Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Reading Classes at a Japanese University

論

文

Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL
Reading Classes at a Japanese University

SAKURAI Yoko

要

旨

本論文は，協同学習（cooperative learning）を取り入れた大学でのリー
ディング授業の有効性の考察を行う事を目的としている。協同学習の概要を述べるとともに，Kagan による協同学習へのアプローチである Structural
Approach に焦点をおき，その特徴となっている協同学習ストラクチャー
を具体的な例とともに紹介する。また，Kagan による Structural Approachを基本とし取り入れられた協同学習が，どのように大学のリーディングの授業で実施されたかを紹介する。学期末に行われた授業に対するアンケー
トによると，多くの学生が協同学習を取り入れた授業形態に満足したと回答している。更に，多くの学生が協同学習の理念を取り入れたグループでの活動やアクティビティーにより，授業に集中し，授業活動への参加を楽しみ，英語力を伸ばすことができたと回答した。また，その理由としては協同学習により促された安心感，学生同士のコミュニケーションや助け合い，グループの一員としての責任感，学習に対する前向きな態度などが挙げられた。

Abstract
This paper aims to examine how university students view cooperative learning-based reading classes, and consider the potential

59

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32of them in tertiary education. The article provides an overview of
Cooperative Learning (CL) within Kagan’s Structural Approach aswell as an introduction of how it was incorporated in EFL university
reading classes. The data analysis of the questionnaire suggests CL
effectively helped students stay focused on tasks, encouraged
enjoyable, active class participation, and helped improve English
skills.
, university reading class（大学キーワード：cooperative learning（協同学習）, group work（グループワーク）, English
でのリーディングクラス）
language instruction（英語教育）, L2 acquisition（第二言語習得）

Introduction
As the trend in teaching practice has shifted from teacher-centered instruction to
student-centered instruction, CL has been a popular and successful teaching approachin educational institutions around the world. There have been a great deal of researchon the benefits and effects of adopting CL with students of different grade levels incourses of various subject areas. Findings of reviewing over 700 projects suggest if
students work cooperatively, they can achieve higher academic performance and greater
productivity than if they work competitively and individually. Furthermore, CL allows
students to build more positive relationships with their classmates, and helps develop
social skills and competencies (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1994). In addition, basedon their substantial studies and reviews of hundreds of studies, leading researchers in thefield, Kagan and Kagan, have identified various positive learning outcomes of utilizing
CL including enhanced academic achievement, stronger motivation, higher cognitive
development, increased self-confidence, and development of interpersonal skills (2009).
In English as a Foreign and Second Language (EFL & ESL) education, there have also
been many research projects reporting successful implementation of CL in classes
including Motaei, (2014), Marzban & Alinejad (2014), Chen & Goswami (2011), and Ning
(2010).

60

Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Reading Classes at a Japanese University

Overview of CL
What is CL?
Johnson and Johnson (1991) define CL as “the instructional use of small groups sothat students work together to maximize their own and each other’s earning” (5). Oneof the distinctive differences between a teacher-centered lecture style class (henceforth‘traditional classroom’) and CL lies in the way that the teacher and students interact withthe curriculum. In traditional classrooms, a teacher lectures on a subject matter with theaim to transmit their knowledge to students. In this form of teaching, students are mostly
working independently and, in many cases, compete against each other for better grades.
In CL, on the other hand, the teacher’s role is creating CL learning experience where all
students, including weaker ones, can learn equally through cooperative and supportive
student-student interaction.
Johnson and Johnson (1991) further state that positive effects of CL “…do not
automatically appear when students are placed in groups. For [CL] to occur, the professor
must carefully structure learning groups” (5). In this respect, CL is also distinguishedfrom group work where students merely work together in groups in order to complete an
assigned exercise, give a group presentation, or work on a group project. It is this uniquestructure that differentiates CL from group work. In CL, inclusion of key principles
developed from cooperative learning theory into lessons is essential. The key principles
structure the way the teacher designs and delivers a lesson, and how students interact
with each other.

Kagan’s Structural Approach to CL
Among different approaches to CL, one of the major ones that have been incorporated
in classrooms around the world is Kagan’s Structural Approach. One distinctive
characteristic of Kagan’s approach is the adaptation of CL structures. His structure has
the following features:
1. Though often confused with a learning activity, the structure is not an activity
with a specific content. High (1993, p. 1–1) explains it using the formula:‘Structure + Content = Activity’. The structure, in Kagan’s approach, is moreof a content-free, repeatable framework that describes how the teacher interacts

61

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32

with the students and how students interact with each other over a learning
content. By adding a target grammar item into the structure, for instance, theteacher is able to create an activity that meets the students’ learning needs for a
specific lesson. Some examples of structures are introduced later in the paper.
2. The CL structure also implements the four cooperative learning principles
symbolized by the acronym: PIES: Positive interdependence, Individual
accountability, Equal participation and Simultaneous interaction (Kagan, 2009).
These elements are indispensable for CL to effectively occur.

While many CL approaches are lesson-based or curriculum based, Kagan’s structure
could require only one minute of class time. These flexible, practical traits of thestructure allow the teacher to produce an infinite number of different activities andimplement them in the existing curriculum.

Kagan’s Structures and Other Similar CL Strategies
Timed Pair Share
The teacher states a topic (or a question) and the time limit. Students are given thinktime, and then share their answers in pairs. Partner A shares first and Partner B
listens with positive responses such as nodding or saying positive comments like“I agree” or “That’s a great idea.” Then Partner B shares and Partner A listens andresponds positively.

Jot Thoughts
The teacher poses a question or a topic. After several minutes of think time, students
write as many ideas as possible on slips of paper within the time limit set by theteacher. The team goal is to come up with as many ideas as possible and cover thetable with slips of ideas. In a reading class, the structure can be used as a pre-reading
activity to elicit what students have already known about the reading topic or what
they want to know about the topic.

Think / Pair / Share
The think / pair / share activity was developed by Lyman in 1978. In this activity,
a question or a task is given to students. Students first think individually, then talkwith a partner and share their responses with the whole class. For instance, students
first read and understand the assigned reading text, check their comprehension with62

Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Reading Classes at a Japanese University

pairs (or group members), and share and correct it with the whole class.

CL RolesA CL role is an action or a task that each group member is assigned to carry out.
CL roles can be the recorder whose task is taking notes, the time-keeper who makes
sure the team finishes the task on time and the speaker who shares ideas with theclass on behalf of the team. Students play different roles in turn so that they can
improve different skills required by the roles.

The Teacher’s Role in the Classroom
Due to the nature of CL, the teacher gets “down time” while students work in teams.
The teacher takes advantage of the time to circulate around the classroom and visit
teams making sure they are on task and checking that each member is responsibly
playing her/his role. The teacher also checks comprehension answers questions, andgives any necessary help. CL allows the teacher to spend more time paying closer
attention to each student and responding to individual needs more easily.

The Benefits of CL in L2 Language Learning
CL deals with many fundamental needs of L2 learning. Firstly, it promotes more
frequent use of the target language, which is crucial for language learning as it takes
repetition so that new information and skills can be acquired and stored in the long-term
memory. A study indicates that the active participation rate per student in a CL classroom
can be as much as 30 times higher than that of a traditional classroom (Kagan, 2009).
This means, according to Kagan, a traditional class only gives less than one minute anhour per student to speak. This number is considerably low in order to retain any kindof language skills or knowledge. In addition to abundant output and input opportunities,
a CL environment provides those opportunities through more meaningful ways such as
explaining or negotiating the meaning of an unknown word or a grammatically confusing
sentence, and giving and receiving peer-correction.
Secondly, CL supports a great deal of affective factors such as self-confidence,lowering language anxiety, positive experience of success, higher expectancy of success,positive emotional tone of a group or a class, and cooperation among students, allof which Dörnyei states would promote an L2 learner’s motivation (2001). The nonthreatening, supportive, environment and positive emotional atmosphere that CL creates

63

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32

help language learners reduce language anxiety as well as increase motivation and selfconfidence. As a result, a positive attitude toward actively communicating with the target
language could be fostered. Kagan suggests, “Brains are more engaged during social
interaction…greater engagement leads to greater retention” (2009, p. 4–1). Moreover, in
CL where opportunities to succeed are equally assured, every student could benefit fromthose positive learning experiences to be more effective language learners.
Thirdly, CL is both brain and language learning friendly. Caine & Caine (1994)
and Ronis (2000) summarize that collaborative learning forms, including CL, are brain
compatible because it appeals to some innate attributes of our brain such as seeking
meaning, learning from and with others, contemplating diverse ideas and remembering
emotionally attached ideas (both cited in Erlauer, 2003, p. 136–137). Humans are social
beings and our brains naturally learn better through interaction and collaboration withother people. These innate attributes of our brain deeply correlates to the essence of L2
acquisition of learning how to communicate with others. Dörnyei states, “in the L2 field,
various forms of peer cooperation have become well-established techniques, which isdue to the fact that peer interaction is seen in modern language teaching methodologies
as prerequisite to building the leaners’ communicative competence” (2001, p. 100). CL
could appeal to both the nature of our brain function and the core element of language
learning.

Background for the Study
Rationales
The idea of implementing CL initially occurred when exploring ways to teach EFL
reading classes at Japanese universities. A study targeted at Japanese university students
indicates that the grammar-translation method, still predominantly used at Japanese
junior and senior high schools, is a major external demotivating factor in learning
English (Falout et al, 2009). The objective of implementing CL was to create a moreinteractive and engaging reading experience that encourages students’ collaborationand participation in groups. The reason why Kagan’s Structural Approach was adopted
as a basis was due to its adaptability as it is structure-based not lesson- or curriculumbased. To examine the benefits of CL from students’ perspectives, the following researchquestion was formed: “How do students feel about the CL that they experience?”64

Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Reading Classes at a Japanese University

Overview of the Course and Lessons
On the first day of the semester, CL groups or pairs were formed and a CL rolefor each member was decided. In the first half of the semester, students chose groupmembers, and then the teacher assigned group members the second half. CL roles wererotated by the group members to assure every student would have a chance to serve all thethree roles multiple times. The three roles were adopted from CL roles: the speaker, thenote-taker and the facilitator. The speaker was responsible for sharing answers and ideas
on behalf of the group while the note taker took notes during discussions and completed
assigned written work. The facilitator watched the time and made sure every member
equally contributed to completing the task. When they worked in pairs, one member
took the speaker role and the other took the note-taker role. In these CL groups, students
worked on language learning activities that were developed based on CL structures
including the ones addressed earlier in the paper. Most of the activities required students
to help each other, agree on which idea to share and/or check which answer was correctwhen they had different answers. The teachers monitored each group walking around theclassroom and gave any necessary help, correction and/or encouragement. At the end ofeach class, students submitted a final group product such as a complete worksheet anda poster. Points would be given to each group member if the product was complete, but
points would be taken off from each group member if it was incomplete.

Methods
Participants
CL was used at four reading courses of a private liberal arts university in Japan.
A total of 131 students majoring Chinese studies and other majors (law, economics andbusiness administration) participated in the study, as shown in the table below. The
detailed information on each course is as follows:

65

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32

Table 1. Summary of the Classes and Students’ TOEIC Scores
Class

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4Year

3rd year

3rd year

2nd year

2nd year

MajorsChineseStudies

ChineseStudies

Mixed
MajorsMixed
MajorsNumber of participants

30

30

37

34

Average TOEIC score

469.8

464.8

347.3

311.7

Range of TOEIC scores

390–650

390–635

190–460

230–455

Data Collection
On the last day of the course, the final class assessment was administered, which
included five questions for this study (see Appendix 1). The final assessment was assigned
either in class or as a homework assignment. The results of individual classes and all thefour classes are shown in tables (see Appendix 2). The numbers in the parenthesis are thepercentages. The questions were given in Japanese for the convenience of the students.
The students selected their answers from five options (strongly agree, agree, neutral,disagree, and strongly disagree), and stated reasons to support their answers. Of the 131
students, 128 students stated reasons for question 1, and 127 stated reasons for questions
2-4. The final survey question about the content of lessons was open-ended, so students
could write any suggestions to improve the course. Some information acquired from thissection was used for the analysis. The students were explicitly told that their answers andcomments would not affect their grades.

Results and Discussion
This section details the results of the study, and includes a brief discussion foreach survey question. However, most pertinently referring to question 5 first, 81%(29%: strongly agree, 52%: agree) of the students were satisfied with CL based classes
suggesting that students recognized its benefits in language learning instruction (Table 2,
Appendix 2). Because of the strong positive response, it would seem that further researchon this topic is justified. The results of the other questions are provided below.

Survey Question 1: Engagement in Class WorkAs a whole, around 75% of the students (20%: strongly agree, 55%: agree) perceived

66Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Reading Classes at a Japanese Universitythat CL helped them stay focused on tasks (Table 2, Appendix 2). By individual classes,
the highest number was 90% (27%: strongly agree, 63%: agree) with Class 2 and thelowest was 63% (14%: strongly agree, 49%: agree) with Class 3 (Tables 4 and 5, Appendix
2).
An analysis of students’ comments revealed that a major factor that promotes
students’ engagement in tasks was peer-interaction including sharing ideas, helping eachother, thinking collectively to find an answer, and receiving correction. For instance, theinteraction promoted by CL helped students develop perseverance and willingness tocomprehend long reading texts or to accomplish challenging assignments. One student
commented that she could not have maintained her concentration on reading tasks if she
had to work alone while another remarked that she would have given up as soon as she
had got stuck with one problem or when things became too difficult. Another mentionedthat working with group members motivated her to try to read difficult reading tasks.
Increased productivity and efficiency in the process of completing tasks also contributed
to promote students’ engagement. Students were more willing to continue reading when
encountering difficulties when they could obtain an answer, confirmation or corporationfrom peers on the spot. They felt receiving immediate feedback made reading faster andmore fluent and, therefore, found themselves more deeply involved in tasks.
The second most stated point was the sense of responsibility. In a CL group, every
student is required to serve a role and each role is indispensable for the entire group to
meet a shared objective. In this CL group norm, students became hesitant to cause trouble
for the group members by not fulfilling their assigned role and pushed themselves harderfor the sake of group members.

Survey Question 2: Enjoyment in Class Participation
The interaction mediated through CL, also helped create a safe environment toenjoy participating in learning activities. The average of the four classes was 92% (29%:strongly agree, 63%: agree), and the percentage increased to 97% (30%: strongly agree,
67%: agree) for Class 2 (Tables 2 and 4, Appendix 2). The lowest was still as high as 86%(27%: strongly agree, 59% agree) for Class 3 (Table 5, Appendix 2). Many of the students
expressed that communicating with group members made learning fun and engaging
while some also appreciated a chance to work with classmates that they did not usuallyinteract with. Additionally, forming feedback and support provided by peers, allowed

67

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32students, weaker and less confident ones in particular, to gain the sense of security andthe sense of accomplishment needed to actively participate and enjoy English learning.
One student indicated that he enjoyed participating because he was able to catch up withthe class thanks to the help of peers. Another student wrote that he was able to enjoy
English lessons for the first time in his life. A student also wrote, “Helping each othermakes me feel safer to work on tasks1.”
Another matter that should be noted is that intellectual stimulation from peers was
suggested by many students as a factor that they enjoyed class activities. This means
students merely enjoyed chatting with friends or making new friends as an extension ofsocializing. They took pleasure in gaining new insights and differing perspectives, anddeepening an understanding of a reading text and the English language. Some reasons
expressed by students were “Through discussing with peers, I’ve found English learning
fun and interesting”, “I enjoyed gaining diverse points of view through discussions withclassmates”, and “It was fun to listen to what other members have to say.”

Survey Question 3: The Improvement of the Linguistic Skills
The linguistic improvement, particularly in vocabulary and grammar knowledge,
marked the lowest positive answers among all the five questions. Of the participants, 54%(14%: strongly agree, 40%: agree) recognized the effectiveness of CL on improving thereading skills, grammar and vocabulary (Table 2, Appendix 2). Relatively varied reasons
were observed for this item. Those include “Thinking about unknown or uncertain things
collectively made ideas and information more memorable”, “Working with others madeit clear what I knew and what I did not know”, “Watching a member who was more
proficient than me read texts helped me learn how to read more effectively”, “Correcting
each other’s mistakes led to the deeper understanding of grammar”, and “Meaningful use
of vocabulary led to retention of new vocabulary”. Those students who recognized theeffectiveness relatively had positive attitudes towards learning from and with classmatesand accepting the concept of having peers as a source of information.
For this question item, the neutral accounts for 31% (Table 2, Appendix 2). One
reason brought up by some students was that English skills, particularly vocabulary andgrammar, should or can be improved by individual effort. Some students also claimed
that they became too dependent on the group members, especially when they worked
with more proficient students. One student mentioned that she could concentrate more68

Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Reading Classes at a Japanese University

when she works individually while another stated that her group did not work well as ateam. Those students who chose the neutral did not feel that CL particularly exceled otherways of learning while they recognized its benefits to some extent.
Students who perceived the improvement in these skills tended to see the English
skills in terms of retention, reading comprehension, reading skills, while those answered
the neutral or negatively more focused on gaining new knowledge. Two different sorts of
responses revealed an issue that the benefits gained more efficiently through individual
learning could be neglected or less valued, consciously or unconsciously, in the CL
structure. Johnson and Johnson argue that specific information and simple skills likespelling can be effectively gained through individual procedures, while cooperative
procedures are effective to retain those knowledge and skills (1975). Better ways toincorporate individualized learning to the CL based instruction should be explored.
Secondly, the response variance may be due to different learning styles and preferences.
Some learners can learn more effectively through human interaction while some respondbetter to individualistic learning.

Survey Question 4: The Affects and Benefits of CL Roles
This question item was to examine how students perceived the affects and benefitsof CL roles. Findings indicated that 79% of the students (28%: strongly agree, 51%:agree) responded positively to the idea of playing a CL role during group work (Table
2, Appendix 2). The highest was Class 2 with 83% positive answers and the lowest wasClass 1 with 74% positive answers (Tables 4 and 3, Appendix 2). A large number ofstudents addressed that having a role allowed them to develop the sense of responsibility.
The sense of responsibility gained through CL roles led to various positive outcomessuch as more serious and active class participation, commitment to assignments, andincreased effort put into learning. One student noted that she developed the sense of
responsibility in completing her role and was able to participate in class more actively
than usual. Many students appreciate opportunities provided by serving the speaker. Oneof them remarked that she would not have spoken up if there had not been a speaker role
because she was not good at talking to the whole class. Another regarded that she was shy
and avoided speaking, but the role provided the motivation and push necessary to speak
up. In a collectivist culture like Japan, some students are afraid of putting themselves
forward too much by speaking up without being called on. Providing shy students with a

69

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32

specific role helped them feel more certain and confident in what to do.
Some students commented that clearly knowing what their job was in the grouphelped them to focus more during class while some felt they were able to more efficiently
improve the different academic skills required. Some also addressed practical reasons
like saving time of deciding on who to speak when the group was picked on to shareideas.
One issue raised by multiple students was the role of the facilitator and time keeper.
This role, compared with the other two roles, requires more autonomy to fully serve therole, and less motivated students could take the easy way out of the responsibility. Some
indicated that the facilitator did not work as hard as the other two roles or they depended
on other members too much when they were serving the role.

Conclusion
The study has revealed that CL supported and encouraged students’ engagement inlearning activities, enjoyment of participating, and improvement of some English skills.
Furthermore, other positive learning outcomes of CL emerged from many of the students’comments such as a positive attitude toward learning, willingness to help each other,
acceptance of different views and perspectives, the sense of responsibility, and reduced
anxiety. These are all essential in language learning. Referring to research specificallywithin ELT, Dörnyei claims, “students in cooperative environments have more positive
attitudes toward learning and develop higher self-esteem and self-confidence than inother classroom structures” (2001, p. 100). In the researcher’s own experience, providing
the necessary individual attention and sufficient, meaningful learning opportunities
could be challenging with classes of 30 to 40 students. However, many of these needs
could be met by effectively encouraging more student-student interaction in the CL
structure. It appears that CL has great potential in Japanese university reading classes.

70

Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Reading Classes at a Japanese University

Appendix 1
Survey Questions
1. Did group work or pair work help you focus on class work?
2. Did group work or pair work help you enjoy participating in class activities?
3. Did group work or pair work help you improve your reading skills, grammar and vocabulary?
4. Was being assigned a role effective?
5. With all things considered, did you feel working in groups or pairs make the classes effective?

Appendix 2
Table 2. Distribution of Student Responses for Survey Questionsof All the Four Classes (n=131)
1

2

3

4

5

Strongly agree

26 (20)38 (29)18 (14)37 (28)38 (29)Agree

72 (55)82 (63)52 (40)67 (51)68 (52)

Neutral22 (17)8 (6)40 (31)19 (15)17 (13)

Disagree

9 (7)

2 (2)

18 (14)

6 (5)

6 (5)

Strongly disagree

2 (2)

1 (1)

3 (2)

1 (1)

1 (1)

N.A.

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (1)

1 (1)

Table 3.

Distribution of Student Responses for Survey Questions of Class 1 (n=30)
1

2

3

4

5

Strongly agree

5 (17)

9 (30)

3 (10)

8 (27)

8 (27)Agree

16 (53)19 (63)

12 (40)14 (47)14 (47)

Neutral

6 (20)2 (7)

8 (27)

4 (13)

6 (20)Disagree

2 (7)

0 (0)

6 (20)

3 (10)1 (3)Strongly disagree

1 (3)

0 (0)

1 (3)

1 (3)

1 (3)

N.A.

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

71

愛知大学

Table 4.

言語と文化

No. 32Distribution of Student Responses for Survey Questions of Class 2 (n=30)
1

2

3

4

5

Strongly agree

8 (27)

9 (30)

5 (17)

7 (23)

11 (37)Agree

19 (63)20 (67)14 (47)18 (60)17 (57)

Neutral3 (10)1 (3)

8 (27)

5 (17)2 (7)Disagree

0 (0)

0 (0)

3 (10)

0 (0)

0 (0)

Strongly disagree

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

N.A.

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

Table 5.

Distribution of Student Responses for Survey Questions of Class 3 (n=37)
1

2

3

4

5

Strongly agree

5 (14)

10 (27)6 (16)

11 (30)7 (19)Agree

18 (49)22 (59)8 (22)

19 (51)20 (54)

Neutral

8 (22)3 (8)

14 (38)6 (16)

6 (16)Disagree5 (14)1 (3)

7 (19)

1 (3)

3 (8)

Strongly disagree

1 (3)

1 (3)

2 (5)

0 (0)

0 (0)

N.A.

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (3)

Table 6.

Distribution of Student Responses for Survey Questions of Class 4 (n=34)
1

2

3

4

5

Strongly agree

8 (24)

10 (29)4 (12)

11 (32)

12 (35)Agree

19 (56)21 (62)18 (53)16 (47)17 (50)

Neutral

5 (15)2 (6)

10 (29)4 (12)3 (9)Disagree

2 (6)

1 (3)

2 (6)

2 (6)

2 (6)

Strongly disagree

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

N.A.

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (3)

0 (0)

72

Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Reading Classes at a Japanese University

Note
1

All students’ quotes were translated by the researcher with an attempt to retain the students’probable intended meaning.

References
Chen, H., & Goswami, J. S. (2011). Structuring cooperative learning in teaching English pronunciation.
English Language Teaching, 4(3), 26–32. doi: 10.5539/elt.v4n3p26
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University.
Erlauer, L. (2003). The brain-compatible classroom: Using what we know about learning to improveteaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
High, J. (1993). Second language learning: Through cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan
Publishing.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The nuts and bolts of cooperative learning.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone cooperation, competition, andindividualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prince-Hall.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college
faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington,
D.C: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
Falout, J., Elwood, J., & Hood, M. (2009). Demotivation: Affective states and learning outcomes.
System, 37, 403–417. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2009.03.004
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.
Marzban, A., & Alinejad, F. (2014). The effect of cooperative learning on reading comprehensionof Iranian EFL learners. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3744–3748. doi:
10.1016.j.sbspro.2014.01.834
Motaei, B. (2014). On the effect of cooperative learning on general English achievement of Kermanshah
Islamic Azad University students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1249–1254.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.540
Ning, H. (2010). The impact of cooperative learning on English as a Foreign Language tertiary
learners’ social skills. ELT Journal, 65(1), 60–70. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccqo21

73