
for pictures of things that begin with the letter “r”. He stopped crying almost immediately
as the students showed him pictures they had found, saying the words to him. They then
showed him how to cut and paste the pictures on the newsprint. In the next few days,
Whe’s two group members cared for him as he made other new friends (Madrid, 1993).

Another benefit of cooperative learning is that it helps students to work together
effectively, regardless of their race, language, or personal appearance. At the elementary
level, students are conscious of factors such as academic achievement, personal
appearance, and language proficiency that cause some students to be considered at a
higher status level than others. Cooperative learning activities are designed to sustain and
develop positive attitudes toward students from various racial and cultural backgrounds.
Students learn to regard their peers as valued sources of support in their effort to become
successful socially, linguistically, and academically (Madrid, 1993).

Cooperative small-group instruction provides students with opportunities to
explore, clarify and internalize ideas among their peers. This kind of classroom
conversation helps students to develop higher-level thinking skills through the analysis,
evaluation, synthesis and application of new information (Coelho, 1994).

Given my setting and the benefits of cooperative learning found by research, I
created a study which aimed to use cooperative learning as a curriculum approach which
might help ESL students with social interactions and encourage participation in group
activities. Ultimately, the purpose of my study was to examine whether student
participation increased when cooperative learning structures were used within the ESL
curriculum. Specifically, I looked at the following areas of participation: being on-task,
contributing ideas, helping classmates, and asking for help.

Studies which examine cooperative learning in K-12 classrooms have found that
cooperative learning promotes higher achievement across all age levels, subject areas,
and almost all tasks than competitive and individualistic learning structures across all age
levels, subject areas, and almost all tasks. Additionally, multicultural classrooms have
recognized that cooperative learning strategies are useful for managing linguistic
diversity. My study combines these two strands of research by focussing on
implementing cooperative learning in a classroom with only ESL students. Specifically, I
will attempt to determine if cooperative learning encourages ESL students to participate
in a group setting.

Chapter Two includes a review of literature that describes how social
development affects academic achievement, defines and lists benefits of cooperative
learning, and presents research on cooperative learning and second language learning. It
is presented in the following areas: social development and academic achievement,
cooperative learning, effectiveness of cooperative group work, overview of selected
cooperative learning structures, and rationale for cooperative learning in an ESL

classroom. Chapter Three will describe my research study and the assessment tools used
to collect the data. In Chapter Four the results will be discussed and Chapter Five will be
the conclusion and recommendations for future studies.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Research that is important to my study has been divided into five sections. The
first section explains how social development is important to academic success.
Cooperative learning is an effective instructional strategy that can be used to support
social development. The next section defines and lists the four basic principles of
cooperative learning. The third section describes the effectiveness of cooperative
learning. Then an overview of selected cooperative learning structures is given. Finally,
research on cooperative learning and second language learning is presented. The purpose
of this study is to examine whether student participation increases when ESL students are
engaged in cooperative group work.

Social Development and Academic Achievement

As stated in Chapter One ESL students struggle with social interactions in a
school setting. These challenges make learning difficult and impact academic
performance. Developing socially forms the basis for academic growth. Establishing
trust and providing a setting where children feel a sense of belonging contribute to social
development. Children have certain basic psychological needs and are more likely to
become engaged in the learning process when the learning environment is compatible
with those needs (Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992). The need to belong has been
identified as one of the chief psychological needs that children seek at school and
elsewhere in their interactions with others. If this need is not satisfied within the

academic program, the student feels isolated from the classroom (Coelho, 1994) and their
academic work will suffer (Cowie et al., 1994).

Along with creating a climate of trust and a feeling of belonging, providing
students with instruction in social skills also contributes to social development. Positive
social interactions with peers and adults in a school will benefit academic performance.
Before expecting students to have positive interactions, it is necessary to teach and model
social skills. Social skills affect all parts of a child’s life. Social skills are used to make
connections among people. Any time you talk to, play with, interact with, or work with
others, you are using social skills. The number of children and young adults that do not
have necessary social skills to establish and maintain positive relationships is increasing.
Also, many students are no longer taught how to interact effectively with others by
parents and peers because of changes in the structure of family, neighborhood, and
community life. The effects that social skills have on a child’s academic performance
requires that schools become more involved in teaching social skills (Johnson, Johnson &
Holubec, 1998).

Cooperative Learning

This section contains the definition, major outcomes, and essential components of
cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is an effective instructional strategy that can
be used to support the social development of ESL students in a school setting. Small
groups are used so that students work together to accomplish individual and shared goals.
During cooperative activities, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves
and beneficial to all other group members. Cooperative learning may be contrasted with

competitive learning (where students work against each other to achieve an academic
goal that only one or a few students can attain) and individualistic learning (where
students work by themselves to accomplish learning goals unrelated to those of the other
students) (Johnson et al., 1998).

Extensive research indicates that cooperative learning is a highly effective
instructional approach. According to Johnson et al., (1998) the first research study on
cooperative learning was published in 1898. Since then there have been over 600
experimental and over 100 correlational studies conducted on cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic efforts. These studies demonstrate that cooperative learning has a
number of positive outcomes. The results typically show: academic gains, improved
positive relationships among students, and improved social and affective development
(Johnson et al., 1998 & Kagen, 1994).

The academic gains are most noticeable for minority and low achieving students.
Along with the academic gains are increased intrinsic motivation, time-on-task, and
critical thinking. The positive relationships among students include caring and
committed relationships, personal and academic social support, and valuing of diversity.
The gains in social and affective development includes increased self-esteem, self-
confidence, and improved positive social interactions (Johnson et al., 1998 & Kagen,
1994).

There are four basic principles to cooperative learning: positive interdependence,
individual accountability, equal participation, and simultaneous interaction (Kagen,
1994). First, cooperative learning involves simultaneous interaction. When a classroom

is engaged in a simultaneous structure, for example ‘pair discussion’, then active
participation is occurring for all students at the same time. In contrast, in traditional
classrooms, one person at a time speaks – usually the teacher. Occasionally a student is
called on by the teacher. Teachers on the average do almost eighty percent of the talking
in a traditional classroom (Goodlad, 1984). The time left for student talk is less than
twenty percent because some time is taken for management. The second basic principle
of cooperative learning is positive interdependence. Positive interdependence occurs
when team members realize that they need each other in order to complete the group’s
task. For example, group members study together and insure that all have mastered the
assigned material. Each then takes a test individually and is awarded that score. If all
group members achieve over a predetermined score, each group member receives bonus
points. Thirdly, including individual accountability contributes to academic gains in
cooperative learning. Each member’s contributions are assessed and results are given to
the individual and the group. Finally, the fourth basic principle is equal participation.
During cooperative learning, students learn by interacting with the content and their
peers. Each student contributes equally to the process and final product of an activity.
Participation is an essential part of the learning process and an important element for
student success.

Along with the four basic principles of cooperative learning there is an activity
that is essential to the cooperative learning experience. This part of cooperative learning
is sometimes called group processing and sometimes called debriefing. Periodically, it is
necessary for each group to take time to reflect on processes which are taking place

within the group. During debriefing activities group members have the opportunity to
reflect on an experience. This can take five minutes or a whole lesson; it can happen
immediately after the experience or at a later date. Debriefing takes many forms. It can
be structured or unstructured, directive or non-directive. A formal debriefing session
might, for example, be created by the teacher to find out how much the students had
actually learned about a specific topic: questionnaires or checklists could be used and the
teacher would direct the activity. A more informal debriefing session would be used to
allow students to discuss their understanding of the new information learned during the
lesson. The teacher would not direct this activity, rather it would be directed by the topic
the students wanted to discuss. The techniques vary for debriefing activities. Children
can fill in smiley faces; they can write letters to group members; they can complete open-
ended sentences like ‘At the beginning of the activity I felt…’, or any other form which
elicits student responses. The main point of debriefing is to help students move towards a
higher level of understanding by reflecting on their experiences (Cowie, Smith, Boulton
& Laver, 1994).

Effectiveness of Cooperative Group Work

The previous section defined and listed the main components of cooperative
learning. This section will present research that demonstrates the effectiveness of
cooperative learning on both academic achievement and social development. Research
supporting group work has a long history. The research has found that cooperative
learning is an effective instructional strategy to promote academic achievement and

social development. It has been recommended that schools increase their use of small
interactive groups as a way to help students relate new knowledge to previously learned
concepts. Children learn to communicate effectively with one another, gain in self-
confidence as they share ideas of mutual concern, and widen their network of friendships.
Also, the relationship between language and learning throughout children’s years at
school has been stressed. (Cowie et al., 1994).

Some of the research on academic achievement and cooperative learning is given
in the following paragraphs. In the Vygotskian tradition, it is the social context of
cooperative learning that is a key ingredient in learning. Although Piaget recognizes the
role of social experience in intellectual growth, Vygotsky is the developmental
psychologist who has placed most emphasis on the social nature of individual thinking
processes. In his view, children develop as thinkers by internalizing processes that were
originally experienced in the social context (Cowie et al., 1994).

There are clear benefits when a more knowledgeable peer or adult interacts with a
less expert child. Rather than just transferring information from one person to the next,
learning is about ‘the negotiation of meaning’. For it to be effective, it must be
embedded in personally significant issues, human settings and social relationships.
Cooperative learning, from this standpoint, creates opportunities for the understanding of
meanings to take place through dialogue. The contexts of such dialogue should allow for
a variety of views and experiences to be taken into account and give the students some
say in what is to be learned and how learning goals are to be achieved (Cowie et al.,
1994).

Vygotsky views learning as a cooperative task. Like Piaget, he argues that action
is the way in which the child responds to the world. However, in Vygotsky’s view,
children also learn by reflecting on their experiences using language and as a result move
towards a new level of understanding. Additionally, Vygotsky states that learning is
achieved through cooperation with others in a whole variety of social settings – with
peers, teachers, parents and other people who are significant to the child (Cowie et al.,
1994).

Academic learning with the help of others is supported by Vygotsky’s theory of a
zone of proximal development (see appendix B for a diagram of Vygotsky’s zone of
proximal development). The zone of proximal development is the distance between the
child’s actual developmental level and his or her potential level of development with the
help of adults or in collaboration with more competent peers (Cowie et al., 1994). The
child learns by working with others to form his or her understanding of issues and events
in the world. Vygotsky explains that children learn from other people who are more
knowledgeable than themselves. The process of collaborating with other people not only
gives the child more information about a topic but also verifies the parts of the topic that
the child does understand. The process of cooperation enables the child to proceed to the
next level of learning. Group work is most effective when it builds on the child’s
previous knowledge and stays within the child’s zone of proximal development (Cowie et
al., 1994).

Along with supporting academic achievement, cooperative group work also
contributes to a child’s social development by providing a setting where children can

explore relationships with one another and can share issues in a non-threatening
environment. It is a climate in which children can learn to be confident and learn how to
resolve conflicts (Brandes & Phillips, 1979; Hopson and Scally, 1981; Pike and Selby,
1988). Many educators believe that social experiences form the basis for both personal
and academic growth. If the basic needs of the person are neglected then academic work
will suffer. Cooperative learning methods contribute to a climate of acceptance and
tolerance in the classroom. Students, regardless of gender, social class or ethnic
background, who have experience of working cooperatively with one another are likely
to have higher self-esteem and to view their peers more positively (Kutnik, 1988).

This section showed some of the research on the effectiveness of cooperative
learning on academic achievement and social development. The next section will list and
define some cooperative learning structures that can be used in cooperative learning.

Overview of Selected Cooperative Learning Structures

There are many different cooperative learning structures, as well as variations
among them. This variety is necessary because the structures have different functions
and are used to develop different skills. Kagen (1993) explains that the goal of structures
differ in the areas of academic, cognitive, and social development. Three questions must
be considered when determining the functions or goals of a structure:

1. What kind of cognitive and academic development does it foster?
2. What kind of social development does it foster?
3. Where in a lesson plan does it best fit?

The design of lessons involves using a variety of structures, each chosen for a
specific academic, cognitive or social goal. Dependence on any one structure limits the
cognitive and social learning of students (Kagen, 1993). The table on the following
pages, is a representative sample of cooperative learning structures including the
structures I used in cooperative lessons for my research study.

Table 1. Overview of Selected Structures

Structure

Brief Description

Functions

(Academic and Social)

Roundrobin

Each student in turn shares
something with his or her
teammates.

Expressing ideas and
opinions, creating stories.
Equal participation, getting
acquainted with teammates.

Match Mine

Students attempt to match
the arrangement of objects
on a grid of another student
using oral communication
only.

Vocabulary development.
Communication skills, role-
taking ability.

Numbered Heads Together

The teacher asks a question;
students consult to make
sure everyone knows the

Review, checking for
knowledge, comprehension.
Tutoring.

answer. Then one student is
called upon to answer.

Three-Step Interview

Students interview each
other in pairs, first one way,
then the other. Students
each share with the group
information they learned in
the interview.

Sharing personal
information such as
hypotheses, reactions to a
poem, conclusions from a
unit. Participation,
listening.

Table 1. Overview of Selected Structures (continued).

Structure

Brief Description

Functions

(Academic and Social)

Think-Pair-Share

Students think to
themselves on a topic
provided by the teacher;
they pair up with another
student to discuss it; they
then share their thoughts
with the class.

Generating and revising
hypotheses, inductive
reasoning, deductive
reasoning, application.
Participation, involvement.

Team Word-Webbing

Students write
simultaneously on a piece
of chart paper, drawing
main concepts, supporting
elements, and bridges

Analysis of concepts into
components, understanding
multiple relations among
ideas, differentiating
concepts. Role-taking.

representing the relation of
ideas in a concept.

Roundtable

Each student in turn writes
one answer on a paper and
pencil are passed around the
group. With Simultaneous
Roundtable, more than one
pencil and paper are used at
once.

Assessing prior knowledge,
practicing skills, recalling
information, creating
cooperative art. Team-
building, participation of
all.

Table 1. Overview of Selected Structures (continued).

Structure

Brief Description

Functions

(Academic and Social)

Jigsaw

Each student on the team
becomes an “expert” on one
topic by working with
members from other teams
assigned to the same expert
topics. Upon returning to
their teams, each one in turn
teaches the group; and
students are all assessed on
all aspects of the topic.

Acquisition and
presentation of new
material, review, informed
debate. Interdependence,
status equalization.

Partners

Students work in pairs to

Mastery and presentation of

create or master content.
They consult with partners
from other teams. They
then share their products or
understanding with the
other partner pair in their
team.

new material, concept
development. Presentation
and communication skills.

Adapted from a table in Kagen (1993).
I chose the cooperative structures in table 1 and not other structures to use in my
research study because these structures were beneficial to the academic and social skills I
wanted to include in my lessons.

Rationale for Cooperative Learning in an ESL Classroom

Recent research and experience in language classrooms have established the
benefit of small-group activity in expanding student exposure to a new language and in
providing many more opportunities to practice the language naturally than are available
in traditional, whole-group instruction (McGroarty, 1993). Student participation in pair
and small-group work following cooperative methods facilitates second language
acquisition along with the subject matter mastery (McGroarty, 1991). For these reasons,
educators concerned with building students’ second language skills would benefit from
learning about cooperative learning techniques. The following paragraphs present
information from studies done with cooperative learning and second language learning.

A study on the experiences of ESL teachers in a Malaysian postsecondary
institution supports the use of cooperative learning in a classroom. A variety of
cooperative learning activities were introduced in classes, meetings, and after class by
three ESL teachers at this school. The results from the three teachers involved in this
study were similar. At the end of the semester the students were learning English from
each other, English grades were improving and the Malay learners felt more confident to
express their opinions and ideas in a collaborative learning environment (Crismore &
Salim, 1997).

According to McGroarty (1993), there have only been a few studies that examine
cooperative second language learning in K-12 classrooms in the United States. However,
there is enough evidence from investigations of various types of group work in language
learning to determine whether cooperative learning is a beneficial strategy for ESL
students (McGroarty, 1993). These benefits relate to three areas of major theoretical
importance for language development: input, interaction, and contextualization of
knowledge.

Input

Input refers to language that students are exposed to. In traditional classrooms, ESL
students receive less teacher and peer communication and communication at a lower
linguistic and cognitive level than in cooperative learning classrooms. One of the main
advantages of group work for second language learners is that it offers students the
chance to hear more language and more complex language during interaction. In

discussion with others, students may hear more complex language from their peers than
from the teacher in whole-class discussion.

It is not likely that every member of a class will be at the same i + 1 level (the stage
of linguistic development where the learner can process the input, i , and still be exposed
to new language forms and structures just beyond the current level of comprehension, i +
1) (McGroarty, 1993). However, if students are engaged in cooperative activities, there
will be many kinds of interaction among speakers of different levels. Consequently, at
least some of the input will be at an appropriate level. In one study, students participating
in group-based investigation made more high-level cognitive gains than those who took
part in peer-tutoring or whole-class methods (Holt, 1993).

Interaction

The structure of traditional classrooms gives only one person at a time the chance
to speak and provides little opportunity for students to express themselves to teachers or
peers. Most observational research indicates that the speaker is the teacher 60 to 70 % of
the time during teacher-centered interaction. In comparison, in cooperative learning, one
fourth to one half of the students can speak at any given time, depending on whether pair
work or group work is being used (McGroarty, 1993). This is important to language
learning because it give students more opportunities to practice using language skills.

In addition to increasing the number of opportunities available for verbal
expression, cooperative learning methods promote use of a wide range of communicative

functions. This is important to language learning to expose students to a variety of
language skills. Through teacher modeling and preteaching exercises, students are given
specific instructions in such skills as paraphrasing the ideas of others, asking for
explanations, summarizing, clarifying, indicating agreement or disagreement, and

interrupting politely, all verbal skills, which are beneficial to the language acquisition
process.

Researchers have asserted that use of pair or group work increases practice
opportunities greatly, often leads to development of better oral skills, and provides
diverse activities in the classroom (McGroarty, 1993). A study comparing cooperative
and traditional instructional methods in high school English as a foreign language classes
in Israel also confirmed the considerable increase in opportunities for natural practice of
language when cooperative methods were used (Bejarano, 1987). Similarly, a
cooperative Jigsaw activity created many more practice opportunities than did teacher-
centered instruction in a university Dutch class (McGroarty, 1993). These studies have
shown that cooperative learning activities give students much more opportunity to use the
new language than they typically receive in teacher-centered instruction.

Cognitive Context

An additional benefit to using cooperative learning with ESL students is its
potential for students to use their first language. While little research in this area has
been done, it has been suggested that, in cooperative groups where there are bilinguals
and monolinguals (who speak only Spanish or only English), the bilinguals and the
monolingual Spanish speakers need to use their first language in order to accomplish the

learning activity. Thus, this study offers some support for possible contribution of the
first language to second language mastery. Cooperative work, appropriately structured,
can effectively use students’ first language capabilities and consequently strengthening
first language skills benefits the development of the second language (McGroarty, 1993).

This chapter was a review of literature on the importance of social development to
academic success, the major components of cooperative learning, the effectiveness of
cooperative learning, and cooperative learning’s value as an appropriate instructional
strategy to use with second language learners. This literature review provides supporting
evidence for my research study on ESL students and social interactions. Chapter Three
will explain in more detail the method of my study, which attempted to find out if student
participation increased when cooperative learning activities were used in an ESL
classroom.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to examine whether student participation increased
when cooperative learning activities were used in an ESL classroom. This study focused
on the following areas of student participation: being on task, contributing ideas, helping
classmates, and asking for help. Data was collected intermittently throughout the eight
week study to evaluate whether student participation improved as more cooperative
learning activities were introduced. The academic and social goals of cooperative
learning structures described in Chapter Two, gave students the opportunities to engage
in the above participation behaviors. The results of this study are beneficial for both
mainstream teachers who have ESL students in their classroom and for ESL teachers. It
provides information on how to adapt curriculum to better meet the needs of ESL
students. This section has been separated into four parts: Context and Subjects,
Description of Cooperative Learning Activities, Assessment Materials, and Description
of Tools and Data Collection Procedure.

Context and Subjects

The study was conducted in a pull-out ESL classroom at a suburban elementary
school in Minnesota. The school involved in this study has a total population of
approximately 800 students and only 15 of those students were in the ESL program. The
participants in the study consisted of five second and third graders. They were chosen for
this study because of their grade level. Second and third grade is the highest grade level
in the ESL program at this school. It was beneficial to have higher level students in the

study so they could comprehend and perform a variety of cooperative learning structures.
The participants are in the ESL program and attended ESL class thirty minutes a day,
Monday through Friday. The duration of the study was for eight weeks during the months
of April and May 2002. This study was part of the ESL curriculum. The cooperative
learning structures were implemented into the ESL objectives for second and third grade.

There was a variety in the background information for each student. Student one
was an eight year old male in the third grade. He came to the U.S. at the age of four from
Vietnam. Student two was a seven year old male in the second grade. He came to the
U.S. at the age of three from Mexico. Student three was a seven year old female in the
second grade. She was born in the U.S. and her family is from China. Student four was
an eight year old female in the third grade. She was born in the U.S. and her family is
from Korea. Student five was a seven year old female in the second grade. She came to
the U.S. at the age of five from Vietnam.

Some of the students shared a mainstream: students one and four were in the
same third grade classroom and students three and five were in the same second grade
classroom. Student two was the only ESL student in his second grade classroom. The
students in my study were the only second and third grade ESL students in the whole
school. The table on the following page lists the English proficiency level for each
student. The levels were determined by the Language Assessment Scales test.

Table 2. English Proficiency Level of Participants

Student Number

Reading Proficiency

Writing Proficiency

1 Competent reader Competent writer

2 Limited reader Limited writer

3 Competent reader Competent writer

4 Competent reader Limited writer

5 Limited reader Limited writer

Description of Cooperative Learning Activities

During the study, these five students worked in small groups or teams to help
each other learn social skills and academic content. Cooperative activities were adapted
for ESL students from a variety of sources (Holt, 1993; Kagen, 1994). A lesson plan was
created for each day of the eight weeks, and contained the following elements: content
area, lesson topic, academic objectives, language objectives, cooperative structures,
roles, time required, materials needed, and a description of the teaching process. See
appendix C for an overview of the cooperative learning lessons used in the study. The
cooperative group work activities each started with a trust-building exercise before going
to group activities such as problem-solving, cooperative games and discussion groups. A
variety of cooperative learning structures were included in each activity. In Chapter Two
we saw a brief description and functions of the structures used in the study. The
academic and social goals of the cooperative learning structures gave students the
opportunity to engage in the participation behaviors being observed. The session usually

ended when the groups reported back to the whole ESL class, along with an oral, written,
or whole group debriefing activity, in which the teacher and student could discuss the
successes as well as any problems such as non-cooperation between children. The
debriefing activities were regarded as an important element in the whole process of
cooperative group work as they gave students the opportunity to reflect on their
cooperative experience.

As stated above there was a lesson plan created for each day of the eight weeks.
Each day the students were divided into groups of two or three. Different students were
grouped together each week. Students were observed on participation behaviors four
times during the study. The cooperative learning activities for these four observed and
videotaped weeks are described in detail below to illustrate the exact activity students
were engaged in.

Week One

Group One consisted of students four and two. The lesson topic was folktales and
the cooperative structure the students were engaged in was roundtable. During this
cooperative learning activity the students each shared one pencil and each student in turn
wrote one answer on a shared paper. Their task as a group was to write the names of as
many characters they could remember from the folktales previously studied.

Group Two consisted of students five, three, and one. The lesson topic was
folktales and the cooperative structure the students were engaged in was roundtable.
During this cooperative learning activity the students each shared one pencil and each
student in turn wrote one answer on a shared paper. Their task as a group was to

complete five writing activities that pertained to a previously discussed folktale. The five
writing activities were: write the title of the story, list the characters of the story, list at
least six things that happened in the story (in correct sequence), write a new title for the
story, and list a reason why the group likes the new title.

Week Three

Group One consisted of students three, one and two. The lesson topic was
folktales. Students were engaged in a trust-building exercise, which helped students form
a group. Their task as a group was to complete a sheet titled: our group. Students took
turns writing answers to complete the following open-ended statements: we’ve named
our group…, the group roles we are learning about…., the names of the people in our
group are…., and list the group’s favorite food.

Group Two consisted of students four and five. The lesson topic was folktales and
the cooperative structure the students were engaged in was Think-Pair-Share. During this
cooperative learning activity, group two was listening to group one read five statements
they had written about a previously read folktale. The task for group two was to listen to
the five statements and decide which ones were true and which ones were false. The
cooperative learning structure, Think-Pair-Share started by each student thinking about
the answer individually. Then students four and five told each other the answer. Then
they shared their answers with the class.

Week Five

Group One consisted of students three, two, and four. The lesson topic was story
elements and the cooperative structure the students were engaged in was Think-Pair-

Share. During this cooperative learning activity students were learning about the
elements of a story by reading clues to a mystery and trying to solve it. Their task as a
group was to use the cooperative learning structure Think-Pair-Share when solving the
mystery. It started by each student thinking about the solution individually. Then
students shared their answers within their group. Finally, they shared their answers with
the class.

Group Two consisted of students one and five. The lesson topic was story
elements and the cooperative structure the students were engaged in was using paraphrase
chips. During this cooperative learning activity students were learning about story
elements by solving a mystery. Their task as a group was to take turns reading the clue.
After each clue was read, students used their paraphrase chip and restated the clue using
his/her own words. Each student was given a round paper circle that represented a
paraphrase chip.

Week Seven

Group One consisted of students five and four. The lesson topic was prediction
and the cooperative structure the students were engaged in was Three-Step Interview.
During this cooperative learning activity students were shown the cover of a book and
asked to interview each other to share their ideas on what they thought the book was
about. Next each group member shared his or her idea with the class.

Group Two consisted of students three, two, and one. The lesson topic was
prediction and the cooperative structure the students were engaged in was Group

Processing. During this cooperative learning activity each student in the group takes turn
describing their predictions for an ending to a story.

Assessment Materials

The assessment tools used in this study were adapted from a variety of sources to
evaluate student participation in an ESL classroom. The four tools used were a
Cooperative Learning Progress Report ( Johnson et al., 1998), a Teacher Observation
Form (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998), a student checklist titled, My Checklist for
Cooperative Groups (Kagen, 1994), and a teacher created written questionnaire titled
Student Cooperative Learning Log. All assessment forms can be found in appendix A.

Description of Tools and Data Collection Procedure

The study was carried out for two months. During the two months the ESL
students experienced a curriculum that involved different types of cooperative group
work. The main objective was to find out if student participation in the areas of: being
on-task, contributing ideas, helping classmates, and asking for help increased or changed
over time when cooperative group work was used in an ESL classroom.

Cooperative Learning Progress Report (see appendix A)

This daily progress report was adapted from a form in Johnson et al. (1998) by the
ESL teacher. This form focused on the following five areas: critical or interesting
incidents, successes, problems, my thoughts, and ideas to improve future cooperative
learning lessons. Throughout the eight week study, the ESL teacher before, during and
after cooperative group work recorded observations. It was completed daily to record
successes and problems from each cooperative learning activity. Furthermore, it was

used as a journal to record anecdotal observations of the students and ideas that would be
helpful for future cooperative learning activities. The written anecdotal observations
collected by this assessment tool were used to help determine if students were
participating in the cooperative learning activities. The results for this assessment tool
were divided into the five areas mentioned above. The entries for each section were
summarized to include the major observations from the eight week study.

Teacher Observation Form (see appendix A)

This form was adapted from a form found in Johnson et al. (1998) by the ESL
teacher. It included four different types of student participation: On-Task, Contributed
Ideas, Helped Groupmates, and Asked for Help if Needed. Within each of these
categories there were specific expectations listed which were indicators to measure
whether students were showing participation for that category. A rating scale (1 =
Inadequate, 2 = Poor, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent) was used to rate these specific
participation behaviors.

Prior to the research study, the video camera was set up in the classroom, so that
during the eight week study the camera would not distract the students and affect the
results of the study. During the study, students were videotaped for thirty minutes while
engaged in cooperative learning activities. The ESL teacher rated the five students on
two separate days of the observation week. One day two students were observed and on
another day three students were observed. The observations were carried out at four time
points throughout the eight week study: week one, week three, week five and week

seven. Without the students present, the ESL teacher viewed the videotape and the
information was recorded on the observed task.

These observations were used to score each child’s participation in cooperative group
work on a four point scale from 1 to 4 (1 = inadequate, 2 = poor, 3 = good, 4 = excellent).
The results were limited because only one rater was used to score this tool. The scores
are subjective and indicate the opinion of the rater. The results for this tool were scored
weekly. First, the total score for each participation behavior (on-task, contributed ideas,
helped groupmates, and asked for help) was added up. Next, the total points each student
received were divided by the total possible points to get a percentage. The following
paragraph is an example of this rating system.

For example, the ‘on-task’ participation behavior has five specific expectations (see
Appendix A for a list of the specific expectations). The highest score each specific
expectation can receive is four. Therefore, the total points possible for ‘on-task’ is
twenty. If a student received a four on each of the specific expectations, than the
student’s score would be 20/20 or 100%. Indicating that the student demonstrated 100%
participation by being on-task for 100 % of the time. The rest of the participation
behaviors were scored the same way. Contributed ideas had eight total points. Helped
groupmates had sixteen total points, and asked for help if needed had eight total points.

Additionally, the total points for all four behaviors were added up to find an overall
percentage of how students participated during cooperative learning activities. The total
possible points for all four behaviors was fifty-two. This tool directly related to the

research question by showing that an increase in total points indicated an increase in
student participation.

My Checklist for Cooperative Groups (see appendix A)

This form was designed by Kagen (1994) to have students reflect on the social skill of
‘being helpful’. For example, students tried to be helpful by sharing ideas or answers,
encouraging others, and by clarifying new concepts to group members that did not
understand. To choose this skill I examined the students involved in the study and
selected the social skill that these students were most in need of acquiring: being helpful
to group members. Students reflected on how helpful they were during cooperative
learning activities. This form contained seven statements, which expressed ways to be
helpful as a group member. The seven statements were:

1. When I knew an answer or had an idea, I shared it.
2. I encouraged others in my group.
3. I used names.
4. I felt encouraged by people in my group.
5. When my answer was not the same as my partner’s, I tried to find out
why.
6. When I did not understand something, I asked my partner.
7. When my partner did not understand, I helped him/her.

There was also one open-ended question at the end that asked students to comment on
something they could do to make their group better.

During the eight week study, individual students completed this form at the end of
week one, week three, week five, and week seven. Each of the seven statements was read
and explained by the ESL teacher to clarify the meaning. The students were instructed to
complete the close-ended statements by circling a ‘happy’ or a ‘sad face’ as a way to
agree or disagree with each statement. The last part of the checklist was an open-ended
question on goal setting. The goal setting question asked students to describe one thing
they could do to make their group better. This is a debriefing activity. As stated in
Chapter Two, debriefing is an essential activity to cooperative learning. The main
purpose of debriefing is to move students to a higher level of understanding by reflecting
on their cooperative experiences.

The results for each student were added up weekly. When students circled a
‘happy face’ one point was given and when students circled a ‘sad face’ zero points were
given. The total possible points for each week was seven. A percentage was found by
dividing the total number of points a student received by the total points possible. For
example, during week one student one circled three ‘happy’ faces and received three
points out of a possible seven points (3/7). Indicating that 43% of student one’s checklist
contained ‘happy’ faces or positive responses.

This assessment tool relates to the research study by integrating social skills into
the curriculum. Evidence in Chapter Two states that implementing social skills into the
curriculum might increase student participation.

Student Cooperative Learning Log (see appendix A)

This questionnaire was created by the ESL teacher as a debriefing activity, which
gave students the opportunity to express how they felt about working in cooperative
groups. The questionnaire consisted of four open-ended questions:

1. What did you like about the activity?
2. What did you NOT like about the activity?
3. How did you help your teammates?
4. What is one thing you did today?

Question one and two refer to the cooperative learning activity the individual student was
involved in for the day the student cooperative learning log was completed. Question
three refers to the social skill (‘being helpful) that was stressed during the eight week
study. Students responded with one thing that they did to help their teammates. Question
four is similar to questions one and two. It refers to the cooperative activity each student
was involved in when the student cooperative learning log was completed. For example,
during week three student three responded to number four by writing: “worked together”.

Throughout the eight week study, students completed these during week one,
week three, week five, and week seven. Students individually completed one question a
day during the weeks mentioned above.

The student cooperative learning log was a debriefing activity used to increase
student participation by helping students realize that their response made a difference to
their learning. It allowed students to have a sense of ownership in the activities they were
involved in. The ESL teacher also benefited from the feedback by using the information
to plan and adjust future cooperative learning activities according to student interests and

learning styles. This processing step is beneficial to ESL students, as it will increase
comprehension, peer support, and participation. Debriefing is an essential part of the
cooperative group work process. In particular, debriefing activities are crucial in
consolidating the potential gains in understanding on the part of the children brought
about by cooperative group work activities (Cowie, Smith, Boulton & Laver, 1994).

Two different raters coded all student answers for the eight week study. The
raters gave each question an answer code number that corresponded to a general category
of answers. A different set of answer codes was developed for each of the four questions.
Also, each question contained a list that represented the frequency of answers. For
example, during week five student two’s answer was coded with a ‘three’ which
indicated that he or she answered “disagreed with group members” to question two: what
did you not like about the activity?

The context and subjects of this research study have been presented, along with a
description of the cooperative learning activities used to encourage ESL students to
participate in group activities. Additionally, the four assessment tools and method for
collecting data have been given. In Chapter Four, the data that were gathered in this
study will be presented, analyzed, and interpreted to determine whether there was a
difference in student participation when cooperative learning activities were used in an
ESL classroom.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

In Chapter Three, the study was explained in detail, including a description of the
participants, setting, assessment tools, and method for collecting the data. The purpose of
this study was to examine whether student participation increased when cooperative
learning activities were used in an ESL classroom. In Chapter Four, data gathered from
four different research tools will be presented. Analysis and interpretation of this data
will determine if students participated more during cooperative learning activities.

The overall results showed an increase in student participation. The results are
separated into four different sections to represent the four different assessment tools
described in chapter three. The four sections are in the following order: cooperative
learning progress report results, teacher observation form results, my checklist for
cooperative groups results, and student cooperative learning log results.

The first section summarized the major observations that were listed on the
cooperative learning progress report during the eight week study. Next, five tables are
shown to give the results for individual students from teacher observations done during
cooperative learning activities. Students were observed on four different participation
behaviors: being on-task, contributing ideas, helping groupmates, and asking for help.
Then, individual student results for ‘my checklist for cooperative groups’ will be

presented. Finally, the group results from four open-ended questions asked on the
student cooperative learning log are shown on the last four tables in this section.

Cooperative Learning Progress Report Results

The results for this assessment tool were divided into the five areas: Critical or
interesting incidents, successes, problems, my thoughts, and ideas to improve future
cooperative learning activities. The entries for each section were summarized to include
the major observations from the eight week study. Each of the five paragraphs below
present the major observations for the five areas.

The main critical or interesting incidents that were recorded were about the classroom
environment and student attitude. Cooperative learning activities motivated students to
come to class early and not want to leave. Also noted many times in the progress report
was that students had many opportunities to interact when cooperative learning was used
in the ESL classroom.

One of the main successes from the eight week study was that students from the same
background started to use their first language with other students from the same country.
Another success was that through the trust building exercises that were done before each
activity, a non-threatening environment was created. This gave students confidence
when interacting with their peers and acquiring new skills.

At times during the cooperative activities it was difficult for students to agree or to
make decisions. This often led to disagreements. Students noted in their student
cooperative learning logs that this was a part of cooperative learning that they did not
like.

The next area was a place for the ESL teacher to write personal thoughts about
student interactions or the planning process of cooperative learning. The main
observations that was written often in this category was that toward the end of the eight
week study, students that were not friends before now seemed to enjoy working together.
There was less arguing than in the beginning of the eight week study. Also, some student
expressed that it was more fun to work as a team than alone.

The last area contained ideas that could be used for future cooperative learning
lessons. The main theme that was mentioned in this section was to use less complex
cooperative learning structures. It was stressed that because these students were just
beginning to learn how to work as a group the simple cooperative learning structures
were more successful.

Teacher Observation Form Results

The tables and figures on the following pages show the results for the four weeks
students were observed during cooperative learning activities. This assessment tool
measured each student on four different behaviors to help determine if student
participation increased when cooperative learning was used in an ESL classroom. The
four participation behaviors measured were: being on task, contributing ideas, helping
classmates, and asking for help.

The results were limited because only one rater was used to score this tool. The
scores are subjective and indicate the opinion of only one rater. The overall results show
an increase in student participation. Each week shows the percentage of the total points
students received for classroom participation. Two students increased participation by

20%, however the other three students only had a slight increase that ranged from 2% to
8%.

Table 3. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student One

Student One

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

On-Task

12/20 = 60%

19/20 = 95%

15/20 = 75%

17/20 = 85%

Contributed

Ideas

5/8 = 63%

6/8 = 75%

7/8 = 88%

6/8 = 75%

Helped
Groupmates

10/16 = 63%

12/16 = 75%

12/16 = 75%

12/16 = 75%

Asked for Help
if Needed

4/8 = 50%

8/8 = 100%

6/8 = 75%

6/8 = 75%

Total Score

31/52 = 60%

45/52 = 87%

40/52 = 77%

41/52 = 79%

Table 3 shows the results from the four weeks that student one was observed.
During week one student one’s score was similar for all the participation behaviors. His
total score for week one was 60%. Week three there was approximately a 30% increase.
Student one showed the most increase in being on-task and asking for help. This increase
could have been because his group role assignment was to be the leader of the group. As
a leader, he was concerned about each group member equally participating. He asked his
group members to help complete the activity by stating, “This is a team project, we each
need to add our ideas”. The total score for week five was 77 %. The last week observed
showed a high percentage of 85 in the area of being on task and all three of the other

behaviors were scored at 75%. His total score for the week started out at 60%, then
increased to 87% and went down to 77% but not below the initial week. The final week
student one scored a total of 79%.

Table 4. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Two
Student Two

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

On-Task

13/20 = 65%

20/20 = 100%

8/20 = 40%

13/20 = 65%

Contributed
Ideas

5/8 = 63%

8/8 = 100%

4/8 = 50%

6/8 = 75%

Helped
Groupmates

10/16 = 63%

13/16 = 81%

7/16 = 44%

12/16 = 75%

Asked for Help
if Needed

6/8 = 75%

8/8 = 100%

4/8 = 50%

6/8 = 75%

Total Score

34/52 = 65%

49/52 = 94%

23/52 = 44%

37/52 = 71%

As shown in table 4, student two started this study with a total score of 65% in the
first week of cooperative learning activities. He showed a considerable difference in
participation level between week three and week five. Student two reached 100% on
three of the participation behaviors in week three. These behaviors were being on-task,
contributing ideas, and asking for help if needed. This student was very distracted and
frustrated for the observation period during week five. The reason for frustration was not
known, but it could have been the reason for the drop in scores. His scores in week five
went lower than week one. The last week of observation showed a total score of 71% .

Table 5. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Three

Student Three

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

On-Task

14/20 = 70%

20/20 = 100%

14/20 = 70%

16/20 = 80%

Contributed
Ideas

4/8 = 50%

7/8 = 88%

5/8 = 63%

7/8 = 88%

Helped
Groupmates

11/16 = 69%

15/16 = 94%

11/16 = 69%

14/16 = 88%

Asked for Help
if Needed

5/8 = 63%

6/8 = 75%

6/8 = 75%

6/8 = 75%

Total Score

34/52 = 65%

48/52 = 92%

36/52 = 69%

43/52 = 83%

The results for student three are shown in table five. She started week one with a
total score of 65 %. Her highest score for week one was 70 % in the area of being on-
task. She scored 100% in week three in the same area of being on task. Week three
showed quite an increase in all four areas. This increase in participation behaviors was
most likely because she was very interested in the lesson topic, which was folktales. She
contributed to group discussion by telling the class a folktale that originated from her
native country, China. Then in week five her score went down slightly and were similar
to the scores in week one. In week seven her scores went up again, but not as high as
week three. Her total score started with 65% and then showed an increase between 70%
to 90 % in the last three observed weeks.

Table 6. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Four

Student Four

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

On-Task

15/20 = 75%

11/20 = 55%

12/20 = 60%

14/20 = 70%

Contributed
Ideas

6/8 = 75%

6/8 = 75%

5/8 = 63%

5/8 = 63%

Helped
Groupmates

10/16 = 63%

11/16 = 69%

7/16 = 44%

13/16 = 81%

Asked for Help
if Needed

6/8 = 75%

4/8 = 50%

5/8 = 63%

6/8 = 75%

Total Score

37/52 = 71%

32/52 = 62%

29/52 = 56%

38/52 = 73%

The results for student four are shown in table six. Her scores on week one were
very similar. She scored 75% on three participation behaviors: being on task,
contributing ideas, and asking for help. She had a slightly lower score for helping
groupmates. Her scores went down in week three in the areas of being on task and asking
for help. The scores for student four showed quite a decrease in week five. They went
lower than week one. Her lowest overall score for the eight week study was during week
five. It was a score of 44% in the area of helping others. The results for week seven
were encouraging. Her scores for helping groupmates increased to 81%. These results
indicate that at the end of the eight week study, she realized the benefits of group work by

asking her group members for help. It was noted in the cooperative learning progress
report that this student is very independent, quiet and prefers to work alone. These
behaviors affected how she performed in a group activity and the data by showing a
decrease in ‘contributed ideas’ during weeks five and seven. Week seven her scores
increased with a total of 73%

Table 7. Teacher Observation Form Results for Student Five

Student Five

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

On-Task

15/20 = 75%

9/20 = 45%

18/20 = 90%

14/20 = 70%

Contributed
Ideas

5/8 = 63%

5/8 = 63%

7/8 = 88%

7/8 = 88%

Helped
Groupmates

10/16 = 63%

10/16 = 63%

13/16 = 81%

12/16 = 75%

Asked for Help
if Needed

5/8 = 63%

6/8 = 75%

6/8 = 75%

6/8 = 75%

Total Score

35/52 = 67%

30/52 = 58%

44/52 = 85%

39/52 = 75%

As shown in table 7, student five started week one with a total score of 67%. She
went down in the area of being on task to a score of 45%. This score is low because
during the cooperative activity she became very frustrated when the content was difficult
for her. She stopped trying to complete the activity even when her group members
offered to help. Week five showed an increase in all of the areas with an overall total
score of 85%. Her scores were similar in week seven. Student five’s total increased by
15% from week one to week seven.

My Checklist for Cooperative Groups Results

The tables on the following pages show results from when student were asked to
reflect on how helpful they were during the activities. The results for each student were
added up weekly. When students circled a ‘happy face’ one point was given and when
students circled a ‘sad face’ zero points were given. The overall results were positive.
Between week one and week seven positive student responses increased by 14%, 28%,
28%, 29% and 57%. This increase indicates that students’ perception of their group
involvement increased . Increased student involvement was shown when students shared
ideas, encouraged others, and helped group members when something was confusing.
These are all indicators of increased participation and a feeling of trust and acceptance
from their classmates.

Table 8. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student One

Question
Number

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

0

3

1

1

1

1

4

0

1

1

1

5

0

1

1

0

6

0

1

1

1

7

1

1

1

0

Total Score

3/7 = 43%

7/7 = 100%

7/7 = 100 %

4/7 = 57%

As shown in table 8, student one showed an increase up to 100 % for weeks three
and five. The last week his scores went down again, but not below week one. Student
one’s English proficiency level is very high. According to the Language Assessment
Scales test he is a competent reader and a competent writer. The reason his score
decreased in week seven could be because the content was below his level of
competency. He wasn’t challenged and therefore became disinterested with the group
activity.

Table 9. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student Two

Question
Number

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

4

0

1

0

1

5

0

1

1

0

6

0

1

0

0

7

1

1

1

1

Total Score

3/7 = 43%

7/7 = 100 %

5/7 = 71%

5/7 = 71%

Table 9 shows that student two started out the eight week study with a low score
of 43% and increased greatly in week three with a score of 100%. This increase could
be due to the fact that week three was the first week ‘talking chips’ was introduced to the
group. Each student was given a chip, which could be used when he or she wanted to

express their opinion during group discussions. This helped all students to equally
participate. The ‘talking chips’ increased student participation and decreased
disagreements among all students. It is interesting to note that the last two weeks student
two received the exact same score of 71%.

Table 10. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student Three

Question
Number

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

4

0

0

1

1

5

0

1

1

1

6

0

1

1

1

7

1

1

1

1

Total Score

3/7 = 43%

6/7 = 86%

7/7 = 100 %

7/7 = 100%

Table 10 shows that student three started out with a low score of 43%. She
increased to 86% in week three and in the last two weeks increased all the way to 100%.
Her score from week one to week seven increased by 60%. This is the most increase on
this assessment tool shown out of all the students in the study. At the beginning of the

eight week study student three was very dependent on the ESL teacher. She continuously
asked the teacher for direction and approval. The increase in her cooperative checklist
scores demonstrates that at the end of the study she asked her group members to help her
instead of the ESL teacher. Additionally, she showed more group involvement by
encouraging others and contributing ideas.

Table 11. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student Four

Question
Number

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

1

0

0

3

1

1

1

1

4

0

0

0

1

5

0

0

1

0

6

0

1

1

1

7

1

1

1

1

Total Score

3/7 = 43%

5/7 = 71%

5/7 = 71%

5/7 = 71%

Student four starts out with a low score of 43%. It is interesting to note that her
overall score in the last three weeks were exactly the same. Her responses to the seven
statements were similar but not the same for these three weeks. This increase from week

one to week three indicates that she improved on sharing ideas and encouraging others in
her group. The reasoning for the consistent scores on week three, week five and week
seven is not known. When student four completed the checklist for each week, she took
time answering each question. It was evident that she was in fact reflecting on her
experience and not just quickly completing the form in order to complete it.

Table 12. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student Five

Question
Number

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

1

1

1

1

1

2

0

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

4

0

1

1

1

5

0

1

1

0

6

1

1

1

1

7

1

1

1

1

Total Score

4/7 = 57%

7/7 = 100%

7/7 = 100%

6/7 = 86%

As shown in table 12, student five had a score of 57% for week one. She
increased all the way to 100% for weeks three and five. Her score for week seven was
slightly lower but still in the high range. For week seven she responded positively to all
but one statement. The statement she responded negatively to was: when my answer was
not the same as my partner’s, I tried to find out why.

Answer Codes Frequency of Answers

1 = help more 1 = 5 times

2 = treat others as you want to be treated 2 = 4 times

3 = be kind 3 = 7 times

4 = work together 4 = 1 time

5 = listen to my group members 5 = 1 time

6 = encourage my friends 6 = 1 time

7 = share 7 = 1 time

Table 13. My Checklist for Cooperative Groups: Results for Student Goals

What can you do to make your group better?

Student
Number

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

4

3

3

5

3

5

7

3

4

6

There was also one open-ended question at the end of the cooperative checklist
that asked students to comment on something that they could do to make their group
better. The results are listed above in table 13. Overall, students chose goals that focused

on being more active in group activities. Their goals showed a desire to participate more
in their learning by helping, sharing, listening, working together and encouraging their
friends. Table 13 shows the data collected regarding the goal individuals set for future
group experiences. I was not able to follow through to find out if students achieved these
goals. The main purpose for using this tool was as a debriefing activity.

Student Cooperative Learning Log Results

This questionnaire was created by the ESL teacher as a debriefing activity, which
gave students the opportunity to express their opinions in writing on the following areas.
Two different raters coded all student answers for the eight week study. The raters gave
each question an answer code that corresponded to a general category of answers. A
different set of answer codes was developed for each of the four questions. The open-
ended questions asked students to comment on:

1. What did you like about the activity?

2. What did you NOT like about the activity?

3. How did you help your teammates?
4. What is one thing you did today?

Answer Codes Frequency of Answers

1 = writing 1 = 1 time

2 = working together 2 = 3 times

3 = sharing 3 = 5 times

4 = fun activity 4 = 5 times

5 = helping each other 5 = 1 time

6 = reading 6 = 1 time

7 = drawing 7 = 4 times

Table 14. Question 1 – What did you like about the activity?

Student
Number

Week
One

Week
Three

Week
Five

Week
Seven

1

5

2

6

7

2

1

2

3

7

3

3

3

4

7

4

4

4

4

7

5

3

4

2

3

Table 14 shows how students responded to the first question. It was interesting to
note that what students liked most about cooperative learning activities was that they
were fun and that they were able to share stories and ideas with other students.
According to research stated in Chapter Two, improved positive relationships among
students are a positive outcome of cooperative learning.

Answer Codes Frequency of Answers

1 = nothing 1 = 4 times

2 = liked everything about the activity 2 = 4 times

3 = disagreed with group members 3 = 3 times

4 = fought or argued with group members 4 = 6 times

5 = other group members complained during activity 5 = 1 time

6 = content was difficult 6 = 1 time

7 = not enough time to complete activity 7 = 1 time

Table 15. Question 2 – What did you NOT like about the activity?

Student
Number

Week
One

Week
Three

Week
Five

Week
Seven

1

4

2

1

1

2

1

2

3

1

3

4

2

2

7

4

4

4

4

6

5

3

3

4

5

When students were asked what they didn’t like about the activities, the most
common response as shown in table 15 was when they argued or fought with group
members. The next highest response was ‘I liked everything’. One student commented
that she was frustrated because there wasn’t enough time in a day to complete an activity.
Each class period was only thirty minutes long. This short class period was often enough
time to start and finish a cooperative learning project.

Answer Codes Frequency of Answers

1 = giving ideas 1 = 2 times

2 = spelling words 2 = 3 times

3 = writing 3 = 3 times

4 = cooperating 4 = 5 times

5 = being nice 5 = 2 times

6 = didn’t help teammates 6 = 4 times

7 = drawing 7 = 1 time

Table 16. Question 3 – How did you help your teammates?

Student
Number

Week
One

Week
Three

Week
Five

Week
Seven
1

4

1

3

6

2

3

2

2

7

3

2

5

1

6

4

4

3

6

6

5

4

5

4

4

The responses for question three indicated that students helped their teammates
most by cooperating with group members. Students stated that they helped by ‘giving
turns to write’, ‘working together’, and ‘being nice’ (see Table 16). The social skill

implemented during this eight week study was ‘being helpful’. It is interesting to the
results to note that all students were able to write a response for this question each week,
which indicated that each student in some way found a way to be helpful.

Answer Codes Frequency of Answers

1 = write 1 = 5 times

2 = described his/her group member responsibility 2 = 1 time

3 = read and write 3 = 3 times

4 = read 4 = 1 time

5 = worked together 5 = 1 time

6 = answer related to an activity in lesson 6 = 7 times

7 = helped teammates 7 = 1 time

8 = be nice 8 = 1 time

Table 17. Question 4 – What is one thing you did today?

Student
Number

Week
One

Week
Three

Week
Five

Week
Seven

1

3

4

1

6

2

1

2

6

6

3

1

5

6

6

4

1

3

6

6

5

3

1

7

8

The last table for this section shows how students responded when asked one
thing they accomplished for the day. The highest answer given was coded as a ‘6: answer

related to an activity in the lesson’. This answer indicated that students reflected on the
cooperative activity for the day and wrote one thing they contributed to the group to help
complete the cooperative activity.

Examining the data gathered from the four assessment tools reveals that in
general, students participated more in a group at the end of the study than they did at the
beginning. The results of four assessment tools were presented and discussed in this
chapter. The information gathered from the research study supports that using
cooperative learning in an ESL classroom increases student participation and promotes
social development in a natural context.

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

The preceding chapter stated the results from this study and discussed how they
related to the research question. In Chapter Five, the major findings of the current
research cited in Chapter Two will be presented, the results of the study will be analyzed
and the benefits to educators will be discussed. The limitations and problems of the study
will be discussed in addition to ideas for improvements and future research.

My goal in planning this research study was to create a non-threatening
environment, which encouraged participation and promoted positive social interactions in
an ESL classroom. In my study I wanted to find out if cooperative learning activities
increased student participation among students in an ESL classroom. My study consisted
of five ESL students in second and third grade. Cooperative learning structures were
implemented in the ESL curriculum. Students were observed throughout the study on the
following areas of participation: being on-task, contributing ideas, helping classmates,
and asking for help. In order to reinforce and develop social skills, we focused on one
social skill (being helpful during cooperative group work) during the eight week study.
Additionally, I recorded observations before, during and after cooperative learning
activities to document successes and problems from each activity.

Chapter Four included a detailed description and discussion of the results from
my study. Overall the results from the teacher observations indicated that student
participation increased when ESL students were engaged in cooperative learning
activities. Reviewing my cooperative learning progress report and student cooperative
learning logs led me to conclude that my study accomplished five things.

First, students had more opportunities to listen and produce language. Discussion
and sharing ideas in a natural setting encouraged and motivated students to share their
ideas. A noticeable change occurred in my classroom as I began to recognize that I spoke
less and the students were talking more. My classroom was less teacher-centered and
more focus was on the students.

Second, students created strong friendship connections and cross-cultural respect
for each other through group interactions. I recognized this in a situation with two
students who both expressed to me at different times that they didn’t like each other.
During week four of my study, I decided to put these two students in a group together. I
observed them interacting, laughing and accomplishing their task.

Third, engaging students with the same background in a group supported first
language skills. When placed in a group together, two students from Vietnam
automatically started to used their first language during the activity. It surprised them
that they could understand each other. They were excited to have an opportunity to use
their first language at school.

Fourth, the classroom environment and student attitude improved. Students were
interested and excited about ESL class and the activities we were doing. This was
evident when students came to class early and didn’t want to leave at the end.

Finally, cooperative learning promoted leadership skills and teamwork. Students
were learning from their peers by providing comprehensible input and output. More
advanced students used academic language to explain concepts to group members.

Implications for Educators

Cowie, et al. (1994) emphasize the need for children to develop friendships.
Although it seems impossible to create authentic friends for children, educators have
many opportunities that may facilitate the growth of friendships. During classroom
activities teachers can present situations for children to work with partners or groups. My
research study supports that a small group setting is an ideal situation to foster friendships
as it may decrease anxiety for children that are withdrawn in large groups and possibly
establish a connection with one of the peers.

Educators need a variety of instructional strategies to meet the needs of their
students. This is particularly apparent when working with students from variety of
cultural backgrounds. Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy which provides a
culturally appropriate learning environment that can raise the levels of academic
achievement of minority students, promote their affective development, improve race
relations, and support second-language acquisition (Coelho, 1994).

Recommendations for Future Research and Limitations

My research study examined cooperative learning and student participation. One
way to expand this research would be to identify the effects of cooperative learning on
academic achievement. During cooperative learning small groups of students work
together to accomplish individual and shared goal. Johnson, et al. (1998) recommend
giving individual grades and group grades when assessing students.

The length of my ESL classes and the duration of my study influenced my results.
My class periods were only thirty minutes, which made it difficult to start and complete a
cooperative learning activity. I would recommend that cooperative learning activities be
implemented for a longer time period. In my study I used nine different cooperative
structures. Students were not able to master any of them because of the large number and
length of time. I think it would be better to use fewer cooperative structures and provide
students more time to learn how to do them. My results were limited because of the
small sample of students I used. It would strengthen my results to use a larger group or a
different age group. After conducting this study, I have realized that eight weeks is a
short period to teach and implement cooperative learning activities.

In a future study, I would attend training on cooperative learning before
attempting to implement these activities into my classroom. It was difficult to learn
about cooperative learning and try to implement the new ideas at the same time. During
my study I learned that creating and gathering materials for cooperative learning projects
involves a huge amount of preparation. Therefore, instead of working alone on
implementing cooperative learning, I would recommend that a small group of teachers
work together. For example, a small group of teachers could work together to produce a

jigsaw unit. This not only reduces the workload for an individual, but also results in a
better product.

Kagen (1994) states that a curriculum should include a balance of cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning experiences. When only one instructional
strategy is used the amount of learning will be limited. It would be beneficial for future
research to find out how the combination of a variety of learning experiences impacts
student achievement and social development. Kagen (1994) supports this by stating that
if we provide a wide range of experiences, learners will be more prepared to adjust or
change to their physical and social environment. The ultimate goal in education is to
prepare students for their future. Providing students with a variety of instructional
strategies helps students to be successful in many of life’s settings.

APPENDIX A

Assessment Tools
• Cooperative Learning Progress Report
• Teacher Observation Form
• My Checklist for Cooperative Groups
• Student Cooperative Learning Log

COOPERATIVE LEARNING PROGRESS REPORT

Date: _________________________________________________________________________________

Week: ________________________________________________________________________________

Lesson Topic: __________________________________________________________________________

Describe Critical or Interesting Incidents: ___________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Successes: ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Problems: ______________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

My Thoughts:___________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Ideas to Improve Future Cooperative Learning Lessons: ______________________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Teacher Observation Form

Date: _____________________________ Observer: _________________________

Rating Scale: (1 = Inadequate, 2 = Poor, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent,

NA = Not Applicable for Date of Observation)

On-Task

1.

2.

Comments:

Student #1

Comments:

Student #2

Stayed on task.

Showed interest
in group
activity by
sitting close to
group members
and making eye
contact with
members.
Did not become
frustrated or
stop trying if
activity was
difficult.
Performed
assigned role.
Understood
instructions and
was able to
begin activity.

Contributed
Ideas

Contributed one
or two opinions
orally during
group activity.

Waited for
teammates to
finish speaking
before
contributing
opinions.

General Comments:
Rating Scale: (1 = Inadequate, 2 = Poor, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent,

NA = Not Applicable for Date of Observation)

Helped
Groupmates

1.

2.

Comments:

Student #1

Comments:

Student #2

Listened to
teammates’
ideas by
making eye
contact and not
interrupting
others.

Encouraged
teammates by
giving positive
feedback or
words of
encouragement.

Respected
teammates by
using kind
words (‘please’,
‘thank you’,
etc).

Volunteered to
help teammates
if necessary.

Asked for
Help if Needed

Asked
teammates for
help.

Asked teacher
for help.

General Comments:

My Checklist For Cooperative Groups

STUDENT COOPERATIVE LEARNING LOG

Name: _________________________________________________________________

Date: ___________________________________________________________________

1. What did you like about the activity?_______________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

2. What did you NOT like about the activity? _________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

3. How did you help your teammates? ________________________________________

4. What is one thing you did today? _________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Date: ___________________________________________________________________

1. What did you like about the activity?_______________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

2. What did you NOT like about the activity? _________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

3. How did you help your teammates? ________________________________________

4. What is one thing you did today? _________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX B

Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (Z.P.D.)

APPENDIX C

Overview of Cooperative Learning Lesson Plans

Week One

Week Three

Week Five

Week Seven

Content Area

Language Arts

Language Arts

Language Arts

Language Arts

Lesson Topic

Folktales

Folktales

Story Elements

Prediction

Academic
Objectives

• Understand
story
sequence.
• Understand
story
elements.
• Understand
folktale
genre.

• Write three
true
statements.
• Write two
false
statements.

• Understand
story
elements,
story
sequence,
plot and
characters.

• Predict
beginning
and end of
story.
• Identify
setting,
characters,
problem
and
solution.

Language
Objectives

• Develop
listening,
speaking,
reading, and
writing
skills in
English.

• Develop
listening,
speaking,
reading, and
writing
skills in
English.

• Develop
listening,
speaking,
reading, and
writing
skills in
English.

• Develop
oral and
written
language by
labeling,
illustrating,
and
discussing
structural
story
elements.

Cooperative
Structures

• Match Mine
• Three-Step
Interview
• Jigsaw
• Roundtable
• Group
Processing
• Numbered
Heads
Together

• Roundrobin
• Think-Pair-
Share

• Brainstorm
• Think-Pair-
Share
• Talking
Chips
• Paraphrase
Chips

• Three-Step
Interview
• Roundrobin
• Group
Processing
• Talking
Chips
• Think-Pair-
Share
• Paraphrase
Chips

REFERENCES

Bejarano, Y. (1987). A cooperative small-group methodology in the language classroom.

TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 483-504 .

Brandes, D. & Phillips, H. (1979) Gamester’s handbook (London: Hutchinson).

Coelho, E. (1994). Learning together in the multicultural classroom. Markham, Ontario:

Pippin Publishing Limited.

Cohen, M. D. & Tellez, K. (1994). Implementing cooperative learning for language

minority students. Bilingual Research Journal, 18, 1-19.

Cowie, H. & Rudduck J. (1988). Cooperative group work: An Overview. London: B.P.

Educational Services.

Cowie, H., Smith, P., Boulton, M., & Laver (1994). Cooperation in the multi-ethnic

classroom: the impact of cooperative group work on social relationships in
middle schools. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Crismore, A. & Salim, S. B. S. (1997). Collaborative learning in Malaysian

postsecondary classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 7(2), 15-21.

Deen, J.Y. (1987). An analysis of classroom interaction in a cooperative learning and

teacher-centered setting. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of California,
Los Angeles.

Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.

Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Holt, D.D. (Ed). (1993). Cooperative learning: a response to linguistic and cultural

diversity. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistic and Delta Systems, Inc.

Hopson, B. & Scally, M. (1981) Lifeskills teaching (London: McGraw Hill).

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T.., & Holubec, E.J. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom.

Edina, MN:Interaction Book Company.

Kagen, S. (1993). The structural approach to cooperative learning. In D. D. Holt (Ed.),

Cooperative learning: a response to linguistic and cultural diversity (pp. 9-17).
McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems, Inc.

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Resources for Teachers, Inc.

Kriete, R. (1999). The morning meeting book. Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for

Children.

Kutnick, P. (1988) Relationships in the primary school classroom ( London: Paul

Chapman).

Madrid, C. (1993). Using cooperative learning at the elementary level. In D. D. Holt

(Ed.), Cooperative learning: a response to linguistic and cultural diversity (pp.
67-79). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems, Inc.

McGroarty, M. (1991). What can peers provide? In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics and

language pedagogy: the state of the art (pp. 40-55). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.

McGroarty, M. (1993). Cooperative learning and second language acquisition. In D. D.

Holt (Ed.), Cooperative learning: a response to linguistic and cultural diversity
(pp. 19-46). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems, Inc.

Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and

sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and
achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pike, G. & Selby, D. (1988) Global teacher, global learner (London: Hodder

and Stoughton).

Sharan, S., Kussell, P., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Bejarano, Y., Raviv, S., & Sharan, Y.

(1984). Cooperative learning in the classroom: research in desegregrated
schools. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
capstone_jgrundman

Kagan Presentation about the Cooperative learning

cooperativelearningstrategies-KAGAN THEORI