Luận văn teachers' perceptions & their practices regarding cooperative learning in teaching efl in large multilever classes at vietnam national university university of economics and business

.14 1.1.7 Empirical studics relaled fo cooperative lcaning 16 1.1.8 Research Findings: implementation of cooperative leaming 19 1.2.2 Challenges of mulfilzvel classes...ecceieiseeiee 1

HOANG VIET HA

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS & THEIR PRACTICES

REGARDING COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEACHING

EFL IN LARGE MULTILEVEL CLASSES AT VIETNAM

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS

AND BUSINESS

QUAN DIEM CUA GIAO VIEN VỀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG

PITAP TIOC TIGP TAC DE DAY TIENG ANTI TAT CAC LGP

DONG DA TRINH ĐỘ VÀ VIỆC THUC THI TREN LOP TAL

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TE, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HA NỘI

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOL

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACTLTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

HOANG VIET HA

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS & THEIR PRACTICES

REGARDING COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEACHING EFI IN LARGE MULTILEVEL CLASSES AT VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS

AND BUSINESS

QUAN DIEM CUA GIAO VIÊN VẺ VIỆC SỬ DỰNG PHƯƠNG

PHAP HOC HOP TAC BE DAY TIENG ANH TAI CAC LÓP

DONG DA TRINH BO VA VIEC THUC THI TREN LOP TAI

‘TRUONG DAL HOC KINH TẾ, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

M.A Thesis

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 601410

Hanoi, 2012

5, Significance of the stuỦy oi

6, Methods oŸ (he stuÄy neo

7 An overview of the rest of the study

1.L5 Benefits of cooperative learting, 14

1.1.7 Empirical studics relaled fo cooperative lcaning 16 1.1.8 Research Findings: implementation of cooperative leaming 19

1.2.2 Challenges of mulfilzvel classes ecceieiseeiee

1.2.3 Cooperative learning in language pedagogy in multilevel classes 25 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

DAStPY AUMS 0 coesieneceesitneieeitesteneteinenesnee

2.2 Research questions - - - 28

2.3, Research Design 28 2.4 The Reszarch Context - .29 2.5 Parlieipanis thớt de 1eeerdie

2.6 Data Collection InstruneHifs ineieirrie

2.6.1 Interview 31 2.6.2 Observation 33 2.7 Data Analysis 34

3.1.6 8tudenl motiyation eeeeeerrrrrrrrrerrrieososoe.để

3.2 Teachers’ implementation of Cooperative Learning in classroom 4

3.3.1 imglementstion so nnniiirerrririrrririiooo.đ7) 3.2.2 Taik conatruction ceierirrirrrrrrrrrrarirasoo đĐ

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY

4.1 Teaches’ perceptions of different aypeets of cooperative leamting 4

4.1.1 implementation 44 4.1.2 Task construction 4

4.1.4 Student preparation

4.1.5 Assessment

1 Conclusion Lạng HH rrgeeaiiaeirreaossorof)

2 Inplications for the use o£ CL in ELT seereerasrerrarsooeoe 7,

3 Limitations of the study 71

4 Suggestions for further research 73

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 A: Contents of the course book New English File Pre-intermediate Appendix IB: The Conmnon Ruropsan Framework of Reference for Languages Appendix 2A: Interview questions

Appendix 2B: One example of transcription of teacher’s Interviews

LISTS OF TABLES AND ABBREVIATIONS Table 1A: Differcnecs between cooperative learning and group tearing

Table 1B: CL -An overview of some most popular methods

‘Table LC: Some differences between leamers in heterogeneous classes,

‘Table 2A: Backgronnd inforruation aboul the participants

Table 2B: Phrases of thematic analysis

‘table 3A: CL benefits for students

Table 3B: CL benefits for teacher

Table 3C: Difficulties in using CL in classroom

‘Table 3D: Criteria in choosing CL tasks

‘Table 3R: Stratogies to form groups

Table 3F: CL skills taught for students

Table 3G: Types of group works’ assessment

‘Table 3II: Ways to motivate students

Table 31; The nature of tasks in classroom

‘Table 34; ‘The types of group forming in classroom

‘Table 3K: Types of group works? assessment in classroom

LMLC: Large multilevel classes

WSU, UER: Vietnam National University, Universily of Economies and Business,

‘VNU, ULIS: Vietnam National University, University of Languages and International Studies

M.A: Master of Arts

M.Ed: Master of Education

Dr: Doctor

PART A: INTRODUCTION

This initial part states the rationale for the study, the aims, the scope and methods

of the thesis More importantly, the research questions are identified to work as clear

cducalors have proposed significant changes in educational selling to create an

environment where students have the opportunities to work together to develop

cooperative skills As the result, an effective teaching and learning in this global era should

‘be the one which can create a siluation context in which studonts have opportunities to

work together, then produce new knowledge, is cooperative leaming In a very basic sense,

“CL is the instructional use of small groups so that students share the responsibility of

working together to maximise their own and each other's learning” (Jobnson, Johnson &

Although there have been very few studies on CL in Viemamese context, a review

of sludies thal we

and, moreover, it is of litfle interest to Asian teachers, (Thanh-Pham, Gillies

&Renshaw,2009).However, no research was studied about Vietnamese’ teachers”

done in Asian countries found that CI pramoles learning is equivoval

2 Aims of the sturdy

Firstly, the research thesis is expected to investigate EFL teachers’ perceptions of

differen! aspects of cuaperative learning in their classroom al VNU, UFR Scvondly, it aims to explore how the teachers implemented cooperative leaming in their classroom Finally, it aims to explore how teachers’ practices in their classroom reflect their perceptions In brief, these aims could be summarized into three research questions

3, Research questions

“The study was guided by three main research questions:

1 What were the EFT teachers’ perceptions of different aspects of cooperative learning

in their classroom at VNU, UEB?

2 How did they implement cooperative leaming in their classroom?

3 To whal extent did their classroom praclices reflec! heir perceptions?

4 Scope of the study

The study is restricted to the area of investigating, the perceptions of six teachers at

VNU, UEB about different aspects of CL and exploring their actual classroom practices

Aller that similarities and differences between their perceptions and practices were discussed

The samples of the study are also limited to six teachers at VNU, UEB and only first year students from main strcam classes in one semester of school year at Vietnam

National University, University of Economics and Business In second term of school

English Program with course book New

‘year 2011-2012, the students were learning £

English File, Pro-intormediate

5 Significance of the stuily

an interest in the topic

Specifically, since the study looked into implementing CL in LMLC and some suggestions for implementing CI effactively, students can gain more knowledge to use CL for communicative purposes, fear social and inter-personal skills which are very important for them in global world now

As for the teachers, they would get useful information ơn different typos of CL methods, CL activities, as well as some ways to apply CL effectively in their classroom Besides, they would have more ideas of implementing CL in other countries in addition, the study atso provides tsachors with some helpful suggestions so that they could take thair own initiatives to effectively implement CL in their classroom situations

Finally, with regard to the researchers, those who happen to develop the same interest in this topic could certainly rely on this research to find reliable and usefid information for their related study

6 Methods of the study

6.1 Data collection methods

The qualitative teachnique was employed to collect data relevant to the research During the process of data collection, the researcher employed two different instruments interview, and classroom observation To be more detailed, a semi-stmctured interview was condueted with 6 Ioachors al VNU, URB The intervicw was constructed lo cubÌo each teacher to elaborate on the eight open questions about teachers’ perceptions of different aspects of cooperative leaming and barriers hindering cooperative learning

Tn atldition, classroom observation was also used to explore how teachers

practi

implemented cooperative leaming and answer the question “is there any gap between their perceptions and their real teaching?” During observation, the researcher filmed the lessons Each lesson lasted approximately 50 minutes and obscivations wore conducted during two

dJessons-100 minutes for each class

6.2 Data analysis methods

“The researcher analysed qualitative data based on phrases of thematic analysis such

as faniliariving yourscll’ with data, gencrating initial codes, searching for therm

reviewing themes, defining and naming the themes and producing the report

‘To be more detailed, for the interview, the researcher transcribed all of the interview and openauinded questions into Vietnamese The researcher coded each document by sentence and paragraph and questions The researcher first constructed the initial list of the most general concepts that spatially the connection in the data related to

descriptive, loxical moming or low level inference of text Than the rescarcher investigated various aspects of each main idea to develop sub-categories, Besides, the participants’ answers to open-ended questions in interviews would be summarized and presented in the

forma of quotation and cited if necessary For the classroom obsorvation, the rescarchsrs watched the videotapes for many times, and emerged main ideas of teachers’ implementation of CL in classroom and sub-ideas of their CL implementation in LMLC were also found out

7 Am overview of the rest of the study

“The rest of the thesis inchides four chapters

Chapter 1 (Literature review) provides the background of the sludy including definitions

of key concepts, aspects of cooperative leaming, multilevel classes and previous findings

of cooperative learmng,

Chapter 2 (Methndology) describes the aims, research questions, contex!, participants and

instruments of the study, as well as the pro

Chapter 3 (Results of the study) presents all results collected tiom data trom the

lures employed to carry out the rescarch

interviews and classroom observations

Chapter 4 (Discussion of the study): summaiives main findings, analyzes the Gndings, and compares them with previous research to answer three research questions

Conclusion summarizes the main issues discussed in the thesis, the findings that the researcher found out fiom the data collected according to three research questions, the Limitations of the research, several pedagogical recommendations concerning the research topic as well as some suggestions for futher studies Following this chapter are bibliography and appandices

Summary

inthis chapfer, the researcher has elaborated the following points:

Scope of the study

Significance of the study

Methods of the study

An overviow of the rest of the sludy

In brief; these elaborations have not only justified the major contents and structure of the study but it also works as the guidelines for the rest of the thesis

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapicr provides an overview of the Hiteralure, specifically the background and

a number of studies related to the research topic, laying the solid foundations for the subsequent development of the thesis Not only are key terms like cooperative learning and large nudtilevel class defined bul background information about the key termus is alsa presented to ensure the thorough understanding of the research matters

1.1 Cooperative learning

1.1.1 Unilerpinning theory of coaperalive learning

The theories related to the rationale of this study came from three researchers,

Vygotsky from Russia, Piaget fom France and Albert Bandura from the USA

The Russian scholar Lev Vygotsky perspective related lo cooperative learning was the Zone of Proximat Development and the ensued affect on Krashen’s Input Hypothesis According to Vygotsky (1978), all good leaming was that which was advance of development and involved the acquisition of skills just beyond the student’s grasp Such Jeaming occured through interaction within the student’s zone of proximal development Vygotsky defined te zone of proximal development as the discrepancy between the sludent’s actual development level @.,, independent achievement) and his/her potential levet (achievement with help from a more competent partner).By explaining human language development and cognitive development, Vygotsky’s theory served as a strong foundation for the modern trends in applied linguistics Tl lent support to less structured and tore

learning of the leamers Neither theary alone was able to provide a complete explanation for the implementation of cooperative learning

The social learning theory of Bandura (1971) emphasized the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others Social jearning theory explained human belraviors in Lerms of continuaus reciprocal inferaction

‘between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences, The connection between Bandura’s theory and the practice of cooperative learning is in the elaboration on the Studeti-Toam-Achicvemerl Division

1.1.2 Defin

jon of cooperative learning

Different researchers have provided various definitions of cooperative leaming For instance, Iohnsong Johnson (2001) defined “cooperative learning as the instructional use

of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other's learning” On the other hand, Sharan (1994) defines it as @ gronp-centered and student-

centered approach to classroom teaching and learning while Slavin (1987) refers to the

term as a set of instructional methods in which students encouraged or required to work together on academic tasks and students worked together to learn are responsible for their

teammates’ learning as well as their own This idea emphasizes the use of team goats and

team success, which can be achieved only if all members of the team leam the objectives

being taught Jacobs (Jacobs, 1997-2) gave a definition of cooperative leaming “a body of concepts and techniques for helping 10 maximize the benefits af cooperation among

students in edtication” In olhor words, coupcrative learning provides language (cachots with essential concepts of heterogeneous elasses, leamar cooperation and mutual help in leaming and it equips teachers with effective instructional techniques to exploit

cooperation in language learning cla:

There is no official definition of cooperative leaming, However, cooperative learning is generally referred to as a variety of teaching methods in which students work in small groups to help onc another loam academic content, In cooperative classrooms, students are expected to help each other, discuss and debate with each other, assess each other's cuarent knowledge, and fill any gaps in each other’s understanding,

Cooperative learning is differant from whal is often called “group work” Ta principle, cooperative learning stuck to five elements, positive interdependence, individual accountability, quality group processing, face-to-face promotive interaction and social

skills On the other hand, group leaming simply put students sit and work in groups

Table 1A: Differences between cooperative learning anil group learning

Cooperative Learning Group learning

Individual acoountabitily No individual accountatility

Teterogeneous ability grouping Homogeneous ability grouping

Sharing the appointed learning tasks Fach loarir sdldom responsible for others?

Isaming,

‘Aung to maximize each members Focusing on accomplishing the

Maintaining good working relationship, Frequent neglect of good working

Teaching of collaborative skills Assuming that students already have the

required skills

Teacher observation of students interaction Liltle, if any ai all teacher observation

‘Structuring of the procedures and time for Rare structuring or procedures and time for

(Adapted from Johnson & Johnson, 1986) 1.1.3 Princi

les of conperalive learning

A number of studies on CL have been made and all scholars came up with regulatory principles for CL classes built on major characteristics of the method According to Johnson and Johnson (1975) found that CL only works effectively if it combines five essential elements known as positive interdependence, individual acconntability, face-lo-face promotive interaction, interpersonal and small group skills and group processing

1.1.3.1 Positive Interdependence

‘The first and most important element in structuring cooperative leaming is positive

interdependence Positive interdependence cxists when group members arc linked loge!

in such a way that one can not succeed unless others do and all members need to contribute

19

†o cach other's learning, Itis the “All for one, one for all” feeling keeps the members learn the materials and help other members to understand the malerials 100 Johnson and Johnson (1999) suggested that teachers may promote Positive Interdependence by establishing the following:

# A group muluat goal to achieve

© A warm and fiiendly environment with group members sitting close together, so that they can easily see each other’s work and hear each other without using loud vaices ‘This

Tray soom trivial, bul very important Lo the suecess of the CL activities:

# Assigned roles to group members as leader, summarizer, reporter, time reminder, ete

® Shared resources, 'hey may be one paper for each group, ot each member receives uniqus resources such as a/soms parts of the required information, oqnipmenis (paper, color marketed) teachers tend to use

# External challenges (2.g.: references, websites) for long-staying groups to improve group dynamics

© Joint rewards If all group members achiove a pre-sct goal, they will keccive a reward (e.g.: bonus points, grades, certificates, the choice of future activity, etc)

Positive independence lies af the heart of CL When posilive independence has been successfully structured, teachers tend to see students put their heads close together over their work, talking about the work, sharing about the answers and materials and eucomaging cach other (o tsar, Towever, if teachers do nol give careful thought, before pulling students in groups, there possibly occurs no inlerdopendence ar nogative interdependence among group members instead of the desired positive one, Their exposure

in class can be realized either when what happens to one group membar is not perceived as affecting the others, or whsn what helps one group member is scon as hurting olhers Negative interdependence encourages competition, no interdependence meanwhile promotes individual attitude among group members Both of the two give bad efifects to language learning that should be avoided

1.1.3.2 Individual Accountability

‘This condition emphasizes that although learning activities rely on cooperative cflorts; individuals arc ultimately responsible for thelr own Tcarning and carnal “coast” on group achievement (Cottell & Mills, 1992), If individual accountability is not assessed regularly, “social loafing” may occur, meaning only some members of the group are

actually working on the task; the rest of the group contribute a little effort without being

learing of each member so as to structure individual accountability for maximum effect of

cooperative learning (Marming & Lucking, 1991),

Positive inlerdependence and individual accountability are selalad by increasing individual accountability, perceived interdependence among group members tends to increase Besides, positive interdependence tends to promote individual accountability through “respansibifity forces” David W Johnson and Roger T Johnson (1994)

anentioned common ways to structure individual accountability:

- Keeping the size of the group small

- Giving sm individual test to cach student

- Having each student explain what they have learnt to a classmate

- Observing each group and collecting data on participation

- Randomly selecting one student’s product to represent the entire group

- Having students teach what they Joamed to someone clsc, When all students do this, itis called simultaneous explaining

1.1.3.3 Face-to-face promotive interaction

Positive interdependence results in promotive interaction Promotive interaction may be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each other's efforts to achieve, complete tasks, and produce in order fo teach the group's goats Te oblain meaningful face- lo-faeo interaction, studonts nocd lo be soated so they face cach other if they are Wo ongage

in group discussions and promote each other’s ideas,

Besides, a positive classroom environment was also associated with the quality of

group interaction The mplementation of an appropriate interaction pracess constitules #

major component that helped to improve the student outcome in any academic and

‘behavioral problems, and helped to establish a greater academic environment in the classroom

1.1.3.4 Social skills

CL also requires particular interpersonal and small group skills Stadents must often bs taught the social skills for high quality collaboration and be molivated to use thesc skills In order to coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals, students must: 1) get fo Anew

and trust each other, 2) canmunicate accurately and smambiguously, 3) accept and

21

support each other, and 4) resalve conflict constructively (Johnson, 2001, Johnson & 1"

Johnson, 2001)

Studies on the long-term implementation of cooperative learning found that the

highest achievement is promoted by a combination of positive goal interdependence, an academic contingency for high performance by ail group members and a reward

contingency for using social skills The results indicated that the combination of positive

injerdependence, an academic contingency for high performance by all group members,

‘Teachers should choose suitable group size and grouping strategies to conduct group work effectively The number of studenis in each group may vary depending on the activity and its duration There are four basic cooperative leaning group size: pairs, small groups (three or four), larger group (from five to ten) and whole class, There are three

grouping stralegies teachers cate use: grouping randomly by their ssaling arrangement, by

serial numbers in the studert name list, cle: student selected grauping prefinred by students

and instructor-formed-grouping Based on the aims of lesson, number of students, class

arrangement, ect, teachers can choose their own group processing for their olass

1.1.4 Cooperative Learning Methods

According to Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2000), CL was actually a generic term that refers ta numerous methods for organizing and conducting classroom instruction Each of teachers could find a way to usc CL that was congruent with his or her philosophies and practices his study only presented some most popular CL methods

Achievement associates 1970s | subjects © Includes four main steps: (1) the teachor presents the lesson,

Divisions (STAD) (2) students work in mixed-ability teams of 4 or 5; (3) students

do individual quizves, and (4) team scores arc mads based or team members’ improvement scores

Tean Games| DeVires& Early | Al @ Have the same dynamics as STAD, but add a dimension of | Alllevels Tournaments Slavin 1970s | subjects excitement contributed by the use of games

(TGT)

Team Assisted —_| Slavin, 1986 |Mals e Share wih STAD the use of teum assigning bul combine | Grades 3-6 Individualization | Leavey & cooperative learning with individualized instruction

Madden

Cooperative Slvin& 1987 | Reading e Students workin teams composed of pairs of students ftom |Upper

and Composition @ ‘Team rewards are certificates given to teams based on the grades

Tigsaw and Jigsaw [ Aronson, 1978 | Social _« Students workinsmall groups Those who have the same topic | All levels

H Slavin subjects are group in “expert group” then each member in the ‘expert

group” returns Lo heir original to teach others

Threo-step Kagan Ealy | All © Students interviewed cach other, switched then roles as All levels

interview 1990s | subjects interviewers and interviewees Students information through

conducted in many different subjects areas and various age groups of students has general shown positive effecis of CI in the follawing arcas: aeaderic achicverent, developing of high order thinking, self-esteem and self-confidence as learners, inter-group relations including frie

students labeled as disabled, development of social skills and the ability to take the perspective

of another person Johnson and Johnson (1989, 2001), Slavin (1990) and Sharan (1990) all

ships across racial and ethnic boundaries, social acceptance of mainstreamed

idenlify three main categories of advantages of using CL such as achievement, inter-personal

relationships and psychological health and social competence

1.1.3.1 Achievement

Over 370 studies in the past 100 years (Johnson and Johnson, 1904) have shown how

working together to achicve a common goal procedures higher achievement and greater

productivity than working alone In 1981, Johnson and his colleagues published a meta- analysis of 122 studies examining CL and its impact on achievesnent This showed that

cooperation promotes higher achievement for all age groups and for a variety of tasks The

cooperation also improved the more group members were required to produce a group product, CL also results in process again (ic: more high level reasoning), greater transftr of

what is learned within one situation to another and more time on task

Slavin (1989) reviewed 60 studies of CL and found that gains in academic

achicvernent were cxamined if group goals and individual accountability by members of the

group were embedded, Sharan (1980) reviewed five methods of CL including Teams-games- tournaments, student team learning, learning together and investigation |e found that students

perform more 2ffectively in small groups than traditional whole class settings and the group

investigation produced higher levels of cognitive functioning This he found due to peer

interaction which clarified misunderstanding and developed problem solving skills

1.1,

.2 Tnter-perspnal relatianships

Over 180 studies have been conducted since 1940s (Johnson and Johnson, 1989) which

have showed that CL experiences promote greater inter-personal skills In 1983, Johnson et al found that CL supported interpersonal skills amongst students ftom different ethnic groups, and mixed ability and disability ‘hey then focused on variables that impact on CL and achicvernent, Johnson anit Johnson (1985) idgnlificd eleven variables thal impack on cooperation, productivity and inter-personal attraction These variables were grouped into three clusters: cognitive process variables (i.e quality of leaming), social variables (i.e mutual support among group members), and instructional variables (i.c type of task) While the effect

of these variables, requires further verification, it did suggest that the processes may promot higher achicvernen|, and liking amongst students, including, managing controversy, time on task, sharing and processing information, peer support, peer group involvement in learning, interaction between students of diferent ability, perceived psychological support, positive attitudes to subjects areas and perceptions of faimess assessment

1.1.5.3 Psychological health and social competence Working cooperatively with peers and valuing cooperation results in greater psychotogival health, ighor scll-stocm and greater social competencies than comipoting with

peers or with peers or working independently (Jclmson and Johnson, 1983, Johnson and Johnson, 1997) found given training in social skills, pupils demonstrated greater social interactions and that the interpersonal telationships of previously isolated stndns improved Gillies (2003) analysis of five studies showed that provided small group work is carefully

structured to promote effective cooperation, that over time and with practice the “more

cohosivo the groups bocame us mcmbars strove to facilitate

1.1.6 Chatlenges of cooperative learning

‘There are many challenges teachers must overcome when applying cooperative learning in their classes, Firstly, if may duc to a lack of understanding of how to use this pedagogical practice in their classrooms Besides, Gillies (2008) in a study of junior high school students ‘performance on a science based activity found that stndents performed on a scicncc-bascd Icarning activity in schools where teachers had been trained in how to establish cooperative learning activities in class Thus, teachers need to understand how to apply

and emotionally secure (Johnson & Johnson,2003, Roseth, Jahnson,&Johnson,2008)

Morcover, Blatchford, Kutnick, Raines, and Galton (2003) said that, lo apply cooperative learning effectively in classroom, the context in which it is to be used needs to be prepared, students need to taught the appropriate interactional skills, teachers need to be taught how to work with groups, and the Icssons and tasks need to be well organized Students need

to be placed in classroom situations where they have many opportunities to reap bensfits from

interacting with others,

Likewise, Johnson (2001) emphasizes the importance of preparing the physical space for learning and teaching, ensuring the learning tasks are challenging and engage students in high-order thinking, helping teachers to understand that they need to accept their role as procedures of new classroom cuziewa and programs, and training students in the social and academic skills they will need to negotiate their new leaning environment

Resides, both Blacichford ot al and Johnson recognize the complexity and nydidimensionality of small-group learning and the importance of preparing the environment and individuals if students, in turn, are to reap ths benefits widely attributed to this approach to jearning

1.1.7 Empirical studies related to cooperative learning

Researchers ftom different countries fiom the West, Asia and also Vietnam had Tumnctous studios abont different arcas of CL

CL in the West

Research on CL began in the late 1800s, and over the past hundred years, over 575

experimental and 109 correlational stutlics have been condneted al a varicty of educational Jevels examining this approach to leaming (Johnson et al., 2000), In general, these studies have reported that CL provides students with a lot of benefits categories: the quality of relationships, psychological adjustment and academic success

Regarding quality of relationships, a host of researchers have investigated the impact of

Regarding acadcmic achicvement, it is widely accepted that cooperative Icaming is more effective than competitive or individualistic leaming in terms of increasing students’

established the Centre for Learning nhancement and Research in 2000 to host several training

programs on how to use CI in classrooms (Law, 2005).Sindent-centored approaches Tike independent and CL have quickly become popular in many countries in Asian because they help reformers achieve the goal of changing students from being passive receivers to active doc

in their learning

There are many studies about aspects of CL in classrooms, For example, studies about

‘how CL has been adapted in Asian context and how teachers and students perceive this method Young-Ihm (2002) conducted rescarch im a barge Korean yreschool and pointed to a large discrepancy between what the teachers believe (US/Westem models of child-centered approaches and what they actually practice (remaining traditional) Sachs et al (2006) conducted a onc-ycar study to develop innovative modes of cooperative teaching and Icamning, investigate the acquisition and development of the students’ communication strategies and

students mm acquiring knowledge by themselves” of Malaysian classrooms” of Malaysia loachers prevented the implementation of CL into Malaysian classrooms In conclusion, ther: were a number of studies about different topics of CL There were various mismatches between

CL assumptions and teaching, learning in classrooms,

CL in Vietnam

In Vietnam, the introduction to cooperative learning started at the beginning of the

1990s when Ihe country imnplomonfod the Renovation poticy (known as Doi Mai) in 1989 After conducting an examination of the development of education in Vietnam in 2000

UNESCO suggested that Vietnamese students need to be trained with new methods so that they

can be provided with new working skills that are in high demand of global employers such as activencss, cooperativencss, orcativencss and argumentativencss (Tran, 2000) Facing a lot of

pressures, finally at the outset of implementing the student-centeredness, MOET (2004)

cmphasived strongly “Loaming by role needs to be climinatcd from all school levels and seplaced with student-centered leaming Any teachers found failing to change their teaching styte would be listed and provided with video-tapes showing new teaching techniques If they slill failed lo improve, Ihzy would be sont for intensive training (MOFT, 2004)

To respond the pushing of these policies, Vietnamese educators and researchers have, during the last decade, tried to introduce cooperative leaming practices to classrooms through different methods such as writing textbooks to instmnot teachers ta use cooparalive learning, designing curriculum in the format of cooperative leaming lessons and organizing seminars and workshops to practice cooperative leaming activities Llowever, there are still very fow Tesonrees abou! cooperative learning in the Vietnamese language, Some important resources include a textbook written by Dang Thanh Hung (2002,2004) which introduced difterent theories of cooperative learning, especially the theories of Davidson (1990) and Johnson and Johnson (1994) Also, revently, Nguyen Huu Chau (2005) presented the theories of Johnson and Johnson in a more complete version with reference to dominant theories of cooperative

jearning and an analysis of main components of cooperative leaming, Regarding research, the researcher could only find ane study on cooperative leaning conducted by Phuong (2008) with some high school classes in Hanoi ‘This study examined the students’ attitudes toward cooperative learning practices, however, the study only stopped at discovering problems, mismalches between CI principles and the learning and tcaching contex in Vietnam, but it did not develop strategies to solve problems Besides these sources, there may be other works and studies on cooperative leaning in Viemam, however, they were either not documented or published,

“This study is about teachers’ perceptions regarding CL and their practices in teaching

EFL in L.MLC and givs same suggestions to improve the practices of using CL in VNU.UEB

1.1.8 Research Findings: implementation of cooperative learning

David and Roger Johnson (1989) have shown that there have been more managed studies

of CL than any other teaching methodology The prolific amount of research studied into CL

range widely in tenns of specific aspects rescarched, yct several these cmerge from the findings which can be particularly relevant to effective implementation, ‘Ihe analysis of research which follows will be driven by thaso themes, namely

1 Task construction

Group composition

Stud=nt-proparation

Teacher's role as a facilitator of learning,

Student motivation, inclusion of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards

Aasossment of cooparative group work

alone will provide the group interaction.

Tasks need to be clearly designed so students are required ta support each other in the process, as in STAD which also includes group rewards, The key difference here is that the information is not given by the teacher; the students have to gather the information from a range of sources ‘The task stresses problem-solving skills Nystran, Gamoran and Leck (1991) also found that the nature af the lasks affects the interaction and where sluilents are required to define a problem and engage in autonomous production of knowledge, it was more effective Tlowever it lacks other factors in comparison with other research Cohen (1994) posits the following hypothesis:

“when the teaching objective is learuing for understanding and involves higher order thinking, tark arrangements and insinuctions that constvain and routines interaction will be less productive than arrangements and instructions thai foster maximum interaction, mutual exchange and

elaborated discussions.” (1994a:20)

1.8.12 Group composition

‘The nature and construction of groups is a further issue and Cohen (1994a) cites the considerable research that shows the beneficial effects of heterogeneons groups on low- achieving students Swing and Peterson (1982) found that in heterogeneous groups, students of Jow and high abilily gained particularly There is also evidence that lower achieving sludents benefited by interaction with higher achieving students when tasks demand higher order thinking Tudge (1990) conclusted that iL w exposure lo highdevel reasoning that made a

ditterence as to whether s student would learn from another of higher competence

Cohen said

“ if the task is collaborative seatwork and if high-achieving students have the chances to give

explanations, the heterogeneous groups will be beneficial for then, The only result that seems

to hold unconditionally is the benefit to the low achiever of being in a heterogeneous group as

compared to a homogeneously low-achieving group.” (1994a:11)

A further meta-analysis has been produced by Lou, et al (1996) of within-class

grouping (1996) Lou and al identified over 500 studies on CL ‘he meta-analysis confirmed

the posilive

varied Variable findings could be accounted due to the task, and the experience of the teacher

‘They found no evidence that one form of grouping was uniformly superior for promoting

c[fbots of placing sturenls in groups for Isarning however the size of the effects

31

achievement of all stndents Low ability students gained most from being placed in heterogeneous groups and in contrast average ability students gain most from being placed in homogeneous groups

1.8.L3 Student preparation

Teaching sludents the inlerpersonal and small group skills thal (acilitale cooperation

im groups is critical to the suecess of these groups (Blatchford et al.,2006; Johnson &

Johnson 1990) Gilles and Ashman (1996,1998) found when students worked in groups where

they were trained to cooperate, the students demonstrate morc on task behavior, gave more detailed explanations and assistance to each other, and obtained higher leaming outcomes than their untrained pocrs Tn facl, many of the skills the leachors laught thơ stuđenls as part of thơ preparation for group work were similar to those advocated by Wells et al (1999) who proposed that social interaction and reasoning is enhanced during small group work when:

1 ali relevant information is shared

re the group sccks to reach aprecment

the group takes responsibility for its decisions

sons are expouted

challenges are expected

alternatives are discussed before decisions are made

7 groupTnembeTs are encomaged to speak

In thet, training students in those social skulls that facilitate group communication is

accepted as a basic tenet of CL (Johnson &Johnson,2003; Slavin, 1996) However, because of

the lime and plmning teachers nead to invest in teaching these skills, they ars oflen nogleeted

or taught on a basis (Gillies,2003b;2008; Webb,2009)

18 ‘The role of the teacher

“perhaps the greatest of peer meditation derives from the type and the level of interaction that

vecurs ina context in which the responsibility for learning does nol rest solely with the teacher but is

shared among teachers and students.” (2003)

Mocesver, the teacher's role in using cooperative base groups is to (a) form heterogeneous groups of four (or three), (b) schedule a time when they will regularly meet

(such as beginning and cnd of cach class session or the beginning and cnd of cach weck), (c)

creatz specific agendas with concrete tasks that provide a routine for base groups to follow when they meet, (d) ensure the five basic elements of effective cooperative groups are

implemented, and (e) have students periodically process the effectiveness of their base groups

1.8.L5 Student motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic rewards

A method that icachers roulincly usc lo manage sluderis in the classroom is the use of

rewards Cohen swumarizes the controversy swrounding this issuz related to CL: “no aspect of CL

has been controversial as the issue of giving rewards fo groups on a competitive basis (1994a), She goes

to describe the ideological controversy over cooperation versus competition This tras been

researched heavily by Slavin (1983a,1983b, 1987a) who reviewed 41 studies that contrasted

cooperative approaches and he came to conclusion that : achievement is enhanced by

cooperative learning when cogpcrating sludenls arc rewarded as a group, white cach student is individually accountable for his or her leaming (1983a),This was developed into the technique known as STAD (Student Team Achievernent Divisions) where students take a rest and receive

an individhual score, There are then averaged and a inatn soors awarded

Cohen feels, however, that researchers should move on form:

“the fruitless debates about ininsic and extrinsic vewards and goal and resource

interdependence that have tied the field into theoretical and ideological knots for some time” (1994a)

1.8.1.6 Assessment of cooperative group work Research into methods of assessing group work (Ross and Rolheiser, 2003) has

looked at assigning group grades Evidence showed that graup grade alone is not sufficient and it is better to combine individual scores plus bonus points for all members who reach a criterion, Cohen et al, (2002) studied the assessment of the work of creative problem-solving groups in sixth grade social studics, Recognizing the inherent difficultics of such assessment, and enabling students to demonstrate understanding, they started fiom the basis that the

33

quality of the interchange among the group members and the quality of the good prodnet are clear indicators, They provided specific evaluation criteria for each group product which was shared with students, ‘his enabled students to self-evaluate ‘Ihe results showed that groups with criteria were more task-focused, had significantly superior products, and achieved a higher average score on writen work (essay) They also found the study supported (heir original hypothesis that the use of self-assessment of the group, indicated by the extent of talk evaluating the product, was a direct predictor of the aggregate essay score Cohen et al state

“Learning was not a mater of relevant academic knowledge that individuals brought to the

group but came about through reciprocal exchange of ideas and through a willingness ta he self-

critical about whai the group was creating.” (2002)

Previous rescarchers rotate to the tevel of clarity contained in the evaluation enileris

the role of the teacher in training the students to use the critena, and the teacher modeling of the criteria when providing specific feedback to groups

1.8.1.7 Ensuring interdependence

‘The importance of ensuring interdependence is shown by a range of studies (s g Johnson

et al, 1990) This can be achieved in diffarent ways including resowoe interdependence where, for example, only one worksheet is provided for the group In contrast, goal interdependence is a concept developed by Deutsch (1962) which means that individuals can only achieve a goal if the others in groups also achicve theirs The Johnson model advocates both resouree and goal

interdependence However neither guarantees interaction, nor motivation to do so, Cohen views

rasource interdspendence as limited, and cites Johnson, Johnson and Starme, (1990) where simple resource interdependence was associated with the poorest results This resource interdependence

is also present in Aronson et al’s (1978) jigsaw approach, although Liber and Lippler (1990)

noted that slow leaming members of a jigsaw loam did nol necessarily return from expert group sessions Knowing more than their team members This finding is not bome out elsewhere, for example Bottery (1990) where academic results, using jigsaw lessons, were consistently high

Interdependence also encourages students to engage in interaction,

1.2 Multifovel classes

1.2.1 Definition of multilevel classes

Large class usually means a class having a large number of students About the size of

a parfeet class, the views differ from one parson to another Hess (2004,p.5) defines lame classes as classes of thirty or more students in elementary, secondary adult and tertiary settings and multilevel classes as the kind of classes roughly arranged by age-group with no thought to

language Besides, Ur (1996) considers 40-50 students ina cla

is a large class There is no easy definition about large multilevel classes smnce all learners are different

in language, aptitude, in proficiency, and general attitude towards language as well as Jearning styles cultural and cconomic backgrounds, as well as personalities; such a class is defined as a class of mixed ability in the level of performance (Hess,2001 p.2)

About the multilevel cl:

s, Ur (1996-302) used the term “holcragencity” to refer 10

these problems in language classes, He defined heterogeneous classes as the ones “whose members are particularly, or unusually, heterogeneous” ‘Ihe term is meant to cover all aspects

of differences among icamers, not only the learners” language learning abulities but all of their

‘background and other surrounding social influcnecs, which by some ways affect how they Jearn and what they need to be taught ‘There are mmerous ways in which leamers differ from

one another in LMLC and various factors which ars Fikely to affect the way of instruction in the specific situation, The following figure presents a number of aspects possibly differentiating between leamers in LMLC

Table 1C: some differences between learners in heterogeneous classes

-Tanguagc-learning ability - Mother tonguc ~ Age or maturity - Confidence

- Language knowledge — - hzlligenee - Gender - Independence

- Culture background - Work knowledge -Personality - SelEdisoiplne

+ Learning styles - Tearing experience | - Motivation - Educational level -Attitude to thelanguage - Knowledge of other | - Interests

languages

Students are different in many aspects, however the study only pays attention to ditference in students’ level of language In language classes, the wide đisparity of proficiency among leamers may be one of the factors that draw the most concern of educators ‘The

35

Janguage competence of leamers in the same class may spread extensively from begining level to intermediate or sơ In teaching practice, there may exist the fact that some of the students in a class are quite competent, they have gained considerable amount of knowledge and skills of instructed the language Msanwhile some others are at real beginning level with very little knowledge of target language This vanses cnormous problems in language

1nsiruction

1.2.2 Challenges of multilevel classes

Multilevel situation causes varicty of challenges which thrcaten to fail all cfforts of the teachers in these classes since unsuccessful lessons and students’ negatwve reaction they may soc in the lessons mercly prove the ineffectiveness of their instructional stratcgios The varioly

of student abilities may bring about numerous problems relating some of the following major

issues (Tice, 1997°5, iless, 2005-2; Ur, 1996-303)

- Disciptine: the teacher in MLC may at time find the class put of his‘her control The twenkout of class discipline may result from the boredom when the tasks given arc cither too easy to some highly achieved students or challenging to the weak ones, Hence, mixed level issue gives teachers the reasonable explanation for the disruption of some woak loamers or quick finishers during or at the end of the activities

- Lack of interest: teachers sometimes say that they can not find topics and activities that

serve all tastes of Isarners? and keep them ail interested

- Effective leaming for all: homogeneous tasks provided are either too difficult or too easy for many of them At times, the stronger may get bored if the teacher spends time explaining

+ Matorials: tcachers can not find suitable matorial: the textbook are “homogencous”- rigidly aimed at only one kind of leamer, School compulsory syllabus may be to some extent

quite challenging to some students, but quite easy to some others

~ Individual awareness: The large elass size and cnoumous differcness among students make it really hard for teachers to follow students, but quite easy to some others

- Uneven participation: many teachers say that 1t is impossible to activate them all; onty a

few students- nonmally the more proficient and confident ones- seem to be reflective in class activities; other students are reluctant and sit still ‘This problem becomes more serious when teachers conduct self-regulated activities (e.g: group work, pair work), finding the strong dornination of competent lear over the tasks

- Pace: Half of the students have finished an exercise when the other half have only just begun

~ Li use: the weaker students are always asking things in their mother tongue and want everything explained in it hey are not willing to use L2 when the teacher is not with them during their group work

- Unsuccessful group work organization When doing pair or group work, teachers get embarrassed to make decision of whether it is better to use mixed level groups or

‘homogensous ones

1.2.3 Cooperative learning in language pedagogy in multilevel classes

‘There are many reasons why teachers use cooperative leaming in large inultilevel classes However, two thain reasons arc psychological characteristics of feamners in language classes and instructional theories of language acquisition

1.2.3.1.Psychological basis

Cooperative learning was a system of icaching and learning Lechniques in which students were active agents in the process of learning instead of passive receivers of the product of any given knowledge This system could increase student’s academic leaming as

well as personal growth because (1) iL reduced learning anxicty, (2) Hiner

student participation and student talk in the tarpet language, (3) it built supportive and less threatening learning environment and 94) it helped the rate of learning retention

Bruner (Brimer, Toward » Theory of Instruction, 1966) maintains thal reciprocity is required for the group to attain an objective, and then there seem to be processes that carry the individual along into learning, sweep him into a competence that is required in the setting of the group.”Placing studentns in groups and giving them tasks in which they depend on cach other to complete the work is a wonderful way to capitalize on the social needs of students

‘They tend to become more engaged in leaming becanse they are doing it with their pesrs Once involved, they also have a need to talk about what they have experienced with others, which leads to further connections

In large multilevel classes, the heterogeneity of group members is related to its

cffeetivencss of cooperative leasing (Bermelt& Turme,1992:Johnson& Johnson,1994;

Slavin,1995),Research has shown effective cooperative group to include high-medium and Jow-ability students working together Low- and medium-ability students clearly benefit from working cooperatively with high-ability pocrs as opposed to working alonc, Working in heterogeneous groups may bensfit low-ability students by allowing them to observe the

sralogica of high-abilily students Similarly, placing students in groups and_of telling them to work together dogs not in and of itself produce a cooperative effort There are many ways in which such an unstruchwed group effort can go wrong

According to the Input Ilypothesis, Krashen (1983) states thai we acquire a langage

as we access lo wrillen and spoken input and comprchend mncaning conveyed in thal language Our cogmtive process happens when the input is slightly beyond the current level of leamer competence (i+1 level of the input).On this basis, cooperative leaming method helps increase the quantity of comprchansibls input from more compelant follow classmates, Group activi

provide comprehensible peer input alternating to the teacher source and by some ways create a more motivating, less anxious environment for language use, thus increasing the chances that students will take more inpul

The supporters of Interachon Hypothesis confirm the inorease in the quantity of comprehensible input when and while leamers interact with their interlocutors (pica,1994:494), Cooperative method offers an interactive context for the negotiation of meaning, By encouraging the positive uterdependence and individual accountability in group

work, cooperative leaming tikely gets more interaction of every group member than in the whole class setting,

A representative of the Output Hypotheses School, Swain (1985), proposes that input

is necessary but not sufficient for language leaming Generating output is vital for leamers to

upgrarle their language proficicney The production via specch or written work helps promot: Jearmer’s fluency, pushes students to engage in syntactic processing of language rather than attending to the meaning, and affords students chances to receive feedback from others

The use of cooperative leaming is of some help in mixed level context, The knowledge

of more proficient students may be used as a good source of 1+ input to lower learners, By solling an accommodating environment in class, the tsacher may see poor teaching happen eagerly in pairs/groups This benefits both the lower leamers and the contemporary teacher’s,

to the less able, fellow input is likely more comprehensible, and the better are able to master their knowledge through instructing and explaining it to others

Summary

In short, this chapter briefly reviewed the theoretical background of the study In the first place, CT and ils connceted issuns like, undsrpinming thcories, definition, bencfits and challenges were presented in detail Besides, different principles and methods of teaching CL were also discussed Moreover, empirical studies related to different issues were also anentionad Finally the rescarcher focused on ihe definition, challenges of large multilevel classes and reasons to apply CL in large nmultilevel classes All of these lines would be the basis for the next parts of the whole thesis

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

This chapter begins with a brief statement of the aims of this study and the research questions This is followed by an overview of the case study design that provides the rationale for doing this research ‘The chapter concludes by brief information about data gathering colfcction and data analysis

2.1 Study Aims

39

The aims of this study were threefold, First, it aims to investigate TFT teachers” perceptions of different aspects of cooperative learning in their classroom at VNU, UEB Second, it aims to explore how the teachers implemented cooperative learning in their classroom Final, it aims to explore how teachers” practices in their classroom reflect their

pereeptions

2.2 Research questions

The study was guided by three main research questions

1 What were EFL teachers’ perceptions of different aspocts of ecopcrative Icamning in their

classroom at VNU, HUEB?

2 How did they implement couporaive loaning in their classroom?

3 To what extent did their classroom practices retlect their perceptions?

2.3 Research Dosign

“This study focuses on an exploratory investigation of the practice of CL with teachers in

a particular RFT context in Visinaru, As context is crucial, a case study approach was used

‘that examined the particular location aud program of teaching 1 chose the case study method for the following reasons

First, a case study is one which seeks a range of different kinds of evidence which

there is in the case solting, and which has to be abstracted and collated to gal the bos! possible answers to the research questions (Gilliham,2000).Robert Yin (1994) describes case study research as consisting of empirical inquiry that:

“s investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context

8 the boundaries between phenomenon and context ave not clear evidence”

(Yin.cited in Bassey) Secondly, a case study was used not to start ont with a priori thearstical notions (whether derived from the litcrature or not} because until he or she gets in there and gets hold off data, gets to understand the context, he ar she does not know what theories or explanation

work best or make the raosi sense

Besides, a case study is usually selected because it reflects an important cunrent issue It may also be that cach case selected for study is, fo some extent, typical of a general category and

naturalistic case sấy is “in inne with their reality for reasons of practicality as well as principle” (McDonough & McDonough,1997) The VNU,UEB is the one where I have been teaching for

‘years and therefore it is quite accessible to me MeWonough & McDonough (1997) also said that

“weachers spend their working lives dealing in different ways with individuals, and they need to understand those ‘cases, not in the first instance to build theories and search for broader patterns, but to understand

their learners ‘beheviours, learning stvles, language development, successes, fatluves, attitudes and motvation”

varied scl of circumstances to investigal: (Yin, 2003)

‘This sludy aims lo investigate EFL teacher's poreeptions of coo

¢ learning in thor

classroom at VNU, UEB and their use of cooperative leaming in their classrooms at UEB

‘These aims of the study stimulate me to design the study as a case study

2.4 The Research Context

‘The research was studied in Lnglish classes in K56 in VNU,ULB There were six

English classes; number of students in cach class ranged from 35 to 45.They is non-English major,

All of classes followed Standard Program A2 (see Appendix 1B), they were

at the second tenm of the first year and at pre-intermediate level Because of Credit

Program al UEB, students could have chance lo choose their own classes, thus Uusir

level of English varied and they were from different faculties in UEB At this term,

all of them were learning a subject named “Teainwork skills”, thus they hadl basic

Jaowledge of skills to cooperate with cach other

2.5 Partictpants

4l

All six teachers from IDivisian of Tieonomiss English, Facrity of English, VNU,ULIS agreed to participate in the interviews and allowed the researcher to observe their lessons All of them are females One teacher has been teaching for ten

‘years, two of them have been teaching for six years and thres of them have been caching for three yoars, All of thom graduaicd from Department of English and Anglo-American Culture (which is now named as Faculty of English Language Teacher Education) at College of Foreign Languages (the cuent name is University

of Languages and Intcmational Studics (ULIS), VNU Four of them got master

degree in English Language Teacher Edueation (See table 2A)

Table 2A: Background information about the participants

1 Female [32 | Bachelorin Teacher Language Education 10 years

z Female [28 | Bachelor in Teacher Language Education 5 years

Master in Teacher Language Kcucation

Masterin Applicd Linguistic

Female |2§ | Mastcrin Teacher Language Education 5 ycars

2.6 Data Collection Instruments

‘The qualitative teachnique was employed to collect data relevant to the research

Qualitative data was used in the context of « processing focusing » (Parlett & Hamilton, 1976)

assisting the researcher to move through the overlapping and interrelating stages of obscrvation, renewed inquiry, and explanation, The rescarcher considered the quantification of selected data was necessary to shape and focus the qualitative analysis, and substantiate the research findings

To obtain data for the study,two different instruments were cmploycd ; intarviow, and classroom observation

2.6.1 Interview

2.6.1.1 Rutionale

‘The interview techmque was employed in this research because of its advantages over other methods and its fit with the research focus of ths study,

First, interview is an important data collection technique to find out things that can not

be observed directly, Interviewees can contribute essential insights into a specific situations as well as the prior history of the siluation that helps identify tolatsd svidence (Yin, 2003b).Interviews were an appropriate tool fo obtain meaningful responses in the study because interviews allowed the researcher to examine aititudes, interests, feelings, concerns and vahucs ore casily Ulan through observations (Gay et al.,2006),

Second, interviews tend to create “more openness and candour in the participants’

responses than other techniques” (Gibbs, 1998), thus eliciting richer data’Uherefore, the

is a cost effective technique for gathering qualitative information ‘The interview is appropriate

when the goal is to explain how people regard an experience, which was the intention of this research

The interviews were conducted by the researcher using a semi-structured interview format, Although a sct of questions were prepared, the scmi-structared approach allowed the researcher to be flexible and to follow the paticipants’ leads, According to Mariam (2001),

structured interviews, which present opportmities to express ideas, is more open than

structured interviews or questiomaires (Flick, 2006) Inlervieweos could provide a dotaited response and pursue topics not covered by questions Therefore interview questions were open and flexible so that interviewees could respond with what was important to them and what met their interests, Intervicwees could provide a detailed responsc and pursuc topics not covered

by questions During the interviews, the researchers tried to probe interviewees” experiences and perception toward those issues

in sum, utilizing the interview method was congruent with the nature of the research questions and research purposes It helped to provide in-depth data for understanding the

experience of participants

2.6.1.2 Teachers'interview Before the semester started, all six teachers were interviewed individually about their perceptions and there cxpericnees about using cooperative learning in leaching RFI in large areltilsvel classes in UEB,VNU Interview questions focused on examining their perceptions

of different aspects of cooperative leaming and bamiers hindering cooperative learning practices

‘A semi-structured interview was constructured and was to enable each teacher to elaborate on the eight open questions that were posed (see Appendix 2A for list of questions)

Most of the interviews lasted 45-60 minutes :The interviews were semi-structured and took place in cach teacher's classroom at the teachcrs’ time convenient Since the purpose of the interview was to have an in-depth understanding, of the teachers’ perceptions about using