# Teachers' Strategies: Collaborative Learning in Second Language Classroom

Daria Vilkova, Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Francis Jambon

► To cite this version:

Daria Vilkova, Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Francis Jambon. Teachers' Strategies: Collaborative Learning in Second Language Classroom. 18th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2025), Jun 2025, Helsinki, Finland. pp.460-464, 10.22318/cscl2025.597512. hal-05168321

HAL Id: hal-05168321

https://hal.science/hal-05168321v1

Submitted on 17 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Teachers' Strategies: Collaborative Learning in Second Language Classroom

Daria Vilkova, Univ. Paris Cité, LaPEA, Paris, France, and Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LIG, 38000 Grenoble, France, daria.vilkova@learningplanetinstitute.org

Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Univ. Gustave Eiffel, Univ. Paris Cité, LaPEA, Versailles, France, jean-marie.burkhardt@univ-eiffel.fr

Francis Jambon, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LIG, 38000 Grenoble, France, francis.jambon@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr

**Abstract:** The study explores strategies teachers use to design, monitor, manage, and evaluate collaborative group activities in second language learning within higher education. Twenty second language teachers from diverse educational contexts and countries participated in semi-structured interviews. A total of 68 Critical Incidents were obtained. We elaborated a coding schema and analyzed critical incidents focusing on task objectives, teacher actions, student interactions, and evaluation outcomes. Teachers found that culturally relevant tasks content led to greater student engagement, while challenges such as high learning objectives, unclear instructions, and imbalanced group participation affected group work and task success. The study emphasizes the importance of balancing group size, task complexity, and cultural context in collaborative second language learning. The findings attempt to bridge theoretical and methodological foundations of collaborative learning with strategies applied in the classroom.

## Introduction

Collaborative Learning (CL) is an “umbrella term” rooted in Vygotskian and Piaget constructivist theories and Freire’s critical pedagogy (Yang, 2023). It emphasizes peer interaction, joint activity, and socio-institutional context (Kreijns et al., 2003; Smith & MacGregor, 1992). Although there is no consensus, CL is broadly defined as a pedagogical approach where groups of learners work together to solve problems, complete tasks, or create products. CL is characterized by shared goals, resources, and representations among participants (Détienne et al., 2012; Mathieu et al., 2017). CL focuses on social construction of knowledge through open-ended, student-driven tasks with minimal teacher intervention. CL includes consensus groups, peer tutoring, collaborative writing (Bruffee, 1999), reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), learning communities (MacGregor, 1992), team-based learning (Michaelsen et al., 2002) and project-based learning (Koschmann, 1996).

Language is central to CL, functioning as both a communication tool and a means of group cohesion. Second language (L2) learning refers to any language learned after one's native language (Richards & Schmidt, 2002). Collaborative Second Language Learning (CSLL) views language acquisition as socially constructed (Vygotsky, 1986) and serves as a framework for implementing CL in the classroom. As the roles of students and teachers shift in CSLL classrooms, one-size-fits-all lessons are no longer suited (MacGregor, 1992). Teachers analyze group processes and foster knowledge construction through students’ interaction and shared responsibility (Baker, 2015). Teachers’ strategies require (i) setting culturally relevant learning objectives and student’ task expected outcomes, (ii) facilitating L2 interaction, (iii) arranging and managing groups, (iv) maintaining a communicative classroom environment, (v) monitoring group dynamics, and (vi) assessing language comprehension and retention. These strategies draw from learning theories, instructional design, and educational technology, adapting to learners’ needs, task matters, and collaborative group goals. Previous studies examined group arrangement, task types, communication mediums, and collaboration contexts (Yang, 2023). However, a gap remains between developed methodologies and their classroom implementation. Addressing this requires understanding how teachers adapt strategies to specific contexts and students’ needs.

We collected twenty teachers’ classroom experiences in collaborative group activities using semi-structured interviews and the Critical Incident Technique. A content analysis with a developed coding grid addressed two research questions: (i) How do teachers monitor, manage and evaluate the L2 learning objective and outcomes in group collaborative work? (ii) What contextual factors shape teachers’ strategies for CSLL? Interviews allow us to identify factors related to teachers’ preparation, management, and monitoring of collaborative group work linking teacher-student interactions to learning objectives. Findings highlight the importance of balancing group size, task complexity, and cultural context in collaborative second language learning.
# Method

## Participants

Twenty L2 teachers from diverse educational contexts (universities, schools, vocational training) and countries (France n=10, Russia n=3, Czech Republic n=2, USA n=1, Poland n=1, Great Britain n=1, Brazil n=1, Argentina n=1) were recruited. Teachers' teaching experience ranged from 1 to 20 years, including early-career (1-3 years), mid-career (4-9 years), and senior teachers (10+ years). This diversity provided a broad perspective on classroom challenges and strategies across different experience levels. Participants received the study's aims, consented to audio recording, with the option to withdraw. Data were (was) anonymized and stored securely.

## Semi-structured interview

The interview had two parts (Table 1). Following questions on teachers' backgrounds, the second part used the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954). A critical incident is a specific, time-bound situation leading to a positive or negative experience. Teachers were asked to recall and step-by-step describe recent, successful, and challenging experiences when designing, monitoring, managing and evaluating collaborative group activities. Follow-up questions target the task, student groups, and teachers' roles, enabling a rich synthesis of experiences.

<caption>**Table 1.**</caption>

Semi-structured interview guide

<table><tr><td colspan="2">Background question part</td></tr><tr><td>1.</td><td>What is your experience in teaching? How long have you been teaching?</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Is it full time or part time teaching?</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Do you have an educational background? Why did you start teaching?</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>What subject(s) do you teach?</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Critical incident technique part</td></tr><tr><td>1.</td><td>Describe the last lesson with a group activity you taught from planning to the end of the lesson.</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Describe a group activity you taught that you think was successful from planning to the end of the lesson.</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Describe a group activity that you taught, and you find challenging or that did not go as you planned from planning to the end of the lesson.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Follow-up questions</td></tr><tr><td>Related to Task</td><td>Related to Group</td></tr><tr><td>- Can you describe this group activity?</td><td>- How many students were there?</td></tr><tr><td>- How did you design it?</td><td>- What was the level of the students?</td></tr><tr><td>- What was the task? How many group tasks?</td><td>- How many groups were there?</td></tr><tr><td>- How long did it take? (a group task, a lesson)</td><td>- What was the group composition? How were students distributed between groups?</td></tr><tr><td>- What learning objectives did you set?</td><td>- Can you describe the group(s) behavior?</td></tr><tr><td>- How do you know learning objectives were reached?</td><td></td></tr></table>

## Data collection

The 20 interviews were carried out between April 2024 and October 2024 and lasted from 14 to 45 minutes (mean=31.29, SD=9.77). They were audio recorded and further transcribed using OpenAI's Whisper software; the large model was used for recordings over 30 minutes and the medium model for shorter sessions. The transcripts were verified and edited to remove extraneous symbols, personal information and analyzed.

## Data analysis

A total of 68 Critical Incidents (CI) were identified from reading the transcribed verbatim. A CI was defined as a report of a classroom event linked to one collaborative group task associated with (1) a learning objective, (2) a clear description of the context and activities, (3) teacher and student interactions within the groups, and (4) the reported outcomes related to a challenge or success. Teachers reported between 2 and 6 CI (average= 4). Example of CI by T10 (female, full time, senior teacher):

> "They were doing the same activities as the kids would do (...) I divided them into groups (...) it was random (...) trying to come up with some solution (...) it was open they could come with lots of stuff, but they have to first agree (...) the task (...) nonsense shopping list (...) to go to the supermarket and buy a hand of sugar, two and a half eggs (...) I wanted them to show me how they'll buy it to cook the recipe (...) they came up with some very interesting ideas (...) they were laughing (...) we evaluated how everyone within the group fulfilled the role
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

they were given and how they did within the group and with the individuals. I had my notes
following them during these activities (...) draw a map you put there the dots of people who
are sitting around the table (...) two people are talking during the whole time (...) three were
doing nothing (...) you have to give them the feedback from a teacher observing the whole
time."

We developed a coding schema (Corneloup & Burkhardt, 2016) based on an initial reading and content analysis on verbal descriptions of successful and challenging group work experiences depicted in CI. The resulting schema allows each CI to be categorized according to four aspects. (1) A learning objective of the task (project-based, role-play or simulation, research-based or collaborative writing) focusing on reading, writing, speaking or listening comprehension, grammar, or vocabulary retention. (2) Teacher actions for monitoring and managing group task(s) and students' actions before, during, and after, including group arrangement (random, distributed), supervision, and evaluation. (3) Student behavior and group interactions, analyzed through participation patterns, group dynamics, and student engagement across all stages of the activity. (4) Teacher evaluation of learning outcomes and feedback strategies. Three external researchers tested the coding method by independently coding the verbatim. The method was validated through their agreement on the conclusions, as illustrated with the CI by T10. (1) The task is categorized as a problem-solving activity that requires students to collaboratively "buy a hand of sugar". The learning objective targets vocabulary retention and speaking comprehension related to supermarket shopping. (2) The teacher managed interactions by randomly grouping students and rotating roles (leader, note-taker, mediator) to ensure equal participation. (3) Students were engaged "they were laughing" and generated "interesting ideas" using the target vocabulary. However, some groups had uneven participation, with only two members contributing actively. (4) The teacher used an observation map to track group dynamics and provided feedback to address participation gaps.

## Results

The analysis of the 68 critical incidents offers a detailed picture of the collaborative L2 learning environments where these incidents took place. It focuses on teachers' strategies related to learning objective(s) and outcome(s) of the task, group arrangement, teachers' actions and student interactions.

## Learning objective and outcome

Learning objective was a central focus of the tasks, targeting specific *comprehension* such as speaking (32%), writing (25%), reading (24%), and listening (19%): "Students *choose a professional, make contact, and ask for an interview* (...) they *build (interview) according to the professional.*" *Task design* also incorporated *contextual and culturally relevant content* in 18% of cases: "I prepare my lesson by using *local content* or *local image* (...) I never really used *textbooks*." Teachers reported success when using *local content*, as it resonated more strongly with students when tasks resonated with their lived experiences. Teachers considered the *task successful* where students demonstrated clear understanding or progress with clearly observed positive *student behavior and reactions*, such as clapping (10%): "At the end of the class, they *clapped their hands, something crystallized in their mind.*"

However, teachers reported that in 16% of cases, the task was complex or failed due to *high learning objective*: "The group activity was a *failure*, the *learning objective was too high*, they didn't know what to do." Students faced challenges in balancing the use of L2 with comprehension, especially in multilingual groups of students with better L2 levels. Some students struggled to express their ideas in L2. The *lack of clarity* also often attributed to task failure (12%) to overly complex or poorly communicated instructions, highlighted a gap in teacher preparation rather than student misunderstanding: "I was explaining a theory (...) 30 students telling me *it's the other way around*". Teachers reported that students were not focused and had reduced performance.

## Teachers' actions and students' interactions

*Student participation* varied across different phases of the group activity. *Before the activity* began, teachers arranged groups: "My job was to pair the *stronger students* with *weaker students* and make them retell the text to each other." Most classrooms had 4–5 groups (59%), while classrooms with fewer groups (1–3) represented 25%, and those with more than six groups made up 16%. *During activity*, group size and classroom arrangements significantly influenced students' participation: "They *told their stories* (in L2). I was actively listening and correcting, they *communicated with each other*".

Smaller groups (2–3 students) accounted for 25% of cases and generally demonstrated balanced participation, though they lacked diverse perspectives. Medium groups (4–6 students), the most common
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

arrangement at 56%, often achieved effective collaboration with sufficient teacher monitoring (51%). In contrast, larger groups (7 or more students), 19% of cases, frequently faced uneven participation, with stronger students dominating discussions. *After activity*, structured reflection processes, such as summarizing through mind maps, contributed positively to student understanding (51%): "I divide the time between groups to do *the mind map*."

*Teacher action* played a pivotal role in mitigating challenges. Monitoring was observed in 24% of cases, with teachers actively circulating between groups to provide real-time feedback: "I really try to go through the room (...) hear what they are saying and look at what they are doing." Role assignment and rotation, implemented in 10% of cases: "We agreed for the *document* they submitted which was a *collective note* (...) a *grade for the oral presentation*. I tried to keep track on who did what during the sessions...to be fair." It ensured more equitable participation, with leadership responsibilities shared among students. Feedback strategies included both task-based and group-based evaluations in 18% of cases, where teachers emphasized fairness by tracking individual contributions to group tasks: "You *put the dots of people* who are sitting around the table (...) *two people* are talking during the whole time."

## Discussion and future work

The analysis provides conclusions and recommendations for teachers' strategies in designing, monitoring, managing, and evaluating CSLL group activities. Teachers recognized the importance of adapting instructional strategies to align learning objectives, *task clarity*, group composition, and evaluation of the outcomes with students' levels, needs and motivation. However, a high level of motivation does not guarantee the transition to active engagement (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020). In CSLL, L2 learning is a process of social construction on the knowledge through an extensive and repeated process of communicative practice. *Culturally relevant content* is an essential requirement for successful language development, especially in multilingual and international L2 learning settings.

Although there is no agreement on the optimal group size and distinguishing pair and group work for CL (Brown, 2000; Poupore, 2015). Teachers indicated that the group task objectives and student levels will vary and affect the choice of the group size. *Smaller and medium groups* offer positive participation dynamics while *larger groups* increase complexity and uncertainty, posing challenges for teachers in ensuring balanced participation and equitable performance across tasks. As *Student actions* varied across the phases of group activities, with uneven participation remaining a persistent issue during tasks. *Teachers' active monitoring and feedback* strategies enabled teachers to intervene maintaining task alignment and group focus. However, a more systematic approach to feedback in CSLL - particularly one that combines task and group evaluations - could further enhance outcomes by promoting accountability and fostering group cohesion. Teachers often addressed these challenges by assigning roles or pairing students with varying abilities. *Role assignment* and *rotation strategies* proved to be effective in developing positive interpersonal group dynamic behaviors between and among group members (Poupore, 2024). This finding resonates with existing literature from self-reported student's perspective (Mathieu et al., 2017; Yang, 2023) emphasizing the benefits of clearly defined roles in CL particularly in ensuring balanced and guided contributions across group members.

This research is ongoing and takes part in the PhD project that aims to deepen understanding of the nature of collaborative learning and actual teachers' strategies for designing, monitoring, managing, and evaluating collaborative group activities in second language learning within higher education. Additional interviews are planned to expand the sample of recent, successful, and challenging teachers experiences with group work and student's task in CSLL. To ensure Interrater Reliability (IRR), two external raters will code and assess interview data using our coding method once additional interviews and critical incidents are collected. The results are going to be categorized and analyzed using Cohen's Kappa method.

Future research will involve classroom observations within an instrumented room developed in Grenoble (Context Aware Classroom - CAC). The CAC, featuring mobile furniture and devices to capture data on position, movement, and gaze while ensuring privacy, enables detailed observation of teacher-student interactions. Further analysis is based on obtained teachers' experiences and strategies for designing collaborative second language learning lessons. The study will adapt a tool developed to measure group dynamics based on positive and negative verbal and nonverbal behavioral indicators (Poupore, 2015). The PhD research aims to produce open-source lesson design protocols and feedback tools frameworks for collaborative second language learning. Expected deliverables include interaction techniques, models for synchronous collaboration, and a repository of CSLL case studies.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

## References

Baker, M. J. (2015). Collaboration in collaborative learning. *Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 16*(3), 451-473.
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.3.05bak

Brown, R. (2000). *Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups*. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bruffee, K. A. (1999). *Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge* (Second Edition). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Corneloup, V., & Burkhardt, J.-M. (2016). An exploratory study of higher-order driving skills and difficult situations experienced by novice drivers during their first months of driving to develop simulation-based training. *Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE '16)*.
Association for Computing Machinery, Article 8, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2970930.2970939

Détienne, K., Agle, B., Phillips, J., & Ingerson, M.-C. (2012). The Impact of Moral Stress Compared to Other Stressors on Employee Fatigue, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover: An Empirical Investigation. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 110(3), 377-391.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. *Psychological Bulletin*, 51(4), 327-358.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470

Goodsell, A. S., Maher M. R., Tinto V., Smith B. L., & MacGregor J. (1992). *Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education*. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: an introduction. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), *CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm*. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. *Computers in Human Behavior*, 19(3), 335-353.

MacGregor, J. (1992). Collaborative learning: Reframing the classroom. In Goodsell, A. S., Maher M. R., Tinto V., Smith B. L., & MacGregor J. (Eds.), *Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education*. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. (2017). A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 102(3), 452-467.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000128

Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging language learners in contemporary classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2002). *Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups*. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. *Cognition and Instruction*, 1(2), 117-175.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1

Poupore, G. (2024). Learner Engagement, Directed Motivational Currents, and Project-Based Learning: A Pedagogical Intervention with English Learners. *English Teaching & Learning*, 48(2), 213-239.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-024-00173-0

Poupore, G. (2016). Measuring group work dynamics and its relation to L2 learners’ task motivation and language production. *Language Teaching Research*, 20, 719-740.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2013). *Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics* (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833835

Smith B. L., & MacGregor, J. (1992). What is Collaborative learning. In Goodsell, A. S., Maher M. R., Tinto V., Smith B. L., & MacGregor J. (Eds.), *Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education*. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). *Thought and language*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Yang, X. (2023). A historical review of collaborative learning and cooperative learning. *TechTrends*, 67(4), 718-728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00823-9

## Acknowledgments

Daria Vilkova is a student from the FIRE PhD program funded by the Bettencourt Schueller foundation and the EURIP graduate program (ANR-17-EURE-0012). This work was also supported by a French government grant managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche as part of the France 2030 program, reference ANR-22-EXEN-0006 (PEPR eNSEMBLE / TRANSVERSE).