Teachers perceptions their practices regarding cooperative learning in teaching EFL in large multilever classes at vietnam national university, university of economics and business

LISTS OF TABLES AND ABBREVIATIONSTable 1A: Differences between cooperative learning and group learning Table 1B: CL -An overview of some most popular methods Table 1C: Some differences b

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES -

*** -HOÀNG VIỆT HÀ

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS & THEIR PRACTICES REGARDING COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEACHING EFL IN LARGE MULTILEVEL CLASSES AT VIETNAM

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF

ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

QUAN ĐIỂM CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VỀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP HỌC HỢP TÁC ĐỂ DẠY TIẾNG ANH TẠI CÁC LỚP ĐÔNG ĐA TRÌNH ĐỘ VÀ VIỆC THỰC THI TRÊN LỚP TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

-*** -HOÀNG VIỆT HÀ

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS & THEIR PRACTICES REGARDING COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEACHING EFL IN LARGE MULTILEVEL CLASSES AT VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS

AND BUSINESS

QUAN ĐIỂM CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VỀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP HỌC HỢP TÁC ĐỂ DẠY TIẾNG ANH TẠI CÁC LỚP ĐÔNG ĐA TRÌNH ĐỘ VÀ VIỆC THỰC THI TRÊN LỚP TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

M.A Thesis

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 601410

Hanoi, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Acceptance page i

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

Table of content iv

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Aims of the study 2

3 Research questions 2

4 Scope of the study 2

5 Significance of the study 3

6 Methods of the study 3

7 An overview of the rest of the study 4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 6

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

1.1 Cooperative learning 6

1.1.1 Underpinning theory of cooperative learning 6

1.1.2 Definition of cooperative learning 7

1.1.3 Principles of cooperative learning 8

1.1.4 Cooperative Learning Methods 11

1.1.5 Benefits of cooperative learning 14

1.1.6 Challenges of cooperative learning 15

1.1.7 Empirical studies related to cooperative learning 16

1.1.8 Research Findings: implementation of cooperative learning 19

1.2 Multilevel classes 23

1.2.1 Definition of multilevel classes 23

1.2.2 Challenges of multilevel classes 24

1.2.3 Cooperative learning in language pedagogy in multilevel classes……… 25

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 28

2.1Study Aims 28

2.2 Research questions 28

2.3 Research Design 28

2.4 The Research Context 29

2.5 Participants 30

2.6 Data Collection Instruments 31

2.6.1 Interview 31

2.6.2 Observation 33

2.7 Data Analysis 34

2.7.1 Interview 34

2.7.2 Observation 35

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS OF THE STUDY 35

3.1 Teachers‟ perceptions in different aspects of cooperative learning 36

3.1.1 Implementation 36

3.1.2 Task construction 41

3.1.3 Group composition 42

3.1.4 Student preparation 43

3.1.5 Assessment 44

3.1.6 Student motivation 45

3.1.7 Teachers‟ reflection on CL 45

3.2 Teachers‟ implementation of Cooperative Learning in classroom 47

3.2.1 Implementation 47

3.2.2 Task construction 48

3.2.3 Group composition 49

3.2.4 Student preparation 51

3.2.5 Assessment 51

3.2.6 Student motivation 52

CHAPTER 4 : DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY 54

4.1 Teachers‟ perceptions of different aspects of cooperative learning 54

4.1.1 Implementation 54

4.1.2 Task construction 57

4.1.3 Group composition 58

4.1.4 Student preparation 59

4.1.5 Assessment 59

4.1.6 Student motivation 60

4.1.7 Teachers‟ reflections on CL 60

4.2 Teachers‟ implementation of cooperative learning in their classroom 61

4.2.1 Implementation 62

4.2.2 Task construction 62

4.2.3 Group composition 63

4.3.4 Student preparation 63

4.4.5 Assessment 64

4.1.6 Student motivation 64

4.3 To what extent did their classroom practices reflect their perceptions 65

PART C: CONCLUSION 69

1 Conclusion 69

2 Implications for the use of CL in ELT 70

3 Limitations of the study 71

4 Suggestions for further research 72

REFERENCES 73

Appendix 1A: Contents of the course book New English File Pre-intermediateAppendix 1B: The Common European Framework of Reference for LanguagesAppendix 2A: Interview questions

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

LISTS OF TABLES AND ABBREVIATIONS

Table 1A: Differences between cooperative learning and group learning

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

Table 1C: Some differences between learners in heterogeneous classes

Table 2A: Background information about 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 3E: Strategies to form groups

Table 3F: CL skills taught for students

Table 3G: Types of group works‟ assessment

Table 3H: Ways to motivate students

Table 3I: The nature of tasks in classroom

Table 3J: The types of group forming in classroom

Table 3K: Types of group works‟ assessment in classroom

Table 3L: Ways to motivate students in classroom

List of abbreviations

CL: Cooperative learning

LMLC: Large multilevel classes

VNU, UEB: Vietnam National University, University of Economics and Business

VNU, ULIS: Vietnam National University, University of Languages and International StudiesM.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

guidelines for the whole research Lastly, this part concludes with an overview of the rest

of the thesis, serving as a compass to orientate the readers throughout the study

1 Rationale

It is widely accepted that we are living in a technological-based society whereindividuals are required to depend on each other and think with others if we want to obtainsuccess The ability to work together cooperatively has become one of the skills whichenable people to survive in the global workforce (Foyle & Shafto,1995) In response,educators have proposed significant changes in educational setting to create anenvironment where students have the opportunities to work together to develop cooperativeskills As the result, an effective teaching and learning in this global era should be the onewhich can create a situation context in which students have opportunities to work together,

then produce new knowledge, is cooperative learning In a very basic sense, “CL is the

instructional use of small groups so that students share the responsibility of working together to maximize their own and each other‟s learning” (Johnson, Johnson &

Holubec,2002)

In the context of Viet Nam National University, University of Economics andBusiness, English is being taught as a compulsory subject for non-major students As far asthe situation of English language learning and teaching is concerned, students haveconfronted a number of obstacles preventing them from achieving communicativecompetence and cooperating with each other Moreover, because of credit course program,students can choose English class to learn by themselves Hence, a class may include anumber of highly achieving students having spent years on English learning at secondaryschools, some of them may have attained pre-intermediate level, and another number ofreal beginners The dramatic difference in student language competence actually creates agreat deal of impediment to instructors and learners and constitutes an important part ofinefficiency of the ELT Cooperative learning is certainly an appropriate instructionalstrategy for large multilevel classes where the teacher and the more capable students cancreate supportive conditions for less capable students through cooperative work.Cooperative learning has been composed on two fundamental basis of language educationwhich is psychological characteristics of learners in language classes and instructionaltheories of language acquisition

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

of studies that were done in Asian countries found that CL promotes learning is equivocaland, moreover, it is of little interest to Asian teachers (Thanh-Pham, Gillies

&Renshaw,2009).However, no research was studied about Vietnamese‟ teachers‟perceptions and classroom practices regarding CL in teaching English in large multilevelclasses

From the above-mentioned reasons, this thesis on teachers‟ perceptions ofimplementing CL meets the research demand of the context

2 Aims of the study

Firstly, the research thesis is expected to investigate EFL teachers‟ perceptions ofdifferent aspects of cooperative learning in their classroom at VNU, UEB Secondly, itaims to explore how the teachers implemented cooperative learning in their classroom.Finally, it aims to explore how teachers‟ practices in their classroom reflect theirperceptions 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 EFL teachers‟ perceptions of different aspects of cooperative learning

in their classroom at VNU, UEB?

2 How did they implement cooperative learning in their classroom?

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

4 Scope of the study

The study is restricted to the area of investigating the perceptions of six teachers atVNU, UEB about different aspects of CL and exploring their actual classroom practices.After that similarities and differences between their perceptions and practices werediscussed

The samples of the study are also limited to six teachers at VNU, UEB and onlyfirst year students from main stream classes in one semester of school year at VietnamNational University, University of Economics and Business In second term of school year2011-2012, the students were learning A2 English Program with course book New EnglishFile, Pre-intermediate

5 Significance of the study

As one of the trail-blazing studies on implementing CL in LMLC at VNU, UEB,the thesis could be particularly useful for students, teachers, and researchers who develop

an interest in the topic

Specifically, since the study looked into implementing CL in LMLC and somesuggestions for implementing CL effectively, students can gain more knowledge to use CLfor communicative purposes, learn social and inter-personal skills which are very importantfor them in global world now

As for the teachers, they would get useful information on different types of CLmethods, 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 also provides teachers with some helpful suggestions so that they could take theirown initiatives to effectively implement CL in their classroom situations

Finally, with regard to the researchers, those who happen to develop the sameinterest in this topic could certainly rely on this research to find reliable and usefulinformation 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 instrumentsinterview, and classroom observation To be more detailed, a semi-structured interviewwas conducted with 6 teachers at VNU, UEB The interview was constructed to enableeach teacher to elaborate on the eight open questions about teachers‟ perceptions ofdifferent aspects of cooperative learning and barriers hindering cooperative learningpractices In addition, classroom observation was also used to explore how teachersimplemented cooperative learning and answer the question “is there any gap between theirperceptions and their real teaching?” During observation, the researcher filmed the lessons.Each lesson lasted approximately 50 minutes and observations were conducted during twolessons-100 minutes for each class

6.2 Data analysis methods

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

as familiarizing yourself with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes,reviewing themes, defining and naming the themes and producing the report

To be more detailed, for the interview, the researcher transcribed all of theinterview and open-minded questions into Vietnamese The researcher coded eachdocument by sentence and paragraph and questions The researcher first constructed theinitial list of the most general concepts that spatially the connection in the data related todescriptive, lexical meaning or low level inference of text Then the researcher investigatedvarious 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 theform of quotation and cited if necessary For the classroom observation, the researcherswatched the videotapes for many times, and emerged main ideas of teachers‟implementation of CL in classroom and sub-ideas of their CL implementation in LMLCwere also found out

7 An overview of the rest of the study

The rest of the thesis includes four chapters

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

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

of cooperative learning

Chapter 2 (Methodology) describes the aims, research questions, context, participants and

instruments of the study, as well as the procedures employed to carry out the research

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

interviews and classroom observations

Chapter 4 (Discussion of the study): summarizes main findings, analyzes the findings,

and compares them with previous research to answer three research questions

Conclusion summarizes the main issues discussed in the thesis, the findings that theresearcher found out from the data collected according to three research questions, thelimitations of the research, several pedagogical recommendations concerning the researchtopic as well as some suggestions for further studies Following this chapter arebibliography and appendices

Summary

In this chapter, the researcher has elaborated the following points:

1 Rationale

2 Aims of the study

3 Research questions

4 Scope of the study

5 Significance of the study

6 Methods of the study

7 An overview of the rest of the study

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 chapter provides an overview of the literature, 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 multilevel class defined but background information about the key terms is also

presented to ensure the thorough understanding of the research matters

1.1 Cooperative learning

1.1.1 Underpinning theory of cooperative learning

The theories related to the rationale of this study came from three researchers,Vygotsky from Russia, Piaget from France and Albert Bandura from the USA

The Russian scholar Lev Vygotsky perspective related to cooperative learning was the Zone of Proximal Development and the ensued affect on Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis.

According to Vygotsky (1978), all good learning was that which was advance of developmentand involved the acquisition of skills just beyond the student‟s grasp Such learning occurred

through interaction within the student‟s zone of proximal development Vygotsky defined the zone of proximal development as the discrepancy between the student‟s actual development

level (i.e., independent achievement) and his/her potential level (achievement with help from amore competent partner).By explaining human language development and cognitivedevelopment, Vygotsky‟s theory served as a strong foundation for the modern trends inapplied linguistics It lent support to less structured and more natural, communicative andexperiential approaches and pointed to the importance of early real-world human interaction inforeign language learning (Vygotsky, 1978)

In contrast to Vygosky‟s perspective that learning which resulted from socialinteraction leads cognitive development, Piaget‟s theory suggested that cognitivedevelopment leads to learning A central component of Piaget‟s developmental theory oflearning and thinking was that both involve the participation of the learner The learnermust be active; he was not a vessel to be filled with facts Besides, Piaget thought thatteachers should be able to assess the students‟ present cognitive level, strengths, andweaknesses and teachers as facilitators of knowledge- they were there to guide andstimulate the students Vygotsky‟s theory and Piaget‟s theory complemented each other.The former advocated social interaction in learning while the latter promoted activelearning of the learners Both were essential elements in the realization of cooperative

learning of the learners Neither theory alone was able to provide a complete explanationfor the implementation of cooperative learning.

The social learning theory of Bandura (1971) emphasized the importance ofobserving and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others Sociallearning theory explained human behaviors in terms of continuous reciprocal interactionbetween cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences The connection betweenBandura‟s theory and the practice of cooperative learning is in the elaboration on theStudent-Team-Achievement Division

1.1.2 Definition of cooperative learning

Different researchers have provided various definitions of cooperative learning For

instance, Johnson& 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 a group-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 goals and

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

being taught Jacobs (Jacobs, 1997:2) gave a definition of cooperative learning “a body of

concepts and techniques for helping to maximize the benefits of cooperation among students in education” In other words, cooperative learning provides language teachers

with essential concepts of heterogeneous classes, learner cooperation and mutual help inlearning and it equips teachers with effective instructional techniques to exploitcooperation in language learning classes

There is no official definition of cooperative learning However, cooperativelearning is generally referred to as a variety of teaching methods in which students work insmall groups to help one another learn academic content In cooperative classrooms,students are expected to help each other, discuss and debate with each other, assess eachother‟s current knowledge, and fill any gaps in each other‟s understanding

Cooperative learning is different from what is often called “group work” Inprinciple, cooperative learning stuck to five elements, positive interdependence, individualaccountability, quality group processing, face-to-face promotive interaction and social

skills On the other hand, group learning simply put students sit and work in groupswithout further assistance or careful structure to make group work become teamwork Inpractice, the differences between cooperative learning and traditional group learning wereillustrated in the following table:

Table 1A: Differences between cooperative learning and group learning

Positive interdependence with structured No positive interdependence

goals

Individual accountability No individual accountability

Heterogeneous ability grouping Homogeneous ability grouping

Sharing the appointed learning tasks Each learner seldom responsible for others‟

learning

Aiming to maximize each member‟s Focusing on accomplishing the

Maintaining good working relationship, Frequent neglect of good working

Teaching of collaborative skills Assuming that students already have the

required skillsTeacher observation of students interaction Little, if any at 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 Principles of cooperative learning

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

1.1.3.1 Positive Interdependence

The first and most important element in structuring cooperative learning is positive

interdependence Positive interdependence exists when group members are linked together

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

to each other‟s learning It is the “All for one, one for all” feeling keeps the members learnthe materials and help other members to understand the materials too Johnson and Johnson(1999) suggested that teachers may promote Positive Interdependence by establishing thefollowing:

● A group mutual goal to achieve

● A warm and friendly environment with group members sitting close together, so thatthey can easily see each other‟s work and hear each other without using loud voices This may seem trivial, but very important to the success of the CL activities

● Assigned roles to group members as leader, summarizer, reporter, time reminder, etc

● Shared resources They may be one paper for each group, or each member receivesunique resources such as a/some parts of the required information, equipments (paper, colormarketed) teachers tend to use

● External challenges (e.g.: references, websites) for long-staying groups to improve groupdynamics

● Joint rewards If all group members achieve a pre-set goal, they will receive a reward (e.g.: bonus points, grades, certificates, the choice of future activity, etc)

Positive independence lies at the heart of CL When positive independence has beensuccessfully structured, teachers tend to see students put their heads close together overtheir work, talking about the work, sharing about the answers and materials andencouraging each other to learn However, if teachers do not give careful thought beforeputting students in groups, there possibly occurs no interdependence or negativeinterdependence among group members instead of the desired positive one Their exposure

in class can be realized either when what happens to one group member is not perceived asaffecting the others, or when what helps one group member is seen as hurting others.Negative interdependence encourages competition, no interdependence meanwhilepromotes individual attitude among group members Both of the two give bad effects tolanguage learning that should be avoided

1.1.3.2 Individual Accountability

This condition emphasizes that although learning activities rely on cooperativeefforts; individuals are ultimately responsible for their own learning and cannot “coast” ongroup 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 beingnoticed Consequently, it is important to assess the group according to the individuallearning of each member so as to structure individual accountability for maximum effect ofcooperative learning (Manning & Lucking, 1991).

Positive interdependence and individual accountability are related by increasingindividual accountability, perceived interdependence among group members tends toincrease Besides, positive interdependence tends to promote individual accountabilitythrough “responsibility forces” David W Johnson and Roger T Johnson (1994)mentioned common ways to structure individual accountability:

- Keeping the size of the group small

- Giving an individual test to each 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 learned to someone else When all students do this, it is called simultaneous explaining

1.1.3.3 Face-to-face promotive interaction

Positive interdependence results in promotive interaction Promotive interactionmay be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each other's efforts to achieve,complete tasks, and produce in order to reach the group's goals To obtain meaningful face-to-face interaction, students need to be seated so they face each other if they are to engage

in group discussions and promote each other‟s ideas

Besides, a positive classroom environment was also associated with the quality ofgroup interaction The implementation of an appropriate interaction process constitutes amajor component that helped to improve the student outcome in any academic andbehavioral problems, and helped to establish a greater academic environment in theclassroom

1.1.3.4 Social skills

CL also requires particular interpersonal and small group skills Students must often

be taught the social skills for high quality collaboration and be motivated to use these

skills In order to coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals, students must: 1) get to know

and trust each other, 2) communicate accurately and unambiguously, 3) accept and

support each other, and 4) resolve conflict constructively (Johnson, 2001; Johnson & F.

Johnson, 2001)

Studies on the long-term implementation of cooperative learning found that thehighest achievement is promoted by a combination of positive goal interdependence, anacademic contingency for high performance by all group members and a rewardcontingency for using social skills The results indicated that the combination of positiveinterdependence, an academic contingency for high performance by all group members,and a social skills contingency promoted the highest achievement

1.1.3.5 Group processing

Group processing exists when the members of the group discuss their progresstowards the achievement of their goals and the maintenance of effective working relations.Some of the keys to successful group processing are allowing sufficient time for it to occurand making the processing specific rather than vague (Johnson & Johnson, 1994) Thepurpose of group processing is to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the members incontributing to the collaborative efforts to achieve the group‟s goals

Teachers should choose suitable group size and grouping strategies to conductgroup work effectively The number of students in each group may vary depending on theactivity and its duration There are four basic cooperative learning group size: pairs, smallgroups (three or four), larger group (from five to ten) and whole class There are three

grouping strategies teachers can use: grouping randomly by their seating arrangement, by serial numbers in the student name list, etc; student selected grouping preferred by students

and instructor-formed-grouping Based on the aims of lesson, number of students, classarrangement, ect; teachers can choose their own group processing for their class

1.1.4 Cooperative Learning Methods

According to Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2000), CL was actually a generic termthat refers to numerous methods for organizing and conducting classroom instruction Each

of teachers could find a way to use CL that was congruent with his or her philosophies andpractices This study only presented some most popular CL methods

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

Student Team Slavin & Late All ● One of the simplest and most widely used of all CL methods All levelsAchievement associates 1970s subjects ● Includes four main steps: (1) the teacher presents the lesson;

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

do individual quizzes; and (4) team scores are made based onteam members‟ improvement scores

Team Games DeVires & Early All ● Have the same dynamics as STAD, but add a dimension of All levelsTournaments Slavin 1970s subjects excitement contributed by the use of games

(TGT)

Team Assisted Slavin, 1986 Maths ● Share with STAD the use of team assigning but combine Grades 3-6Individualization Leavey & cooperative learning with individualized instruction

Madden

Cooperative Slavin & 1987 Reading ● Students work in teams composed of pairs of students from Upper

Learning together Johnson 1986 All ● Emphasize face-to-face interaction, positive interdependence, All levels(LT) &Johnson subjects individual accountability, interpersonal and small-group skills.

Group Sharan & 1976 All ● Its main steps include: conduct investigation, prepare a final All levelsinvestigation Sharan subjects report, present and evaluate

Jigsaw and Jigsaw Aronson, 1978 Social ● Students work in small groups Those who have the same topic All levels

group” returns to their original to teach others

Three-step Kagan Early All ● Students interviewed each other, switched their roles as All levelsinterview 1990s subjects interviewers and interviewees Students information through

interviewInside-outside Kagan Late All ● Students work in groups of four or six, students stand in pairs All levelcircle 1980s subjects in two concentric circles with inside circle facing out and the

outside circle facing in

(Adapted from Thanh-Pham, T H (2008).)

1.1.5 Benefits of cooperative learning

Hundreds of studies mentioned advantages of CL, compared the effects of CL withother instructional methods such as the lecture method or individualized instruction Researchconducted in many different subjects areas and various age groups of students has generalshown positive effects of CL in the following areas: academic achievement, developing ofhigh order thinking, self-esteem and self-confidence as learners, inter-group relationsincluding friendships across racial and ethnic boundaries, social acceptance of mainstreamedstudents 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

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

relationships and psychological health and social competence.

1.1.5.1 Achievement

Over 370 studies in the past 100 years (Johnson and Johnson, 1994) have shown howworking together to achieve a common goal procedures higher achievement and greaterproductivity than working alone In 1981, Johnson and his colleagues published a meta-analysis of 122 studies examining CL and its impact on achievement This showed thatcooperation promotes higher achievement for all age groups and for a variety of tasks Thecooperation also improved the more group members were required to produce a group product

CL also results in process again (i.e.: more high level reasoning), greater transfer of what islearned within one situation to another and more time on task

Slavin (1989) reviewed 60 studies of CL and found that gains in academicachievement were examined if group goals and individual accountability by members of thegroup were embedded Sharan (1980) reviewed five methods of CL including Teams-games-tournaments, student team learning, learning together and investigation He found that studentsperform more effectively in small groups than traditional whole class settings and the groupinvestigation produced higher levels of cognitive functioning This he found due to peerinteraction which clarified misunderstanding and developed problem solving skills

1.1.5.2 Inter-personal relationships

Over 180 studies have been conducted since 1940s (Johnson and Johnson, 1989) whichhave showed that CL experiences promote greater inter-personal skills In 1983, Johnson et alfound that CL supported interpersonal skills amongst students from different ethnic groups,and mixed ability and disability They then focused on variables that impact on CL andachievement Johnson and Johnson (1985) identified eleven variables that impact oncooperation, productivity and inter-personal attraction These variables were grouped intothree clusters: cognitive process variables (i.e quality of learning), social variables (i.e mutualsupport among group members), and instructional variables (i.e type of task).While the effect

of these variables, requires further verification, it did suggest that the processes may promotehigher achievement and liking amongst students, including, managing controversy, time ontask, sharing and processing information, peer support, peer group involvement in learning,interaction between students of different ability, perceived psychological support, positiveattitudes to subjects areas and perceptions of fairness assessment

1.1.5.3 Psychological health and social competence

Working cooperatively with peers and valuing cooperation results in greaterpsychological health, higher self-esteem and greater social competencies than competing withpeers or with peers or working independently (Johnson and Johnson, 1983, Johnson andJohnson, 1997) found given training in social skills, pupils demonstrated greater socialinteractions and that the interpersonal relationships of previously isolated students improved.Gillies (2003) analysis of five studies showed that provided small group work is carefullystructured to promote effective cooperation, that over time and with practice the “morecohesive the groups became as members strove to facilitate each other‟s learning

1.1.6 Challenges of cooperative learning

There are many challenges teachers must overcome when applying cooperativelearning in their classes Firstly, it may due to a lack of understanding of how to use thispedagogical practice in their classrooms Besides, Gillies (2008) in a study of junior highschool students „performance on a science based activity found that students performed on ascience-based learning activity in schools where teachers had been trained in how to establishcooperative learning activities in class Thus, teachers need to understand how to apply

cooperative learning into the classroom curricula to foster open communication andengagement between teachers and students, promote cooperative investigation, problem-solving and reasoning, and provide students with an environment where they feel supportedand emotionally secure (Johnson & Johnson,2003; Roseth, Johnson,&Johnson,2008).

Moreover, Blatchford, Kutnick, Baines, and Galton (2003) said that to applycooperative learning effectively in classroom, the context in which it is to be used needs to beprepared, students need to taught the appropriate interactional skills, teachers need to be taughthow to work with groups, and the lessons and tasks need to be well organized Students need

to be placed in classroom situations where they have many opportunities to reap benefits frominteracting with others

Likewise, Johnson (2001) emphasizes the importance of preparing the physical spacefor learning and teaching, ensuring the learning tasks are challenging and engage students inhigh-order thinking, helping teachers to understand that they need to accept their role asprocedures of new classroom curricula and programs, and training students in the social andacademic skills they will need to negotiate their new learning environment

Besides, both Blactchford et al and Johnson recognize the complexity andmultidimensionality of small-group learning and the importance of preparing the environmentand individuals if students, in turn, are to reap the benefits widely attributed to this approach tolearning

1.1.7 Empirical studies related to cooperative learning

Researchers from different countries from the West, Asia and also Vietnam hadnumerous studies about different areas of CL

CL in the West.

Research on CL began in the late 1800s, and over the past hundred years, over 575experimental and 109 correlational studies have been conducted at a variety of educationallevels examining this approach to learning (Johnson et al., 2000) In general, these studieshave reported that CL provides students with a lot of benefits categories: the quality ofrelationships, psychological adjustment and academic success

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

CL on the quality of relationships between students and students and between students andfaculty.

Regarding psychological adjustment, Johnson et al., (1998) also found thatcooperativeness is highly correlated with a wide variety of indices of psychological health;individualistic attitudes are related to a wide variety of indices of psychological pathologywhile competitiveness seems related to a complex mixture of indices of health and pathologyrelated to a complex mixture of indices of health and pathology

Regarding academic achievement, it is widely accepted that cooperative learning is moreeffective than competitive or individualistic learning in terms of increasing students‟ knowledgeacquisition, retention, accuracy, creativity in problem solving (Johnson et al., 1998)

CL in Asia

Since the early 1990s when various education reforms were carried out in differentAsian countries, student-centered learning practices like cooperative learning started to bebrought to Asian classrooms For instance, in Thailand a new national educational bill waspassed which promotes learner-centeredness, lifelong learning, decentralization and autonomy

in curriculum design In Hong Kong, a major overhaul of the whole education system hascalled for reforms in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment strategies Hong Kong alsoestablished the Centre for Learning Enhancement and Research in 2000 to host several trainingprograms on how to use CL in classrooms (Law, 2005).Student-centered approaches likeindependent and CL have quickly become popular in many countries in Asian because theyhelp reformers achieve the goal of changing students from being passive receivers to activedoers in their learning

There are many studies about aspects of CL in classrooms For example, studies abouthow CL has been adapted in Asian context and how teachers and students perceive thismethod Young-Ihm (2002) conducted research in a large Korean preschool and pointed to alarge discrepancy between what the teachers believe (US/Western models of child-centeredapproaches and what they actually practice (remaining traditional) Sachs et al (2006)conducted a one-year study to develop innovative modes of cooperative teaching and learning,investigate the acquisition and development of the students‟ communication strategies and

compare the effects of transmissive versus cooperative learning in facilitating the students‟English language development Messier‟s (2003), Zakaria and Iksan (2007) studied teachers‟perceptions toward teaching and learning They specified that the culture of “do not truststudents in acquiring knowledge by themselves” of Malaysian classrooms” of Malaysiateachers prevented the implementation of CL into Malaysian classrooms In conclusion, therewere a number of studies about different topics of CL There were various mismatchesbetween CL assumptions and teaching, learning in classrooms,

CL in Vietnam

In Vietnam, the introduction to cooperative learning started at the beginning of the 1990swhen the country implemented the Renovation policy (known as Doi Moi) in 1989 Afterconducting an examination of the development of education in Vietnam in 2000 UNESCOsuggested that Vietnamese students need to be trained with new methods so that they can beprovided with new working skills that are in high demand of global employers such as activeness,cooperativeness, creativeness and argumentativeness (Tran, 2000) Facing a lot of pressures,finally at the outset of implementing the student-centeredness, MOET (2004) emphasized strongly

“Learning by rote needs to be eliminated from all school levels and replaced with student-centeredlearning Any teachers found failing to change their teaching style would be listed and providedwith video-tapes showing new teaching techniques If they still failed to improve, they would besent for intensive training (MOET, 2004).”

To respond the pushing of these policies, Vietnamese educators and researchers have,during the last decade, tried to introduce cooperative learning practices to classrooms throughdifferent methods such as writing textbooks to instruct teachers to use cooperative learning,designing curriculum in the format of cooperative learning lessons and organizing seminarsand workshops to practice cooperative learning activities However, there are still very fewresources about cooperative learning in the Vietnamese language Some important resourcesinclude a textbook written by Dang Thanh Hung (2002,2004) which introduced differenttheories of cooperative learning, especially the theories of Davidson (1990) and Johnson andJohnson (1994) Also, recently, Nguyen Huu Chau (2005) presented the theories of Johnsonand Johnson in a more complete version with reference to dominant theories of cooperative

learning and an analysis of main components of cooperative learning Regarding research, theresearcher could only find one study on cooperative learning conducted by Phuong (2008)with some high school classes in Hanoi This study examined the students‟ attitudes towardcooperative learning practices, however, the study only stopped at discovering problems,mismatches between CL principles and the learning and teaching context in Vietnam, but itdid not develop strategies to solve problems Besides these sources, there may be other worksand studies on cooperative learning in Vietnam, however, they were either not documented orpublished.

This study is about teachers‟ perceptions regarding CL and their practices in teachingEFL in LMLC and give some 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 managedstudies of CL than any other teaching methodology The prolific amount of research studiedinto CL range widely in terms of specific aspects researched, yet several these emerge fromthe findings which can be particularly relevant to effective implementation The analysis ofresearch which follows will be driven by these themes, namely:

1 Task construction

2 Group composition

3 Student preparation

4 Teacher‟s role as a facilitator of learning

5 Student motivation, inclusion of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards

6 Assessment of cooperative group work

7 Ensuring interdependence

1.8.1.1 Task construction

Examining studies of interaction, it is important to ensure that the task lends itself tocooperative group work Alongside, this is the issue of motivating pupils to work as a group.Cohen (1994 a) proposes that both goal and resource interdependence are necessary as neitheralone will provide the group interaction

Tasks need to be clearly designed so students are required to support each other in theprocess, as in STAD which also includes group rewards The key difference here is that theinformation is not given by the teacher; the students have to gather the information from arange of sources The task stresses problem-solving skills Nystran, Gamoran and Heck (1991)also found that the nature of the tasks affects the interaction and where students are required todefine a problem and engage in autonomous production of knowledge, it was more effective.However it lacks other factors in comparison with other research Cohen (1994) posits thefollowing hypothesis:

“when the teaching objective is learning for understanding and involves higher order thinking, task arrangements and instructions that constrain and routines interaction will be less productive than arrangements and instructions that foster maximum interaction, mutual exchange and elaborated discussions.” (1994a:20)

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

explanations, the heterogeneous groups will be beneficial for them 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 The meta-analysis confirmed the positiveeffects of placing students in groups for learning however the size of the effects varied Variablefindings could be accounted due to the task, and the experience of the teacher They found noevidence that one form of grouping was uniformly superior for promoting

achievement of all students Low ability students gained most from being placed inheterogeneous groups and in contrast average ability students gain most from being placed inhomogeneous groups.

1.8.1.3 Student preparation

Teaching students the interpersonal and small group skills that facilitate cooperation

in groups is critical to the success of these groups (Blatchford et al.,2006; Johnson &Johnson,1990) Gilles and Ashman (1996,1998) found when students worked in groups wherethey were trained to cooperate, the students demonstrate more on task behavior, gave moredetailed explanations and assistance to each other, and obtained higher learning outcomes thantheir untrained peers In fact, many of the skills the teachers taught the students as part of thepreparation for group work were similar to those advocated by Wells et al (1999) whoproposed that social interaction and reasoning is enhanced during small group work when:

1 all relevant information is shared

2 the group seeks to reach agreement

3 the group takes responsibility for its decisions

6 alternatives are discussed before decisions are made

7 group members are encouraged to speak

In fact, training students in those social skills that facilitate group communication isaccepted as a basic tenet of CL (Johnson &Johnson,2003; Slavin, 1996) However, because ofthe time and planning teachers need to invest in teaching these skills, they are often neglected

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

1.8.1.4 The role of the teacher

Research into the role of the teacher in CL highlights how profoundly CL differs fromother methods of teaching (Harwood, 1989) found the role changes when students areworking in small groups Ashman and Gillies (2003) summarize the benefits of the changingrole of the teacher as:

“perhaps the greatest of peer meditation derives from the type and the level of interaction that occurs in a context in which the responsibility for learning does not rest solely with the teacher but is shared among teachers and students.” (2003).

Moreover, the teacher‟s role in using cooperative base groups is to (a) formheterogeneous groups of four (or three), (b) schedule a time when they will regularly meet(such as beginning and end of each class session or the beginning and end of each week), (c)create specific agendas with concrete tasks that provide a routine for base groups to followwhen they meet, (d) ensure the five basic elements of effective cooperative groups areimplemented, and (e) have students periodically process the effectiveness of their base groups

1.8.1.5 Student motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic rewards

A method that teachers routinely use to manage students in the classroom is the use ofrewards Cohen summarizes the controversy surrounding this issue related to CL: “no aspect of CL

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

goes to describe the ideological controversy over cooperation versus competition This hasbeen researched heavily by Slavin (1983a,1983b, 1987a) who reviewed 41 studies thatcontrasted cooperative approaches ,and he came to conclusion that : achievement is enhanced

by cooperative learning when cooperating students are rewarded as a group, while eachstudent is individually accountable for his or her learning (1983a).This was developed into thetechnique known as STAD (Student Team Achievement Divisions) where students take a restand receive an individual score There are then averaged and a team score awarded

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

“the fruitless debates about intrinsic and extrinsic rewards 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) haslooked at assigning group grades Evidence showed that group grade alone is not sufficientand it is better to combine individual scores plus bonus points for all members who reach acriterion Cohen et al, (2002) studied the assessment of the work of creative problem-solvinggroups in sixth grade social studies Recognizing the inherent difficulties of such assessment,and enabling students to demonstrate understanding, they started from the basis that the

quality of the interchange among the group members and the quality of the good product areclear indicators They provided specific evaluation criteria for each group product which wasshared with students This enabled students to self-evaluate The results showed that groupswith criteria were more task-focused, had significantly superior products, and achieved ahigher average score on written work (essay) They also found the study supported theiroriginal hypothesis that the use of self-assessment of the group, indicated by the extent of talkevaluating the product, was a direct predictor of the aggregate essay score Cohen et al state:

“Learning was not a matter of relevant academic knowledge that individuals brought to the group but came about through reciprocal exchange of ideas and through a willingness to be self- critical about what the group was creating.” (2002).

Previous researchers relate to the level of clarity contained in the evaluation criteria,the role of the teacher in training the students to use the criteria, and the teacher modeling ofthe 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 (e.g Johnson

et al, 1990) This can be achieved in different ways including resource interdependence where, forexample, only one worksheet is provided for the group In contrast, goal interdependence is aconcept developed by Deutsch (1962) which means that individuals can only achieve a goal if theothers in groups also achieve theirs The Johnson model advocates both resource and goalinterdependence However neither guarantees interaction, nor motivation to do so Cohen viewsresource interdependence as limited, and cites Johnson, Johnson and Stanne, (1990) where simpleresource interdependence was associated with the poorest results This resource interdependence isalso present in Aronson et al‟s (1978) jigsaw approach, although Huber and Eppler (1990) notedthat slow learning members of a jigsaw team did not necessarily return from expert group sessionsknowing more than their team members This finding is not borne out elsewhere, for exampleBottery (1990) where academic results, using jigsaw lessons, were consistently high.Interdependence also encourages students to engage in interaction

1.2 Multilevel 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 perfect class, the views differ from one person to another Hess (2001,p.5) defines largeclasses as classes of thirty or more students in elementary, secondary adult and tertiary settingsand multilevel classes as the kind of classes roughly arranged by age-group with no thought tolanguage Besides, Ur (1996) considers 40-50 students in a class is a large class

There is no easy definition about large multilevel classes since all learners are different

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

About the multilevel classes, Ur (1996:302) used the term “heterogeneity” to refer tothese problems in language classes He defined heterogeneous classes as the ones “whosemembers are particularly, or unusually, heterogeneous” The term is meant to cover all aspects

of differences among learners, not only the learners‟ language learning abilities but all of theirbackground and other surrounding social influences, which by some ways affect how theylearn and what they need to be taught There are numerous ways in which learners differ fromone another in LMLC and various factors which are likely to affect the way of instruction inthe specific situation The following figure presents a number of aspects possiblydifferentiating between learners in LMLC

Table 1C: some differences between learners in heterogeneous classes

-Language-learning ability - Mother tongue - Age or maturity - Confidence

- Culture background - Work knowledge - Personality - Self-discipline

- Learning styles - Learning experience - Motivation - Educational level-Attitude to the language - Knowledge of other - Interests

languages

Students are different in many aspects; however the study only pays attention todifference in students‟ level of language In language classes, the wide disparity of proficiencyamong learners may be one of the factors that draw the most concern of educators The

language competence of learners in the same class may spread extensively from beginninglevel to intermediate or so In teaching practice, there may exist the fact that some of thestudents in a class are quite competent, they have gained considerable amount of knowledgeand skills of instructed the language Meanwhile some others are at real beginning level withvery little knowledge of target language This causes enormous problems in languageinstruction.

1.2.2 Challenges of multilevel classes

Multilevel situation causes variety of challenges which threaten to fail all efforts of theteachers in these classes since unsuccessful lessons and students‟ negative reaction they maysee in the lessons merely prove the ineffectiveness of their instructional strategies The variety

of student abilities may bring about numerous problems relating some of the following majorissues (Tice, 1997:5, Hess, 2005:2; Ur, 1996:303)

- Discipline: the teacher in MLC may at time find the class put of his/her control The

breakout of class discipline may result from the boredom when the tasks given are either too easy tosome highly achieved students or challenging to the weak ones Hence, mixed level issue givesteachers the reasonable explanation for the disruption of some weak learners or quick finishersduring or at the end of the activities

- Lack of interest: teachers sometimes say that they can not find topics and activities thatserve all tastes of learners‟ and keep them all interested

- Effective learning for all: homogeneous tasks provided are either too difficult or too easyfor many of them At times, the stronger may get bored if the teacher spends time explaining to theweaker ones; or the less able in reverse may feel witless if teacher give answers to the

better students‟ questions on issues far beyond their level simply because they can hardlyunderstand them

- Materials: teachers can not find suitable material; the textbook are rigidly aimed at only one kind of learner School compulsory syllabus may be to some extentquite challenging to some students, but quite easy to some others

“homogeneous” Individual awareness: The large class size and enormous differences among students make it really hard for teachers to follow students, but quite easy to some others

- Uneven participation: many teachers say that it is impossible to activate them all; only afew students- normally the more proficient and confident ones- seem to be reflective in classactivities; other students are reluctant and sit still This problem becomes more serious whenteachers conduct self-regulated activities (e.g: group work, pair work), finding the strongdomination of competent learner over the tasks.

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

- L1 use: the weaker students are always asking things in their mother tongue and wanteverything explained in it They are not willing to use L2 when the teacher is not with them duringtheir group work

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

1.2.3 Cooperative learning in language pedagogy in multilevel classes

There are many reasons why teachers use cooperative learning in largemultilevel classes However, two main reasons are psychological characteristics of learners inlanguage classes and instructional theories of language acquisition

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

They tend to become more engaged in learning because they are doing it with their peers.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 itseffectiveness of cooperative learning (Bennett& Dunne,1992;Johnson& Johnson,1994;Slavin,1995).Research has shown effective cooperative group to include high-medium andlow-ability students working together Low- and medium-ability students clearly benefit fromworking cooperatively with high-ability peers as opposed to working alone Working inheterogeneous groups may benefit low-ability students by allowing them to observe thestrategies of high-ability students Similarly, placing students in groups and of telling them towork together does not in and of itself produce a cooperative effort There are many ways inwhich such an unstructured group effort can go wrong

1.2.3.2 Pedagogical basis

Cooperative learning is not a completely new invention of methodologists, but adevelopment on the fundamental theories in the history of language education Cooperativelearning method has features characterized and adopted from the early hypotheses about L1acquisition to latest perspectives on learner autonomy and student centeredness in ELT

According to the Input Hypothesis, Krashen (1983) states that we acquire a language

as we access to written and spoken input and comprehend meaning conveyed in that language.Our cognitive process happens when the input is slightly beyond the current level of learnercompetence (i+1 level of the input).On this basis, cooperative learning method helps increasethe quantity of comprehensible input from more competent fellow classmates Group activitiesprovide comprehensible peer input alternating to the teacher source and by some ways create amore motivating, less anxious environment for language use, thus increasing the chances thatstudents will take more input

The supporters of Interaction Hypothesis confirm the increase in the quantity ofcomprehensible input when and while learners interact with their interlocutors.(pica,1994:494) Cooperative method offers an interactive context for the negotiation ofmeaning By encouraging the positive interdependence and individual accountability in group

work, cooperative learning likely gets more interaction of every group member than in thewhole class setting.

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

is necessary but not sufficient for language learning Generating output is vital for learners toupgrade their language proficiency The production via speech or written work helps promotelearner‟s fluency, pushes students to engage in syntactic processing of language rather thanattending to the meaning; and affords students chances to receive feedback from others

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

of more proficient students may be used as a good source of i+1 input to lower learners Bysetting an accommodating environment in class, the teacher may see peer teaching happeneagerly in pairs/groups This benefits both the lower learners and the contemporary teacher‟s,

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

Summary

In short, this chapter briefly reviewed the theoretical background of the study In thefirst place, CL and its connected issues like, underpinning theories, definition, benefits andchallenges were presented in detail Besides, different principles and methods of teaching CLwere also discussed Moreover, empirical studies related to different issues were alsomentioned Finally the researcher focused on the definition, challenges of large multilevelclasses and reasons to apply CL in large multilevel classes All of these lines would be thebasis 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 researchquestions This is followed by an overview of the case study design that provides the rationalefor doing this research The chapter concludes by brief information about data gatheringcollection and data analysis

2.1 Study Aims

The aims of this study were threefold First, it aims to investigate EFL 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 theirclassroom Final, it aims to explore how teachers‟ practices in their classroom reflect theirperceptions.

2.2 Research questions

The study was guided by three main research questions:

1 What were EFL teachers‟ perceptions of different aspects of cooperative learning in their classroom at VNU, HUEB?

2 How did they implement cooperative learning in their classroom?

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

2.3 Research Design

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

a particular EFL context in Vietnam As context is crucial, a case study approach was usedthat examined the particular location and program of teaching I chose the case study methodfor the following reasons

First, a case study is one which seeks a range of different kinds of evidence whichthere is in the case setting, and which has to be abstracted and collated to get the best possibleanswers to the research questions (Gilliham,2000).Robert Yin (1994) describes case studyresearch as consisting of empirical inquiry that:

“● investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context.

● the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clear evidence”

(Yin,cited in Bassey)Secondly, a case study was used not to start out with a priori theoretical notions(whether derived from the literature or not) because until he or she gets in there and gets holdoff data, gets to understand the context, he or she does not know what theories or explanationwork best or make the most sense

Besides, a case study is usually selected because it reflects an important current issue Itmay also be that each case selected for study is, to some extent, typical of a general category and

naturalistic case study is “in tune 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 foryears and therefore it is quite accessible to me McDonough & McDonough (1997) also said that

“teachers 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‟behaviours, learning styles, language development, successes, failures, attitudes and motivation”

More specifically, a multiple-site case study design was applied in order to answer theresearch questions Using this design allowed the researcher to investigate phenomena withintheir real life contexts, while the use of several sites in this study provided a richer and morevaried set of circumstances to investigate (Yin, 2003)

This study aims to investigate EFL teacher‟s perceptions of cooperative learning in their classroom at VNU, UEB and their use of cooperative learning 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 English classes in K56 in VNU,UEB There were sixEnglish classes; number of students in each class ranged from 35 to 45.They is non-Englishmajor

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

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

Program at UEB, students could have chance to choose their own classes, thus their

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

all of them were learning a subject named “Teamwork skills”, thus they had a basic

knowledge of skills to cooperate with each other

2.5 Participants

All six teachers from Division of Economics English, Faculty 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 three of them have been

teaching for three years All of them graduated 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 current name is University

of Languages and International Studies (ULIS), VNU Four of them got master

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

Table 2A: Background information about the participants

teaching experience

1 Female 32 Bachelor in Teacher Language Education 10 years

2 Female 28 Bachelor in Teacher Language Education 5 years

Master in Teacher Language Education

Master in Applied Linguistic

6 Female 25 Bachelor in Teacher Language Education 3 years

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 ofobservation, renewed inquiry, and explanation The researcher considered the quantification ofselected data was necessary to shape and focus the qualitative analysis, and substantiate theresearch findings

To obtain data for the study,two different instruments were employed : interview, andclassroom observation

2.6.1 Interview

2.6.1.1 Rationale

The interview technique was employed in this research because of its advantages overother methods and its fit with the research focus of the 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 aswell as the prior history of the situation that helps identify related evidence (Yin,2003b).Interviews were an appropriate tool to obtain meaningful responses in the studybecause interviews allowed the researcher to examine attitudes, interests, feelings, concernsand values more easily than 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.Therefore, theconvening teachers helped elicit in-depth information other methods might not have generated

Third, many researchers (e.g., Morgan & Kruger, 1993) posit that the use of interview

is a cost effective technique for gathering qualitative information The interview is appropriatewhen the goal is to explain how people regard an experience, which was the intention of thisresearch

The interviews were conducted by the researcher using a semi-structured interviewformat Although a set of questions were prepared, the semi-structured approach allowed theresearcher to be flexible and to follow the participants‟ leads According to Merriam (2001),

semi-structured interviews consist of a range of more and less structured questions, whichensure that interviews remain, focused on key ideas, while at the same time allowing theflexibility to accommodate the different opinions from the participants The nature of semi-structured interviews, which present opportunities to express ideas, is more open thanstructured interviews or questionnaires (Flick, 2006) Interviewees could provide a detailedresponse and pursue topics not covered by questions Therefore interview questions were openand flexible so that interviewees could respond with what was important to them and what mettheir interests Interviewees could provide a detailed response and pursue topics not covered

by questions During the interviews, the researchers tried to probe interviewees‟ experiencesand perception toward those issues

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

2.6.1.2 Teachers’interview

Before the semester started, all six teachers were interviewed individually about theirperceptions and there experiences about using cooperative learning in teaching EFL in largemultilevel classes in UEB,VNU Interview questions focused on examining their perceptions

of different aspects of cooperative learning and barriers hindering cooperative learningpractices

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

In this study, the interview agenda was developed after an intial review of the literature andinformal talk with teachers Besides, interview agenda was developed after an intial review ofthe literature and informal talk with teachers Besides, the interview question also adaptedfrom the research of Robyn M.Gillies and Michael Boyle (2009) It enabled each teacher toelaborate on the eight open questions that were posed with a number of guiding questions

Most of the interviews lasted 45-60 minutes ;The interviews were semi-structured andtook place in each teacher‟s classroom at the teachers‟ time convenient Since the purpose ofthe interview was to have an in-depth understanding of the teachers‟perceptions about using