Cooperative learning

outcomes was conducted through an attempt to submit interpretations of thoughts to the main areas of concern and the research questions, respectively.

could be drawn together. The findings had the following main explanations and interpretations.

4.2.1 Past experience in cooperative learning

When interviewed about this area of concern participants were asked whether they could recall cooperative experiences as learners. In general terms, when thinking about past cooperative behaviours in the classroom, respondents distinguished relationships between the different contexts of learning: elementary, primary, secondary and tertiary education. Some interviewees made reference to approaches used in elementary school and others mentioned learning concerning primary school. It was reported that cooperative approaches had not been established and used at these levels at all. Two typical quotes exemplify this:

I don’t really remember about the primary school. It was more one to class learning.

(R7)

Yes, only in English lessons…only in English lessons….and only in high school and not in elementary school. (R8)

As for secondary education, four participants remembered no such learning opportunities (R1, R2, R3 and R8); one of them (R4) had vague memories about cooperative learning situations, and three respondents (R5, R6 and R7) clearly recalled involvement in team activities. These participants stressed that such opportunities had not been used on a regular basis. For example:

High school experience… I do not really remember my high school experience as sharply as the university experience but sometimes we were working in small groups and we had to do presentation tasks, two or three students but not much more than this.

However, each of the interviewees at this stage of the study stressed that they had encountered numerous and various cooperative learning occasions at CETT. These occasions were particularly related to methodology classes (R2 and R5) as preparation for teaching practice (R2), micro teaching circumstances (R3), literature seminars (R5) and seminars on assessment (R8). In one case (R5), answers were directed to teaching other subjects. A comparison was made (R5) between English and other foreign languages, for instance German. The respondent (R5) noted:

Well, during the language lessons, we had German and English, English was taught in a more communicative way, so there we had to do some projects but it didn't happen so often. Sometimes we had to cooperate with each other but it wasn't so usual or typical.

As for the other subjects, it wasn't at all included that we should do something cooperatively. (R5)

The distinct impression (R6 and R8) was that various cooperative techniques were used in the English classroom rather than in context, related to other subjects in general, and foreign languages in particular. One participant who reflected on her second major, Japanese as a foreign language, pointed out a significant difference:

There was one which I remember but not in details. It was in the methodology class…

micro teaching if I am right… we had to teach some grammar parts in pairs but I do not remember it. I have had no CETT classes since then… only classes for my Japanese major where there are no such tasks….nothing like that. (R3).

It was apparent that a distinction was identified in terms of how various subjects, foreign languages and majors were taught and learnt. A summary of the participants’

views suggested that cooperative approaches were established in different ways in different circumstances of learning. It also appeared that cooperative techniques were more commonly used in TEFL than in other subject areas. Perceptions also implied that

participants remembered more cooperative approaches to learning in their tertiary education.

4.2.2 Cooperative type tasks

The final argument above was supported by most participants as they regarded secondary schools as the environment in which cooperative tasks had been less popular.

As opposed to this, plenty of cooperative learning situations had been reported at CETT. Interviewees emphasized that such circumstances (both secondary and higher education under consideration) had enabled them to participate in a variety of activities such as: projects (R1, R5, R6 and R7), role plays (R6 and R7), presentations (R8), even carrying out research in the classroom (R6). The following quotations illustrate recognition of these type tasks:

Yes, I remember once we had a one-year project. We had a topic and we had to work on it. There were three of us. And at the end of the year we had to present the project in front of the teachers. (R1)

I had a great English teacher in the secondary school. She used lots of communicative tasks and very often we had to act out various roles and we had to improvise in various situations…you know acting out different dialogues, role plays and situations…

basically these. (R6)

I do not really remember my high school experience as sharply as the university experience but sometimes we were working in small groups and we had to do presentation tasks, two or three students but not much more than this. (R8)

Past experience of respondents suggested that cooperative learning was mainly related to pair work tasks (R1, R6, R7 and R8) and group work activities (R1, R and R7). In one case, cooperation was associated with school events (R5). Other participants claimed that working with peers had been most outstanding in discussions (R1) and

speaking activities (R7 and R8). In contrast, translation or grammar-related activities were seen to have lacked collaborative work (R7). In fact, with respect to how cooperative techniques were used, it was also found that participants had worked with their peers mostly in small groups (R1 and R8), obviously to encourage communication between learners.

On balance, it appeared that the emphasis was on learning regarding expression and exchange of ideas. The interviews underlined the point that cooperative tasks were seen as conducive to the development of valuable communication skills and establishment of creative atmosphere as well as to promote creative thinking. In these terms, team learning was regarded especially important as to have the potential to take the members beyond task completion as “when you are working in a group, you do not only learn the language…it is more than learning the language and doing tasks because you learn about cooperation“ (R2). Certainly, expressed in these perceptions was the claim that the cooperative approach to learning reflected genuine collaboration between members, which could take the process towards a broader conceptual orientation in education.

4.2.3 Use of cooperative techniques

In response to an interview question which aimed to examine the use of cooperative techniques, there was awareness of two extremely important aspects of the teaching and learning process. First, responses included a concern with course books. It was felt that course books were an explicit part of the subject. For example, looking back on the textbooks used in the past, one participant (R4) concluded that “cooperative tasks were applied when the course book demanded it”. However, in discussing this question, it was argued that such circumstances had been rare, as course materials had not been

suitable for using cooperative tasks in the classroom (R8). Second, besides linguistic materials, responses also included a consideration of the interest and awareness of teachers (R6). Participants’ learning routines went back to the time when a well established tradition of teaching mostly meant the teacher talking in front of the class (R7 and R8). Other than that, learning environment was associated with much practice based on the teacher-centred format and the learning patterns accompanying it. It was mentioned that some language teachers had accorded little value to cooperative approaches. For instance, responses from interviewees included such statements as:

Only a few times and I think they used these techniques or wanted us to work in pairs or groups when the course book demanded it. That is all. (R5)

I do not think that the books were prepared for that at all. Not even the teachers. I think the teaching style was the same for all these subjects. We were the students and the teacher was in front of us and told us what to do. We were not cooperating or working in groups. (R8)

There were a few teachers who were really keen on these ways of working, not all of them. (R6)

In discussing such findings, it was clearly identified that how systematically cooperative techniques were used depended on (a) how course materials were designed (R8), (b) preparation for teaching (R8), (c) used methods (R8), (d) teachers’ preference for cooperative activities or the lack of it (R6), and (e) teaching styles (R8). In this view, interviewees’ memories emerged as a source of knowledge of the traditional approaches adopted for the teaching/learning process in the past. The answers indicated that individual rather than cooperative behaviours were more common in the classroom.

These findings reinforced the importance of the role of the teacher and context in which cooperative techniques were applied.

4.2.4 Attitudes toward cooperative learning

Respondents were further requested to state what their attitude toward cooperative experiences had been. On the whole, participants were extremely positive towards collaborative learning as a meaningful experience. The prevailing positive attitude toward cooperative learning was recognized in reflections concerning many and varied issues.

First, cooperative experiences were perceived as “very good opportunities to talk to somebody else” (R4). Many interviewees reported receiving the greatest benefit in the area of establishing interactions with group members (R4, R7 and R8). Data also revealed (R7) that extension of vocabulary had been possible through series of interactions and communication. Second, the view was that small group work created better opportunities to plan (R5), collect ideas (R5 and R7), solve problems (R5) and involve different viewpoints (R7). Third, it was felt that cooperative work was more effective and could “give a much better end result” (R6). Fourth, some participants thought that the learning process was interesting and not boring (R5 and R7) or difficult (R8) when there were contributions of group members. Fifth, cooperation was seen (R2) as useful for successful task completion. Sixth, team learning was considered important since peers could complement their efforts in the course of team work;

consequently, they could develop their ability to work with others (R2 and R6).

Seventh, the belief emerged that cooperative techniques were beneficial as “they put people to ease” (R5). The following reflections from the interviews illustrate these points:

And I liked it very much because the time just flew, you know, so it was not that boring.

I think they made the lessons more interesting. I always liked them. (R7)

I liked these cooperative tasks. As I learner I used to be a shy one, in the high school and at the beginning of the university so it was easier for me to work with somebody and stand in front of the group not just alone. (R8)

With regard to the issue of removing the barriers which often impeded learning, participants had similar perceptions of the effects of group work. Such advatageous instances were reported (R3, R4 and R7) in relation to work beyond the power of teachers’ control. Reducing pressure and establishing a more relaxed atmosphere were even seen to have led to discipline problems (R7) and extensive use of the mother tongue rather than the foreign language (R4). However, the major interpretation of the findings was that stimulating the inner freedom of the learners had been extremely important, due to the fact that learners had been encouraged to become spontaneous and ready to communicate. Some interviewees reported:

I liked them because we could talk in Hungarian when the teacher did not pay attention to us and I liked them because mostly my classmates were my friends and these were very good opportunities to talk to somebody else. (R4)

I liked them because I think they gave the opportunity to misbehave in the class. As usually talking or speaking is not allowed when you are in a class and when you have the possibility to talk to the other student and not to the teacher. (R7)

Eighth, the results showed (R4 and R7) that cooperative learning had provided beneficial circumstances for error correction among group members in which they

“became aware of mistakes” (R7). As participants shared positive attitudes to the opportunities for learner-generated repairs, it was noted (R4 and R7) that error correction practices in cooperative learning had facilitated evaluation of group member performance. A student teacher explained that cooperative tasks had been beneficial

was evidence to suggest that level of attention increased, thereby participation in the learning process was much more active. Finally, usefulness of cooperative learning was identified with sharing of responsibilities (R5 and R8). Ultimately, sharing responsibilities was thought to promote confidence and security.

4.2.5 Awareness of cooperative approaches to learning

In general terms, the interviews revealed that awareness was an interesting phenomenon to take into account. In most cases, participants related their awareness of team learning with their positive attitude toward it. With respect to the cooperative learning atmosphere created for participants to work in groups, four of them (R1, R3, R6 and R8) stated that they had been completely aware of the process. It was found that responses were not supported by particular explanations about the degree of awareness.

Nevertheless, a characteristic which carried more value and was more important was that of adequate confidence discerned in the reflections. In contrast, two respondents (R2 and R5) expressed uncertainty about the issue. For example, one interviewee recalled: “I think I was more or less aware of the advantages of these tasks” (R2). Two participants (R4 and R7) claimed lack of awareness: “We were just happy that we could do these pleasant tasks. So, it was good. I do not think we were aware” (R4) or “it was fun and not really awareness” (R7).

In broad terms, it was evident in the light of responses that awareness was often linked with preference to work with group members. It may be concluded that while attitude toward cooperative initiatives remained steadily positive, awareness of such behaviours fluctuated. It was obvious however, that positive attitude toward a cooperative learning environment was not a prerequisite for the awareness of it, in other words, positive

feelings towards the process could exist without the adequate knowledge of it. On the other hand, the present research showed no clear evidence of what helped create awareness. Development of awareness was especially important, as it was claimed (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 153) to be a factor (among a number of factors) which could affect language learning and determine the level of success. This implied that the issue of raising awareness of cooperative learning practices should be borne in mind and treated sensitively, as the end result might be greater commitment and motivational gains in learning.

Taking the above considerations further, it also emerged that cooperation might evoke uncertainty at an early stage. As a matter of fact, the first frustrating impression of cooperation that one participant (R1) formed was based on the lack of knowledge of it, as it was stated:

At first it was frightening and we did not really know what to do but at the end of the year we managed to do it quite well. (R1)

The same interviewee reported that this early difficulty in adjusting to the idea had gradually resulted in enthusiasm about performing in cooperative tasks. Therefore, it became clear that for some people the absence of positive attitude could eventually change and take positive directions (R1). In that particular case, the change might have been due to growing awareness of the process; however, there was no evidence for this claim. The aspect of time was examined again through the perception of another respondent who remarked: “As we went through the years I became more and more aware of why we were doing these activities” (R8). The actual implication here was that both attitude and awareness might require time to develop (R1 and R8).

Apart from time, responses to the questions in the interviews showed awareness of several other factors on which the process of cooperation in learning was perceived to depend. Special attention was paid to the people involved in cooperative learning practices (R5, R6 and R8). For example:

If I could choose the people I could work with, it was usually easier because I chose people about who I knew they would do their job and I could trust them. (R6)

On the whole, reflections were combined towards the view that learning could be facilitated in terms of (a) choosing the partner, (b) knowing the partner and (c) trusting the partner. It was also found that engagement in collaboration in particular circumstances might lead to a domineering relationship (R6) among members.

However, domination by an individual was not seen as an obstacle. It was obvious that even when this was the case, considerable awareness was experienced. Usefulness of learning was identified in the “more fruitful” (R5) environment created in group work.

Performance of particular tasks was seen to become an individual’s “main job” (R6);

therefore, increase of responsibility and a personal gain of confidence were also reported. A final point concerns the view (R6) about the ability to tolerate others, which was found essential and closely related to the demand for developing adaptation skills in situations when cooperative learning occurred.