Chapter 2

Exploring Collaborative Learning:

Theoretical and Conceptual Perspectives

This chapter reviews the literature concerning the key aspects of CL. It opens with a
review of relevant learning theories and the conceptual framework on which this
study is based so that the foundations of CL can be understood. More importantly,
this chapter differentiates some of the confusing concepts such as collaboration,
cooperation, and group work and discusses how they have been researched in their
own realm. A discussion of CL including its denition, rationale, characteristics,
and structures serves as the closing part of this chapter.

2.1 Foundations of Collaborative Learning: Theoretical

Supports
This section presents the supporting theories of CL from Vygotskys social constructivist theory of mind, second language acquisition (henceforth SLA), and
learning motivation. These theories explain the theoretical and conceptual foundations of CL, which have steered this study given that it focuses not only on
individual learners cognitive development, but on the overall development of
learners as well. The order in which the theories are discussed is determined
according to their relevance and importance to this study. Details of how these
theories are related and how they are bound up with CL are explained in turn. In
addition, several of the most important concepts are also explained and discussed
in-depth.

2.1.1 Vygotskian Perspective

The concept of CL is largely rooted in Vygotskys sociocultural theory (SCT)
which views learning as inherently a social process activated through the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) (Dillenbourg 1999). Vygotskys sociocultural views

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

L. Lin, Investigating Chinese HE EFL Classrooms,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44503-7_2

11

12

2 Exploring Collaborative Learning

have contributed signicantly to social constructivist epistemology and highlight

how learning is mediated in accordance with the context and experience with peers.
This view illuminates the causal relationship between social interaction and an
individuals cognitive development. Learning, from the sociocultural perspective, is
essentially a social term rather than individual in nature, where interaction constitutes the learning process (Lantolf and Pavlenko 1995; Lantolf and Thorne 2006).
Social interaction is viewed as a prerequisite for the growth and development of
cognition (Donato and McCormick 1994), and the physical and symbolic tools that
mediate human interaction cannot be separated from the social milieu in which it is
carried out (Wertsch 1993). In other words, mental functions are intertwined with
socioculturally determined factors (Lantolf and Appel 1994, p. 5).
Vygotsky (1978) then based his paradigm on CL, claiming that working with a
more capable person is pertinent to personal development. Vygotsky focused on the
individual powerfully rooted in a CL context and famously made the following
observations: learning is rst mediated on a social level between a child and other
people in his or her environment, and then is internalized by the child on an
individual level. Secondly, learning on the social level often involves mentoring
provided by more knowledgeable persons, either by adults or peers, who engage in
activity with less experienced persons in a process of guidance or collaboration. In
order for learning to process from the social to the individual level, language serves
as a psychological tool to regulate objects, others, and oneself in organizing
functions that are critical to mental activity.
From this perspective, the development of an individual cannot be viewed only as
the study of an individual. The external social world in which the individual life has
developed should also be considered. Thus, learning, with regard to this notion, is
embedded within social events and occurring as a child interacts within people,
objects and events in the environment (Vygotsky 1986, p. 287). More specically,
mental functions such as thinking, reasoning, and problem solving, can be performed by individuals as well as in collaboration with peers (Wertsch and Rogoff
1984).
CL in the Vygotskian tradition aims at social interaction either among students
or between students and a teacher, and essentially assists students in advancing
through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which he dened as: the
distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent
problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers
(Vygotsky 1978, p. 86).
This denition indicates that an individual has two levels of development. The
actual development refers to already-attained mental functions. At the actual level,
the individual works independently without help. In contrast, the potential level of
development refers to the functions that the individual is not able to perform
independently. When the individual works collaboratively with more capable peers,
the potential level of development will be increased. In other words, with the help
of an expert, the individual can do more things, and this is referred to as potential
development. Therefore, the concept of ZPD highlights the interdependence

2.1 Foundations of Collaborative Learning: Theoretical Supports

13

between individuals and the social process in co-constructing knowledge in social

settings (Warschauer 1997). Ones ability to perform cognitive tasks independently
is premised on the prior social process, as this is regarded as the basic tenet of
socioculturalism in which learning is situated within a given context and is influenced by the social and cultural activities one has experienced (Oxford 1997).
Based on these discussions, CL by nature creates opportunities to develop students cognition by actively communicating with more procient peers and thereby
expanding conceptual potential. Thus, within ZPD, more capable students can
provide peers with new ideas and thereby establish a mutually benecial social
process of learning. Peer scaffolding also serves as a mediating tool to promote
learners ZPD and it has a valuable role to play in language learning situations.

2.1.2 SLA Perspective

In SLA, perhaps the best-known perspectives for looking at CL stemmed from
Krashens (1985) Input Hypothesis and Swains (1985, 1995) Output Hypothesis,
both of which provided rationales for why L2 learners achieved better linguistic
competence. The input hypothesis posited that SLA is driven by comprehensible
input (Krashen and Terrell 1983; Krashen 1985). In other words, the development
of second language depends on the amount of comprehensible input that one
receives. This implies that people acquire language when they understand what they
have heard or read. In contrast, if the input is above the current level of L2
prociency, and is thus not comprehensible, the input would not contribute to L2
learning. The output hypothesis, however, claimed that while comprehensible input
is necessary for L2 learning, learners also need opportunities to speak and produce
output in order to restructure their interlanguage grammar (Swain 2000). When
students are asked to clarify their output, they reprocess and modify their interlanguage utterance, which leads to the development of the L2 (Pica 1994).
During CL, the exchange of ideas makes the negotiation of meanings possible.
Through this process, students have the opportunities to both receive input and
produce output. Researchers have investigated conversational interactions amongst
learners to facilitate the ability to take in comprehensible input (Pica 1994; Long
1996). CL makes the input possible as the linguistic level of members in CL groups
may be more or less at the same level. In a similar vein, Ghaith and Yaghi (1998)
also found that CL enriches the language classroom with comprehensible input as
well as promoting frequent and communicative classroom talk in a supportive
environment.
Longs interaction hypothesis (1981, 1983, 1985, 1996) built on the importance
of comprehensible input to L2 learning, and highlighted the role of social interaction in promoting the amount of comprehensible input that students receive
(Krashen 1981). This type of interaction includes learners seeking conrmation and
clarication when they do not understand the input. Pica (1994) claimed that the CL
setting provides students with more opportunities to repair comprehension

14

2 Exploring Collaborative Learning

breakdowns. It is the interaction between learners that drives L2 learning (Storch

2002, 2007).
The idea of learner autonomy in modern educational pedagogy also draws on the
importance of CL. The concept of learner autonomy requires learners to be independent and to become lifelong learners. Thus, CL has the potential to move
students away from their dependence on their teachers and extend their learning on
their own (Sharan 1980; Johnson and Johnson 1989; Slavin 1995).

2.1.3 Motivational Perspective

Research in academic settings has indicated that many difculties faced by L2 learners
in various learning context and situations are related to non-cognitive aspects (Gupta
2004). Learning does not only involve cognitive skills but also includes aspects of
how they feel about learning (Cantwell and Andrews 2002; Jiang 2009). In the eld of
L2 or foreign language learning, motivation has been considered as an important
factor that determines L2 achievement and attainment (Gardner 1985; Scarcella and
Oxford 1992; Drnyei 1994, 1997, 2001). It serves as a driving force to generate
learning at the start, and later as a sustaining impetus while in the long tedious process
of learning a target language (Cheng and Drnyei 2007).
Slavin (1996) criticizes the competitive grading structure of the traditional
classroom for creating opportunities to demonstrate superiority over ones peers,
which can result in a deleterious effect on academic effort. Therefore, motivational
theories have built models of incentive structures which incorporate variables of
both ones own achievement and peers attainment into CL methods. The rationale
for the CL structure is that if learners value the success of the group, they will be
motivated to help one another to achieve as well (Table 2.1 illustrates in detail the
characteristics of CL compared with traditional classes).
While linking motivation with CL, social psychologists have assumed that
attitudes exert a direction influence on ones behavior (Drnyei 2001). This
behavioral perspective presupposes that collaborative efforts are fuelled by extrinsic
motivations so as to achieve the group rewards. Motivational theorists consider that
the inherent structure of CL creates a situation in which members in the group are
able to attain personal learning objectives if the co-constructive learning is successful. Drnyei (2001) further comments that, in a CL directed class, learners work
with their peers so that responsibility for the learning outcomes is shared. Students
are equally rewarded, which is in contrast to a competitive structure in which only
the best learner in the class is praised (see Sect. 2.3 for details). Jones and Issroff
(2005) therefore conclude that CL combines many aspects of the advantages of
individual and social processes of learning, contributing to group members participation and energizing students learning by generating a powerful motivational
system which ultimated results in a better repertoire of performance.
Another theory related to the motivational perspectives on CL is the Social
Interdependence Theory. Unlike the idea from motivational theorists that students

2.1 Foundations of Collaborative Learning: Theoretical Supports

15

Table 2.1 Characteristics of CL and traditional language teaching mode

Characteristics

Collaborative

Traditional

Goal structure
Role of students

Collaborative
Active participation, autonomous
learners
Facilitator, guide

Competitive or individualistic
Passive recipients

Role of teacher

Material used
Types of activities

Types of interaction
Classroom physical
set-up
Teacher-student
relationship
Independence
Learning expectations

Materials are arranged according

to the purpose of learning
Various types of activities to
engage learners in a shared
learning community
Intense studentstudent
interaction
U-shaped or CL groups
Collaborative and equal

None or negative
Group success as well as
individuals
Adapted from Zhang (2010)

Controller, knowledge
transmitter, major source of
assistance
Completed set of materials
assigned by university
Knowledge recall and review;
language drill practice
Some talking among students,
mainly teacherstudent type
Traditional rows of separate
desks
Superiorinferior, or equal
Positive
Evaluating ones own
progress in learning

collaboration is due to the incentive structures, social interdependence theorists

emphasize that the reasons for peer assistance is because of the care for other
members in the group. This perspective postulates that the effects of CL are strongly
mediated by the cohesiveness of the group, which, according to Clment et al.
(1994), is a signicant component of L2 motivation. Johnson et al. (1994) explain
that group cohesiveness is an index of the level of group development, and it
determines peer interaction, which in turn determines the learning outcomes. Slavin
(1995) further indicates that cohesive groups are more productive than non-cohesive
ones. In other words, positive interdependence resulted in promotive interaction as
group members encouraged and facilitated one anothers efforts. The more time
members of group spend together, the higher inter-member acceptance and collaboration become (Slavin 1995). Drnyei (1997) therefore views CL as an effective
way of creating a cohesive group for the following reasons. It recognizes the
importance of teambuilding and contains regular self-evaluation, and the emerging
cohesiveness in CL classrooms is also a function of the special dynamics of the CL
process. Furthermore, students are able to control and organize their own learning.
These two aforementioned views explain the instructional effectiveness of CL
from a perspective of motivation, drawing on concepts of intrinsic or extrinsic
motivation. The motivationalists base their claims on extrinsic motivation, whereas
the stance of social cohesion theorists rests on intrinsic motivation. However, both
perspectives combined, as Chen (2008) and Drnyei (1997) suggest, generate a

16

2 Exploring Collaborative Learning

powerful motivational system considered to be particularly fostered by CL, which

includes high incentives and high expectations of success as well as intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation (Johnson and Johnson 1999a, b).
To sum up, the three perspectives discussed above all have well-established
theoretical rationales and supporting evidence (see Sects. 2.4, 3.1 and 3.2 for
detailed pedagogical and empirical evidence). Vygotskian social-constructivist
ideas recognize that the individuals cognitive development is bound up with social
interaction in learning groups and cannot be separated from social life (Vygotsky
1978). This perspective stresses that CL is essential in assisting students development through the zone of proximal development. The SLA theories, however,
acknowledge the importance of receiving comprehensible input and producing
comprehensible output in language learning as the basic standpoint, and propose
that CL allows for the exchange of meanings, and thus it is argued that CL is an
effective mode of second-language acquisition (Swain and Lapkin 1998). In contrast to socioculturalism and SLA theories, the motivationalists viewed CL in terms
of the impact of the incentive structures of CL, whereas social interdependence
theory emphasizes the cohesiveness of the group, and both explore the extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation inherent in CL. Although these theoretical perspectives stemmed from different paradigms, they can all contribute to explaining the effectiveness
of CL. The next section discusses in detail what CL is, and its characteristics and
rationales for use. Some of the most signicant components and structures connected to CL are presented and elaborated as well.

2.2 Denitions and Typology of Collaborative Learning

2.2.1 Denitions
Swain (1997, 2000) describes CL as one of the most important and most effective
means by which learning can take place, and a focus on the mutual exploration of a
subject by means of social interaction with peers and between learners and teachers
has experienced a long history. Dillenbourg (1999, p. 1) gives a global denition to
CL as a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something
together. In this denition, as italicized, two or more people can be interpreted as a
pair, a small group with three to ve learners, a class of 2030 students, a community
of a few hundred or thousand people, or a society of several thousand or millions of
people. Learn, indicates the attendance to a course, a study of the teaching materials, a participation in the learning activities, or the accumulation of lifelong work
practice. Together connotes the various types of social interaction, such as face-toface interaction, interaction mediated by computer, whether or not it is a truly joint
achievement, and if the work is arranged in a systematic way (Dillenbourg 1999).

2.2 Denitions and Typology of Collaborative Learning

17

While extending the denition to the classroom setting, Gokhale (1995, p. 22)
terms CL as an instructional method in which students at various performance
levels work together in small groups toward a common goal. His elaboration
emphasizes a shared responsibility for ones own learning as well as others among
learners. Thus, the success of one student depends largely on other students, that is,
one student helps others to be successful as well. From this perspective, CL
describes a situation where particular forms of interaction among learners are
expected to occur, which in turn triggers the learning mechanism.
Jacobs et al. (2002, p. 1) also give an explanation of CL as principles and
techniques for helping students work together more effectively. This point stresses
that CL involves more than putting students to work together in groups. Instead,
conscious efforts are made to help students make their learning experience as
successful as possible.
As these denitions indicate that CL is an umbrella term that describes a wide
variety of behaviors. In the most general sense, it occurs when more than one
person works on a single task. However, for the purpose of this research, it is
necessary to draw some specic parameters around what the term refers to. The
following denition developed by the present researcher delineates the kind of
behavior that this study focuses on:
A formal group of four students working together on specic collaborative
learning tasks in the EFL classroom to mutually construct and maintain a shared
conception of knowledge whereby collaborative learning is the principal instructional approach employed in the teaching and learning processes to maximize
students learning.
As shown, the number of students during CL is specied as four. This is predetermined by considering the number of students in the class where the research is
conducted. The composition of the group is heterogeneous, indicating a mixed
gender and levels of English included. The CL tasks are carefully designed to
correspond to the intended learning objectives of each teaching unit (see Sect. 4.5
for details on how CL tasks are designed and implemented). The CL approach is
employed as a systematic instructional method in which students worked together
in small groups to accomplish shared learning goals (Sect. 4.5 illustrates how CL
was integrated into classroom teaching). The focus of this denition is on peer
collaboration as mutual engagement where members of the group are supportive of
each other, and that equal opportunities are provided to opine opinions. Furthermore, the interaction pattern in this study is face-to-face, and thus peer collaboration
is regarded in terms of synchronous activities. The notion of shared conception of
knowledge is central to this denition, as social interaction in this context occurred
in a jointly negotiated and shared conceptual space where knowledge is learned as a
consequence. Despite these key illustrations, it should also be noted that in the CL
class in this study, other teaching methods and note-taking processes may not
disappear entirely, but occur alongside with CL which is based on students discussion and working with their learning themselves. Although this denition does

18

2 Exploring Collaborative Learning

not mention the role of teachers, it does however indicate that the teachers who
employ CL as a teaching innovation tend to perform less as expert transmitters of
knowledge, and more as facilitators and designers of students intellectual experiences in a more emergent learning process.

2.2.2 Collaboration, Cooperation, and Group Work

as Different Communicative Strands
The debate about collaboration versus cooperation is rather complex, since common
usage tends to treat the two concepts as the same and these terms may be used
interchangeably (Nunan 1992; Clark et al. 2007). However, researchers such as
Roschelle and Teasley (1995), Dillenbourg et al. (1996), and Oxford (1997) have
made some discussions between collaboration and cooperation as two different
communicative strands in L2/EFL classrooms. Therefore, it is useful to specify the
phenomenon that this study seeks to understand.
According to Oxford (1997), collaboration is distinguished from cooperation in
that cooperative learning is considered more structured in its form, more prescriptive
to teachers about the teaching technique, more directive to students concerning how to
work together in groups, and more targeted. CL, in contrast, is related to social
constructivist epistemology, with the goal of acculturating students into the immediate community of learning and the wider world of the target language and culture.
Roschelle and Teasley (1995, p. 70) give a more detailed explanation, suggesting that
cooperative work is accomplished by the division of labor among participants, as an
activity where each person is responsible for a portion of the problem-solving,
whereas CL involves the mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to
solve the problem together. Based on these discussions, it seems quite clear that
cooperation and collaboration differ in the sense of epistemological issues and distribution of labor, where Oxfords classication is more oriented to negotiation and
fulllment of learning potential, but ignores the structures of learning in the L2
classrooms, as learning is rst goal-oriented and needs to be carefully planned by the
teacher. Besides, dening collaboration in terms of the distribution of labor does not
avoid ambiguity since some spontaneous division of labor may also occur in CL
(Dillenbourg et al. 1996). Miyake (1986, p. 174) nds that the person who has more
to say about the current topic takes the task-doers role, while the other becomes an
observer, monitoring the situation. The observer can contribute by criticizing and
giving topic-divergent motions, which are not the primary roles of the task-doer.
Based on this assertion, cooperative learning and CL do not differ in terms of whether
or not the task is distributed. Matthews et al. (1995) therefore call for building bridges
between cooperation and collaboration. The present study, however, does not assume
the dichotomous perspective which treats cooperative learning and CL as two strands,
nor does it integrate them into one paradigm. It draws the notion of CL from the
generic sense but also integrates the essential elements of cooperative structures into

2.2 Denitions and Typology of Collaborative Learning

19

formal English teaching. This is because, in innovative classrooms of this study,

although CL is adopted, it should be implemented while taking into account the
teaching/learning structures for organizing and conducting classroom instruction (see
Sect. 2.6 for details). Meanwhile, while the social constructivist perspective addresses
the importance of the negotiation of meanings, in this research context learning is rst
goal-oriented and so the teaching model is still teacher-directed. The CL tasks are
assigned to provide a more student-centered learning atmosphere, whereas teachers
are ready for help when necessary and monitor students behaviors and the whole
learning process. Hence, the teaching model in this study involves both learning and
collaboration, and the aims of CL also include both academic as well as collaborative
learning objectives (see Fig. 4.2).
However, before ending this section it is also necessary to mention the notion of
group work, which shares some similarities with but differs from the concept of CL
to a certain extent. It is evident that the concept of group work is still in use in some
research (Pica and Doughty 1985; Flowerdew 1998; Huong 2003, 2006; Melles
2004; Chen and Hird 2006; Jiang 2009); however, little has explained as to how
group work is differentiated from CL. Therefore, the difference between the two
concepts deserves clarication. Woolfolk (2004) highlights that group work is
simply several students working together; however, it may not be cooperating.
Furthermore, group work is merely the rst step toward making students work
collaboratively. Group work, however, can be still effective, but real CL requires
much more than simply putting students in groups (Woolfolk 2004).

2.3 Characteristics of Collaborative Learning

This section presents the characteristics of CL as compared with traditional language teaching approaches so that its characteristics can be clearly demonstrated.
Jacob et al. (1996) claim that group presents a precondition for CL, and is the word
that should be emphasized, being the fundamental structure in which learners work
and learn. Johnson and Johnson (1979) highlight the goal structure of CL, which
helps to give an understanding of how it works differently from traditional learning.
According to Johnson and Johnson (1979), the goal structure refers to the type of
interdependence amongst students as they strive to achieve learning goals, and can
be classied into three categories: collaborative, competitive, and individualistic. In
a collaborative goal structure, an individual is able to achieve learning goals when
their peers also achieve theirs. However, the type of relationship involved in a
competitive goal structure is opposite to that in a collaborative structure. In other
words, an individual student achieves while others do not. In the individualistic
structure, no interrelation between the goal attainments of the different students is
involved, indicating that ones success is independent from that of others. Based on
this classication, it is clear that CL belongs to the category of collaborative goal
structure while the competitive and individualistic goal structures are more likely to

20

2 Exploring Collaborative Learning

involve the traditional teacher-fronted learning (Zhang 2010). Table 2.1 compares
the characteristics of CL with these of traditional Chinese language teaching in the
following respects: the role of the language teacher and students, learning materials
used, types of classroom activities, types of interaction, classroom layout, and
teacherstudent relationship as well as learning expectations.
The traditional language teaching in study refers to the teacher-centered method in
which many of the ingredients of grammar-translation and audio-lingual methods are
used in language teaching and learning. Such teaching concentrates on making students aware of certain aspects of language without providing sufcient practice. Most
interaction in EFL classroom is still teacherstudent/s and student-initiated interaction. Studentstudent interaction is minimal. Students are considered to be passive
recipients of language knowledge rather acquiring communicative competence. CL,
in contrast, shares some characteristics in common with communicative language
teaching (CLT), which highlight both interaction and communication among students
and between students and teachers (Zhang 2010). The role of the language teacher is
more like a facilitator rather than a controller in the classroom. A positive learning
atmosphere is established, which is more conducive to learning. Besides this, a
respect for integrative development allows for personal growth, the enhancement of
responsibility, and learner autonomy. The activities used in class are closely related to
the learning objectives, involving more diversity compared to the traditional language class where the dominant classroom activities are solely to practice basic
language knowledge, such as grammar and translation exercises (Sect. 4.5.2
describes the design of the CL tasks for this study). However, CL differs most from
the traditional teaching approach in the promotion of interaction, which allows
learners to work together rather than competing with each other individually. Harmer
(1991) proposes that CL maximizes the opportunities for students to interact and
collaborate with one another as they work toward a common learning goal. Through
interaction, students become actively and constructively involved in the learning
content, and take the ownership of their own learning as well as that of others.
It should be made clear that, to a large extent, although the characteristics of
traditional language teaching and CL differ, overlaps may exist when used concurrently in an English class, which may be particularly the case in the Chinese EFL
class, as teachers need to use traditional methods to direct and lead students in
English learning due to students limited English prociency. This also relates to
the difculty of learning and language learning objectives, as CL may not dominate
a 50-min class if there is a need that teachers explain the difcult language points
for students using traditional approach. Learning sometimes may go beyond students actual level to solve problems even in the presence of more capable peers.
Besides, overlapping may also emerge if an English class involves both individual
and collaborative learning objectives. In such circumstance, the role of both teacher
and students may shift between collaborative and individualistic goal structure, and
so do the types of activities used and interaction pattern. In other words, the
characteristics of both traditional and CL approaches may be fluid in that they may
be shifted in different stages of learning while students English prociency,
learning objectives, and degree of learning difculty are considered. In this study,

2.3 Characteristics of Collaborative Learning

21

CL is used to solve the educational problems posed in Chap. 1 and to rejuvenate

learning and teaching in the Chinese EFL classroom; nonetheless, the traditional
teaching approach will be used together with CL approach.

2.4 Rationale for Collaborative Learning

The study of CL has strong pedagogical and theoretical support (Storch 2007).
Generally, CL is found to:

2.4.1 Provide More Language Practice Opportunities

This perspective is highly supported by the traditional method as a means to maximize students language practice opportunities, as students work together to fulll a
common goal by using the basic language skills (Long and Porter 1985; Harmer
1991). Researchers such as Long and Porter (1985) and DiNitto (2000) claim that one
principal cause of students low achievement of many L2 learners is simply due to the
inadequate time they have to practice the language. Long and Porter in the early 1980s
have found from the observational evidence, indicting that in a 50-min English class,
the average time allocated for each student is only 30 s (Long and Porter 1985).
Xi et al. (2007), Zhang (2010) correspond to the early ndings, claiming that the
situation is more serious in large EFL classrooms in China when there is an urgent
need for students to develop their oral skills. CL, therefore, helps to increase the total
individual language practice time by arranging students into small groups where more
time can be allocated and more turns of conversation can be realized.

2.4.2 Improve the Quality of Students Talk

Ohta (1995, 2000) assumes that collaborative talk provides more chances to produce language in a functional manner. Zhang explains that, particularly in a traditional EFL classroom, discourse is initiated by the teacher in an articial setting,
whereas CL can be employed to create a social setting that mimics real-life in the
way that language is used. It helps students produce not only in terms of the
quantity, but also the quality of speech by engaging themselves in requesting,
clarifying, and negotiating conversation during CL. In addition, in a CL directed
learning context, the adjustment of language occurs as students need to make
themselves understood (Long and Porter 1985). This implies that students speak in
different ways to ensure that their peers listen and are able to comprehend ideas
from various sources, which encourages students to speak more accurately and use
appropriate language.

22

2 Exploring Collaborative Learning

2.4.3 Create a Positive Learning Climate

According to Bareld (2003), language learning is an emotional and psychological
experience to some extent. Lack of self-condence will affect students learning
(Jiang 2009). DiNitto (2000, p. 182) further argues that a public arena of language
is an unsupportive and stressful environment. It seems that the traditional competitive structure of the classroom makes students fearful of making mistakes or
losing face in public, and they are vulnerable to what they may perceive as
criticism and rejection (Brown 1994, p. 174). This is, however, not the case in CL,
as it offers learners a much closer and more comfortable feeling without being
watched by the whole class or the teacher (Jiang 2009). It frees the learners from
requirement for accuracy at all costs and facilitates students entry into the richer
and more accommodating set of relationships in small group interaction, in which a
more comfortable and safe environment can be therefore created (Long and Porter
1985, p. 212). Delucchi (2006) reports that students engaged in CL activities are
able to exchange diverse opinions due to the low-anxiety situation and this leads to
more effective learning. DiNitto (2000) further claims that CL allows for the
negotiation of meanings and therefore the learners understanding is reshaped. All
of these improvements will occur in a positive affective situation of learning.

2.4.4 Promote Social Interaction

Brown (1994, p. 159) asserts that the best way to learn to interact is through
interaction itself. CL provides learners with a stage to interact with their peers in a
psychologically comfortable and secure situation. In addition, students are able to
develop their cognitive learning and interactive skills. In the process of completing
the CL tasks, learners are exposed to new ideas and information from different
perspectives and approaches through discussing, questioning, and organizing processes, which in turn facilitate students comprehension and internalization of
critical concepts. Their linguistic competence and communicative skills will be
improved as well (Jiang 2009).

2.4.5 Allow for Critical Thinking

Participating in CL makes students more critical in their thinking (Gokhale 1995).
Maesin et al. (2009) argue that the likelihood of critical thinking is dictated by the
learning environment and the teaching approach used. In Gokhales (1995)
investigation of the effectiveness of individual versus collaborative learning in
enhancing drill-practice skills and critical-thinking skills, the results reveal that
students engaging in CL performed signicantly better compared with those who

2.4 Rationale for Collaborative Learning

23

studied individually. This is because CL encourages critical thinking through the

problem-solving process (Johnston et al. 2000). In other words, CL fosters the
development of critical thinking skills through discussion, clarication and
the evaluations of peers opinions. In a similar vein, Hussain (2004) researched
web-based CL and indicated that students are able to expand and stretch their
creativity to think of innovative ideas. Gokhale (1995) therefore concludes that, if
the learning purpose is to enhance learners critical thinking and problem-solving
skills, CL is more benecial than individual learning in this respect.
However, there are still other additional benets supportive to CL, such as
fostering learners responsibility and independence. Ellis (2003) suggests that, by
working with a wide range of peers, social and cognitive skills can be acquired and
these skills will in turn assist students in performing individual tasks. Studies have
also indicated that there are benecial effects on students intrinsic motivation (Long
and Porter 1985; Drnyei 1997; Johnson and Johnson 1999a, b; Jones and Issroff
2005). CL also enhances students performance (Cantwell and Andrews 2002; Gupta
2004) and promotes lifelong learning skills (Boud et al. 1999). In addition to these
recognized merits, CL is considered to be able to heighten students self-esteem as
well as increase learners self-condence (Slavin 1995, 1996). According to Jiang
(2009), CL helps students build greater condence and self-esteem than will occur in
a competitive learning classroom and this will lead to increased efforts in language
learning and greater willingness to take risks in learning.

2.5 Essential Components of Collaborative Learning

Kagan (1994) highlights four main elements of CL: simultaneous interaction,
positive interdependence, individual accountability and equal participation. In
contrast to the traditional classroom where one person talks at a time, usually the
teacher who does most of the talking, CL provides active participation for all the
students at the same time. The structure of the traditional classroom limits learners
in practicing the language skills, and observational research indicates that up to
6070 % of the time is devoted to teacher-centered interaction. In comparison,
2550 % of the students can be talking at any given time in CL, depending on
whether pair work or group work is being used (McGroarty 1989). In addition,
students are given specic instructions in CL activities, such as paraphrasing,
summarizing, clarifying, or indicating agreement or disagreement, all of which are
benecial to the language acquisition process. Positive interdependence occurs
when group members need to depend on each other to achieve the task. Students
work together to help each other and ensure that all have learned the materials. In
completing the tasks, each member of the group feels in charge of his own and
peers learning and makes an active contribution to the group, and hence every
individual learner contributes to learning attainment. Finally, as participation is part
of the learning process and an important element for students success, students in

24

2 Exploring Collaborative Learning

CL therefore learn by interacting with the materials and peers and each student has
an equal opportunity to participate in the process and in the nal product of an
activity (Kagan 1994).

2.6 Collaborative Learning Structures

The structures used in CL vary, as well as variation among them. This section
reviews the structures used during teaching intervention. As early as the 1980s,
Kagan (1989) pointed out that the structural approach to studying CL is largely
based on creation, analysis, and systematic application of structures. The rationale
for the use of structures in CL is that they allow teachers and students to learn and
adopt various social interaction sequences. CL structures, as the name suggests,
refer to the content-free ways of organizing social interaction in the classroom.
They involve a series of steps, which prescribe behaviors at each step. According to
Kagan (1989), Slavin (1990) and Olsen and Kagan (1992), structures may be used
repeatedly with almost any subject matter, various in grade levels and at various
points in a lesson plan. The use of structures in CL promotes the academic progress
of students with many subject matters, and indicates a strong tie between what
students do and learn. Each of the structures has different functions and domains of
usefulness and help both teachers and students to reach the learning objectives in a
more efcient way. Hence, teachers who have some understanding and are able to
use a range of structures can design various types of CL tasks and efciently
produce specic academic, cognitive, and social outcomes of learning. Further,
Kagan and Kagan (1994) emphasize that the use of CL structures builds in the four
main elements of CL mentioned previously of simultaneous interaction, positive
interdependence, individual accountability, and equal participation. Besides, one
key component of the structural approach is class building, requiring teachers and
students to co-construct the social learning atmosphere in the classroom so as to be
positive and supportive as possible, with the aims of getting acquainted and
establishing mutual support. The use of structures also calls for a need to change the
management style of teachers in a CL classroom, where students are given permission to talk and work together (Kagan and Kagan 1994). Therefore, the use of
CL structures in the present study intends to create effective lessons that engage and
improve the learning of the students. And the traditional teaching class is thus
shifted to more student-centered learning. Table 2.2 shows a sample of CL structures used in the present study, including the adapted and self-designed ones.

References

25

Table 2.2 Review of the CL structures used during the teaching intervention
Structures adapted

Brief description

Concept development
Think-pair-share
Students think to themselves on a
topic provided, rst on their own
to reach consensus and share with
other peers and then the entire
class
Three-stepStudents interview each other in
interview
the group, rst one-way, and then
the other. Each shares the information they learned in the
interview
Multifunctional
Co-op Co-op
Students work in groups to produce a particular CL product to
share with the whole class, each
makes contribution to the completion of the task
Communication
Match mine
Students attempt to match the
arrangements from two columns
with one student reads the items
and other others respond, using
oral communication only
Mastery of knowledge
Role-taking
Students each performs a role in a
situational context and makes
dialog with peers
Finding
Students compare and contrast the
differences and
similarities and differences based
making
on the understanding of and
comparisons
familiarity with the topic provided

Academic and social functions

Express opinions, inductive and
deductive reasoning; enhancing
participation and involvement

Sharing and getting acquainted

with peers, enhancing participation, developing listening, speaking, and communicative skills

Learning and sharing complex

materials (multiple sources),
developing analysis, synthesis,
conflicts resolution and
presentation skills
Vocabulary development, roletaking ability, communication
skills

Developing listening, speaking,

communication skills and memorizing facts
Understanding and differentiating
ideas and concepts; developing
analysis and synthesis skills;
enhancing skills in making
suggestions

References
Bareld RL (2003) Students perceptions of and satisfaction with group grades and the group
experience in the college classroom. Assess Eval Higher Edu 28(4):355369
Boud D, Cohen R, Sampson J (1999) Peer learning and assessment. Assess Eval Higher Edu 24
(4):413426
Brown HD (1994) Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Cantwell RH, Andrews B (2002) Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary
students feelings towards group work. Edu Psychol Int J Exp Edu Psychol 22(1):7591
Chen Hsiu-chuan (2008) Cooperative learning on second/foreign language education: theory and
practice. Acad J Kang Ning 10:197216
Chen RY, Hird B (2006) Group work in the EFL classroom in China: a closer look. RELC J 37
(1):91103

26

2 Exploring Collaborative Learning

Cheng HF, Drnyei Z (2007) The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: the case of
EFL teaching in Taiwan. Innov Lang Learn Teach 1(1):153174
Clark J, Baker T, Li MS (2007) Student success: bridging the gap for chinese students in
collaborative learning. In: 2007 ISANA International conference Student Success in
International Education, 2730 Nov, Stamford Grand, Glenelg, Adelaide, Australia. http://
www.isana.org.au/les/isana07nal00011.pdf. Accessed on 18 June 2010
Clment R, Drnyei Z, Noels KA (1994) Motivation, self-condence and group cohesion in the
foreign language classroom. Lang Learn 44(3):417448
Delucchi M (2006) The efcacy of collaborative learning groups in an undergraduate statistics
course. College Teach 54(2):244248
Dillenbourg P (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning? In: Dillenbourg P (ed)
Collaborative-learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 119
Dillenbourg P, Baker M, Blaye A, OMalley C (1996) The evolution of research on collaborative
learning. In: Spada E, Reiman P (eds) Learning in humans and machine: towards an
interdisciplinary learning science. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 189211
DiNitto R (2000) Can collaboration be unsuccessful? a sociocultural analysis of classroom setting
and Japanese L2 performance in group tasks. J Assoc Teach Jpn 34(2):179210
Donato R, McCormick D (1994) A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: the
role of mediation. Mod Lang J 78(4):453464
Drnyei Z (1994) Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Mod Lang J 78
(3):273284
Drnyei Z (1997) Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: group dynamics and
motivation. Mod Lang J 81(4):482493
Drnyei Z (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. In: Christopher N, David R (eds) Applied
linguistics in action series. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow
Ellis R (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Flowerdew L (1998) A cultural perspective on group work. ELT J 52(4):323328
Gardner RC (1985) Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes and
motivation. Edward Arnold, London
Ghaith GM, Yaghi HM (1998) Effect of cooperative learning on the acquisition of second
language rules and mechanics. System 26(2):223234
Gokhale AA (1995) Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. J Technol Edu 7(1):2230
Gupta ML (2004) Enhancing student performance through cooperative learning in physical
sciences. Assess Eval High Edu 29(1):6373
Harmer J (1991) The Practice of English language teaching (New Eds.). Longman Group UK
Limited, UK. How do cooperative and collaborative learning differ from the traditional approach?
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/coopcollab/index_sub1.html. Accessed on 6th
August 2011
Huong LPH (2003) What does a more knowledgeable peer mean? A socio-cultural analysis of
group interaction in a Vietnamese classroom. Paper Presented at the NZARE/AARE Joint
Conference in Auckland, 29th Nov3rd Dec 2003. http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/le03008.pdf.
Accessed on 3 March 2010
Huong LPH (2006) Learning vocabulary in group work in Vietnam. RELC J Reg Lang Center J 37
(1):105121
Hussain RMR (2004) A collaborative learning experience of evaluating a web-based learning tool.
Malays Online J Instr Technol (MOJIT) 1(2):6772
Jacob E, Rottenberg L, Patrick S, Wheeler E (1996) Cooperative learning: context and
opportunities for acquiring academic English. TESOL Q 30(2):253280
Jacobs GM, Power MA, Loh WI (2002) The teachers sourcebook for cooperative learning: practical
techniques, basic principles and frequently asked questions. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks
Jiang YM (2009) Applying group work to improve college students oral English. Int Edu Stud 2
(3):136139
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1979) Conflict in the classroom: controversy and learning. Rev Edu
Res 49(1):5169

References

27

Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1989) Cooperation and completion: theory and research. Interaction
Book Company, Edina
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1999a) Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic learning, 5th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1999b) Making cooperative learning work. Theory Pract 38(2):6773
Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Holubec EJ (1994) The new circles of learning: cooperation in
classroom and school. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria
Johnston CG, James RH, Lye JN, McDonald IM (2000) An evaluation of collaborative problem
solving for learning economics. J Econ Edu 31(1):1329
Jones A, Issroff K (2005) Learning technologies: affective and social issues in computer-supported
collaborative learning. Comput Educ 44(4):395408
Kagan S (1989) Cooperative learning resources for teachers. University of California, San Juan
Capistrano
Kagan S (1994) Cooperative learning. Resources for Teachers Inc, San Clemente
Kagan S, Kagan M (1994) The structural approach: six keys to cooperative learning. In: Sharan S
(ed) Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Greenwood Press, Westport
Krashen SD (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press,
Oxford
Krashen SD (1985) the input hypothesis: issues and implications. Longman, New York
Krashen SD, Terrell TD (1983) The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. The
Alemany Press, Hayward
Lantolf JP, Appel G (eds) (1994) Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Ablex
Publication Co., Westport
Lantolf JP, Pavlenko A (1995) Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annu Rev
Appl Linguist 15:108124
Lantolf JP, Thorne SL (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Long MH (1981) Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In: Winitz H (ed) Native
language and foreign language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
p. 379
Long MH (1983) Linguistics and conversational adjustments to non-native speaker. Stud Second
Lang Acquis 5(2):177193
Long MH (1985) Input and second language acquisition theory. In: Gass SM, Madden CG (eds)
Input in second language acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, pp 377393
Long MH (1996) The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie
WC, Bhatia TK (eds) Handbook of second language acquisition. Academic, New York,
pp 413468
Long MH, Porter PA (1985) Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition.
TESOL Q 19(2):207228
Maesin A, Mansor M, Shae LA, Nayan S (2009) A study of collaborative learning among
Malaysian undergraduates. Asian Soc Sci 5(7):7076
Matthews RS, Cooper JL, Davidson N, Hawkes P (1995) Building bridges between cooperative
and collaborative learning. Change 27(4):3740
McGroarty M (1989) The benets of cooperative learning arrangements in second language
instruction. NABE J Nat Assoc Bilingual Edu 13(2):127143
Melles G (2004) Understanding the role of language/culture in group work through qualitative
interviewing. Qual R 9(2):216240
Miyake N (1986) Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cogn Sci 10
(2):151177
Nunan D (1992) Research methods in language learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ohta AS (1995) Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: learner-learner
collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues Appl Linguist 6(2):93121

28

2 Exploring Collaborative Learning

Ohta AS (2000) Rethinking interaction in SLA: developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone
of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In: Lantolf JP (ed) Sociocultural
theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 5178
Olsen RE, Kagan S (1992) About Cooperative Learning. In: Kessler C (ed) Cooperative language
learning: a teachers resource book. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 130
Oxford R (1997) Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: three communication strands in the language classroom. Mod Lang J 81(4):443456
Pica T (1994) Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning
conditions, processes and outcomes? Lang Learn 44(3):493527
Pica T, Doughty C (1985) The role of group work in classroom and second language acquisition.
Stud Second Lang Acquisit 7:233248
Roschelle J, Teasley S (1995) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem
solving. In: OMalley CE (ed) Computer supported collaborative learning. Springer,
Heidelberg, pp 69197
Scarcella R, Oxford R (1992) The Tapestry of language learning: the individual in the
communicative classroom. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Boston
Sharan S (1980) Cooperative learning in small groups: recent methods and effects on achievement,
attitudes and ethnic relations. Rev of Edu Res 50(2):241271
Slavin RE (1990) Cooperative learning: theory, research and practice. Allyn & Bacon, Boston
Slavin RE (1995) Cooperative learning: theory, research and practice, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs
Slavin RE (1996) Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we
need to know. Contemp Educ Psychol 21:4369
Storch N (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Lang Learn 52(1):119158
Storch N (2007) Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Lang
Teach Res 11(2):143159
Swain M (1985) Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass SM, Madden CG (eds) Input in second
language acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, pp 235253
Swain M (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook G, Seidlhofer B
(eds) Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Swain M (1997) Collaborative dialogue: its contribution to second language learning. Revista
Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 34:115132
Swain M (2000) the output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative
dialogue. In: Lantolf JP (ed) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp 97114
Swain M, Lapkin S (1998) Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent french
immersion students working together. Mod Lang J 82(3):320337
Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge
Vygotsky LS (1986) Thought and language. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Warschauer M (1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: theory and practice. Mod Lang J
81(4):470481
Wertsch JV (1993) Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge
Wertsch JV, Rogoff B (1984) Editors notes. In: Rogoff B, Wertsch JV (eds) Childrens learning in
the Zone of Proximal Development. Jossey-Bass Inc Publishers, San Francisco, pp 16
Woolfolk A (2004) Educational psychology. Pearson Education Inc, Boston
Xi HM, Li R, Zhang H (2007) A study on group work in college english collaborative teaching.
Sino-US Eng Teach 4(2):17
Zhang Y (2010) Cooperative language learning and foreign language learning and teaching.
J Lang Teach Res 1(1):8183

http://www.springer.com/978-3-662-44502-0