Feature Article

Tackling Curriculum Objectives

and Student Needs with Language
Learning Stations
Catherine Cheetham
Tokai University
Too often with classroom procedures and activities, the language learner becomes burdened
and unresponsive to the lesson. The classroom environment needs to be inclusive bycreating opportunities for the learner to explore and expand upon a variety of tasks thatare suited to individual learning styles and abilities. Cooperative learning practices such as
language learning stations can provide an ideal format for increasing student participationand motivation, while maintaining the objectives of the curriculum.
This article demonstrates how language learning stations can be effectively used to stimulate
learners through cooperative learning techniques at the university level. The followingcase study examined language learning stations in 14 Japanese university EFL classrooms
through teacher reflection logs and anonymous student feedback. The study showed that
language learning stations with their theme-based approach, non-threatening environment,
and relatively easy comprehension made learning accessible regardless of the learner’sability. Using language learning stations provides a sense of renewal, transformation, andunity within the classroom.
室活動を行ない、授業を進めていく過程において、言語学習者はしばしばその負荷に耐え切れなくなり、授業に無反応になる。従って学習者自身が個々の学習ス
タイルや能力に適した、様々なタスクを探り、それを展開する機会を作り出すことにより、教室環境を包括的にする必要がある。「言語学習ステーション」のような協力
学習の実践手法は、クラスカリキュラムの目的を維持しながら、学生の授業への参加とモチベーションを増加させるような理想の形式を提供してくれる。
本論文は、大学レベルにおいて、協力学習の手法により「言語学習ステーション」
が学習者に刺激を与えるためにどのように効果的に使用されるかを示したものである。本ケーススタディでは、日本の大学におけるEFL環境の１４教室において、教3Cheetham
師の授業記録と学生による無記名のフィードバックを通して、「言語学習ステーション」を調査した。本研究は、テーマベースアプローチと脅威を伴わない学習環境の中で、比較的理解が容易な「言語学習ステーション」は、学習者の能力に関わらず学習をしやすくさせるということを示した。また「言語学習ステーション」を使用することにより、教室内に刷新、変化、団結の感覚をもたらすことができた。

The classroom is busy with excitement. A group of four students sit in a corner ofthe classroom with a pizza menu in hand, role-playing a delivery order scenario.
Another group is frantically trying to guess the food item that their classmate
is describing before the timer runs out. A third set of students are racing to put
a scrambled recipe in correct sequence. A fourth set of students are preparing afood survey. As each language learning station winds down, the teacher shouts,“Time! Change!” The pockets of students scattered about the classroom stop
their activity and straighten their stations. Three of the group members moveclockwise to the next activity. One member remains behind to act as a peerteacher to the next group before rejoining his/her teammates. The timer is set
again, and once more a flurry of activity resumes.
When learning tasks, materials, formats, and styles vary, there is a greaterlevel of learner engagement and experience (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Findinga means to provide learners with stimulating and enjoyable learning experiences
is not always easy. No matter how much planning and preparation a teacher
commits to, there rarely seems to be enough time to accomplish content in depth
or beyond the curriculum objectives. This tends to leave the language learners
with little more than basic application, having insufficient opportunity to use orapply new concepts. Striking a balance between student needs and curriculum
requirements can be difficult, but it is attainable when teaching formats andclassroom activities allow cooperative learning practices to take precedence.
An ideal approach to tackling many of these challenges is to adapt language
learning stations which give students the opportunity to exploit and expand
upon a variety of content-based tasks. With teacher reflection logs and student
feedback, the following case study examines the transformation of 14 Japanese
university EFL classes by effectively connecting and engaging learners throughthis unique cooperative approach.
4

Language Learning Stations, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 3-20

Viewed as a learner-center approach to teaching, Cooperative Learning(CL) in various disciplines seeks to maximize the use of cooperative activities
within small groups by stressing the central role of social interaction in learning(Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Group activities are carefully planned to capitalize
on student interaction and contributions. Such cooperation is perceived as not
only influential in achieving higher retention, but also enabling critical thinking(Tsay & Brady, 2010).
CL approaches use a variety of techniques and structures to manage theclassroom, such as Learning Together, Teams-Games-Tournaments, Jigsaw
Procedure, Team Accelerated Instruction, and Curriculum Packages (Shaaban &Ghaith, 2005; Tran, 2010). However, for the context of this paper, Cooperative
Language Learning (CLL) shall be viewed as an instructional learner-centeredapproach, in which small groups of students work together to maximize
learning through interdependence, individual accountability, social interaction
and group processing of interactive tasks to attain a common goal (Olsen &Kagan, 1992; Oxford, 1997; Johnson, Johnson, & Stane, 2000; Richards &Rodgers, 2001). The management of classroom interaction is based on Spencer
Kagan’s Cooperative Learning Structures, which use a variety of generic andcontent-free structures for class building, communication, mastery, and criticalthinking (Kagan, 1989; Shaaban & Ghaith, 2005). What separates this model ofcooperative learning from being labeled simply as group work is the requirementof interdependence, accountability, social skills, and structure that areincorporated into the operation at multiple stages (Oxford, 1997). These create
meaningful input and output that are both highly interactive and supportive
to the learning environment (Shaaban & Ghaith, 2005) resulting in an overall
increase in academic performance (Bejarano, 1987). Hence, the overall objective
is to develop critical thinking skills and communicative competence throughsocially structured interaction.
One concept that uses the cooperative learning approach is language learning
stations. These stations have been successfully used in primary school education
instruction for years (Strauber, 1981). In general, learners complete a series oftasks centered on a particular theme, subject, or topic in a short period of time5

Cheethamwhile relying heavily on team-building skills. Each task is designed to appeal
to the varying abilities, interests, and styles of the learners. As the activities arecompleted in a round-robin manner, students have the opportunity to try eachstation’s activity. Such exposure to the subject through various encounters andforms of delivery assists learners to master and retain new material (Shaaban &Ghaith, 2005).
Many may perceive learning stations as being best suited for primaryeducation because of the homeroom format, but an American secondary schoolwith French as a foreign language class demonstrates the possibility of stations
beyond primary school. Strauber (1981) found language learning stations to
be a viable teaching approach that appealed to different abilities and interests,
helped correct learning deficiencies, and offered a broader range of study topics
for her students. Each station provided the learner with a variety of items suchas practices and drills using flashcards, textbook coordinated activities, and reusable worksheets. Strauber’s stations were not used on a weekly basis but rather
to review the curriculum or break from routine.
The use of language learning stations as a cooperative learning practicemaximizes student collaboration. Research by Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011)shows that such practices are “superior to most traditional forms of instructionin terms of producing learning gains and student achievements” (p. 27). Group
work creates positive interdependence and individual accountability among
learners, as members help each other to learn and contribute to the group(Kohonen, 1992). The motivational features of cooperative learning allow forclassroom instruction to achieve common learning goals through cooperation.
What is unique about learning stations is how they change classroom
dynamics. These stations have the ability to create an anxiety-free class, byensuring that the classroom is a warm and supportive place for learning.
Essentially, the stations promote cooperative learning, which is built on peer
collaboration. As Dörnyei (2001) states, “Students in cooperative environments
have more positive attitudes towards learning and develop higher self-esteem
and self-confidence than in other classroom structures” (p. 100). Learning
stations encourage learners to improvise by using whatever language they have6

Language Learning Stations, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 3-20

at their disposal to complete the task. By completing sub-tasks, learners not only
encounter the target language in a range of different environments but also how
it functions in relation to different contexts (Nunan, 2004). The incorporationof varying tasks provides the learner with challenges and intriguing elements toovercome obstacles and solve problems, novelty to explore something unexpected
or new, and renewed interest to connect with topics. A variety of techniques andactivities as produced with learning stations will undoubtedly help to ensure thatthe learner is alert and that enthusiasm is high.

Case Study

The following language learning stations were implemented in 14 required
English listening and speaking (LS) classes at a private Japanese university. The
eight freshmen and six sophomore classes that participated in the study werestreamed into five basic (B), four low intermediate (LI), three intermediate (I),and two advanced (A) levels (Table 1).
Each class consisted of approximately 28 to 32 students with an averageof 4.6% female students per class. The students were primarily civilization,
literature, political science, economic, law, and physical education majors. These
classes met for 90 minutes twice a week over the course of a 15-week period.
The classes were taught by two native English teachers, one being the author andthe other her colleague who collaborated in designing and implementing thestations. Both teachers have over 18 years teaching experience with eight at theuniversity level in Japan.
The aim of these required courses was to build a solid foundation for practicalEnglish ability. Students needed to understand the main points of short and clear
discourse and practice simple exchanges and expressions on familiar everyday
topics. Over the course of the semester, six units of the required textbook were
taught. A regular 90-minute class varied in consistency of warm-up exercises,
scaffolding, and supplementary activities in addition to the textbook. Typically,
three lessons were required to complete each textbook unit. Upon completion ofa unit, a 90-minute class focusing on the unit’s theme was carried out using thelanguage learning station format. These common ESL themes included dates and7

Cheetham
Table 1
Participants Grouped by Class, Level and Year
FreshmanClass No.

Level

Class and Year

Male

FemaleStudent Total

1A

B

LS1

27

6

33

1B

B

LS1

27

5

32

1C

B

LS1

31

2

33

1D

LI

LS1

24

5

29

1E

LI

LS1

27

4

31

1F

I

LS1

22

8

30

1G

I

LS1

19

9

28

1H

A

LS1

20

10

30

197

49

246

SophomoreClass No.

Level

Class and Year

Male

FemaleStudent Total

2I

B

LS2

25

6

31

2J

B

LS2

30

2

32

2K

LI

LS2

27

5

32

2L

LI

LS2

24

4

28

2M

I

LS2

20

12

32

2N

A

LS2

16

15

31

142

44

186

339

93

432

Total Participants

numbers, shopping, directions, family, and past and future events. At that time,
the stations were for review, as well as to provide additional application for thecourse content.
Each station lesson contained four to six stations that were each completed
in the 15- to 20-minute allocated time in a round-robin fashion (Figure 1). With
each activity taking relatively the same amount of time to complete, consistentflow between the stations was maintained. An additional three minutes wereallocated to changing stations and student-led peer instruction. At each station
change, one group member would opt to stay behind briefly to demonstrateand explain the station activity. The peer-teacher then rejoined their own groupat the next station. Additionally, each station was designed for four students
8Language Learning Stations, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 3-20
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4★
¢numembers
members
members
members¤☐v✪¤
Station 1

peer-teacher
peer-teacher
peer-teacher
peer-teacher★★★

☐
Station 2✪
Station 4*Note: For larger classes the stations werereplicated with 2 or more sets. This diagram
only shows 4 stations, but additional stations
may be added.

¢¢¢

uuu
v
Station 3
nnn

Figure 1. Layout and rotation of language learning stations
Figure 1. Layout and rotation of language learning stations

to participate at one time supporting effective teamwork. This also allowed
members to partner within a group if the task required. The teacher’s role afterplanning, set-up, and initial instruction of each station was mainly as an observer
or facilitator, providing assistance when called upon.

Functions of Language Learning Stations

The stations primarily consisted of vocabulary, speaking, listening, reading,writing, and culture activities. Due to limited resources and time constraints, it
was not always possible for learners to complete all six stations in one lesson, but
because the stations were topic-based, it did not hinder their learning experienceor outcomes. For each unit the format of these activities maintained similar
structural or instructive elements. Many of the game-like activities could beplayed between paired group members or groups completing the same task at adifferent station.
Vocabulary
The vocabulary station generally used various card games or crossword puzzles
that emphasized strategies. Card games included the Japanese game of “karuta,”
the equivalent of English “slap.” With 20 or more of the unit’s vocabulary cards
laid out on the table, players would take turns giving clues from the provided
definition cards which the others had to identify quickly for points. Other
9

Cheetham

popular activities included a game called “Name 3,” in which students were given
a set of category cards such as “Name 3 Tropical Fruits” or “Name 3 Kitchen
Tools.” With a timer set at about six seconds, students raced to see who could list
three of those items. Crossword puzzles were another useful medium in which
two versions of the crossword were provided at the station. Groups would divide
into pairs and provide each other with clues to solve the puzzle.
Speaking
At the speaking station a questionnaire or board game related to the unit’s
content was commonly used. Students asked their group members a series ofquestions and provided their own follow-up questions. This station was often
used for role-playing activities, in which students acted out various scenarios
such as in a restaurant or shop.
Listening
Running dictation games were a popular activity, in which pairs would race tocomplete a fill-in-the-blank worksheet. The answers being placed at a considerable
distance meant that one partner had to memorize and relay information to theirpartner to record. A specific listening activity for a unit on personal descriptions
required one student to describe a celebrity from a photograph, while othergroup members sketched the description and guessed the identity.
Reading
Typically found at the reading station were two short stories on the same topic,
such as “Christmas in England” and “Christmas in Australia.” Divided into pairs,
students would each silently read a story. After reading, partners would ask eachother questions about the different story they read. Another common activity
was “broken story,” where pairs would work together to put in correct order thesentence cards that made the story or dialogue.
Writing
At the writing station, groups used the unit’s vocabulary to write interesting
stories or create a board game by filling in a template. These student stories andboard games were collected to be read or played in the following class.

10

Language Learning Stations, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 3-20

CultureOccasionally, cultural activities were included in the lesson. These included
taking notes or answering a series of questions while watching a video clip. One
activity asked groups to guess or identify the contents and country of origin ofvarious delicacies, such as haggis and poutine, through a series of photographs.

Research Methods

Two measures were used to assess the effectiveness of stations. The first was aseries of teacher reflection logs kept by both teachers. In the logs, the Listening
and Speaking 1 (LS1) and Listening and Speaking 2 (LS2) class levels have been
identified as “B” for basic, “LI” for lower-intermediate, “I” for intermediate,and “A” for advanced. In writing and maintaining the logs, both teachers wereprimarily guided by a set of questions:• How effective were the materials and activities?
• Which station was the most/least successful?
• Did anything amusing, unusual, or problematic occur?
• What changes do you think should be made?
• Were students’ needs met?
• What did/didn’t the students respond well to?
These logs were written immediately following the observed class and werelater shared and discussed by both teachers to determine the effectiveness of thestations.
The second measure was taken from student evaluation forms at the endof each semester. Students were asked to voluntarily and anonymously provide
open-ended comments in either English or Japanese specifically related to thelanguage learning station lessons. The Japanese comments were translated
together by the author and a Japanese colleague. The comments were divided
into four categories: classroom atmosphere, effectiveness of peer-teaching, ratingof materials and activities, and overall perception. The author chose this type ofevaluation method, as she wanted students to articulate their own thoughts andideas about the language stations.

11Cheetham

Teacher Observations and Reflections

As a whole, traditional classroom settings where instruction and completion of
one activity are conducted simultaneously tend to take a greater portion of classtime and do not necessarily ensure that all students are engaged. Both teachers
found that traditional instruction and procedures such as Present, Practice andProduce (PPP) were “choppy” with lengthy and misunderstood instructions that
often needed clarification or repetition. As a result, weaker students would often
fall behind or not receive the attention they needed.
LS2-B / Class 2I / Teacher: CC / 5.3.2012
It took 10 minutes to explain “Family Matching.” Some students still didn’t
seem to understand. Had to stop the activity mid-way and explain again. Toomuch idle chatting with the group in the back. Must change student seating.
The teachers found that the station format gave the teachers the opportunity
to divide their time more efficiently by assisting individual students and smallergroups, especially if a particular station needed further assistance. Moreover, thedemands of an individual did not become the focal point of the whole class.
LS2-B / Class 2I / Teacher: CC / 6.28.2012[Student] was focused and got a lot of support from his group. Pairing[student] with [student] in the same group worked well. I sat with the groupat the first station and did the activity with them. Gave me the opportunity
to chat with them one-on-one.
Stations gave the teachers a chance to know and converse with their students
on an individual basis. Effectively using class time with pre-established stations
allowed the relatively large classes to take on a small class feel.
The teachers found that by selecting activities that were familiar or relatively
easy to grasp with commonly cited vocabulary, language forms, and procedures,confusion could be avoided. As a result there were fewer instances noted of
students consulting their smart phones or electronic dictionaries in class. This
enabled the lesson to focus on the activities by allowing students to practiceand use their newly acquired and existing knowledge in a non-threatening
12

Language Learning Stations, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 3-20

environment. With the progression of each unit over the 15-week semester,
students showed more confidence and a greater sense of learner autonomy.
Perhaps the greatest overall changes were observed in the B level classes,
where many students initially appeared less motivated and somewhat resentful
towards English learning. Both teachers struggled to maintain student interest
during regular lessons when the textbook was the main focus. This greatlychanged with the stations, not only because of the cooperative approach, but
because students appeared to find the materials engaging, comprehensible, andgeared to their interests. Plus the sheer variety of activities produced for one unit
guaranteed that there was something within the lesson that would appeal to allmembers.
LS1-B / Class 1B / Teacher: CC/ 5.23.2013
I changed the cards in the “describe a person” activity to athletes – lotsof interest. Need to add more Japanese athletes. The simplified “sports
dictation” activity was much better for the basic.
In addition, the competitive nature of some activities enhanced motivationand generated a greater reliance on teamwork.
LS1-A / Class 1H / Teacher: KW/ 12.9.2013
The “running dictation” and “karuta” were competitive. Had two different
stations play against each other. Was a little loud, but lots of smiling faces lot of energy today.
Being busy and engaged was important for students. Group pressure, time
constraints, and constant movement created less cause for boredom or disinterest.
Furthermore, many students were caught eavesdropping on the excitement at thenext station, giving them a preview of what they could look forward to.
One of the most important aspects of the station format was that thestudents became the instructors, as they relayed the activity’s rules and objectives
to the next group with each station change. From both teachers’ perspectives, theexplanation provided by the peer-teacher student was clear and relatable to theirclassmates’ needs. However, it was evident that low-level students often resorted
13

Cheetham

to using Japanese, while intermediate and advanced learners gave the majority of
instruction in English.
LS1-B / Class 1C / Teacher: KW/ 6.10.2013
Instruction was mostly in Japanese with a few select words in English.
[Students] did a great job demonstrating the activity and even stayed withthe group to answer questions.
LS2-LI / Class 2L / Teacher: KW/ 11.28.2013
I was busy helping [student] with a problem. A group had a question [about
the activity], but before I could get to them other students had stepped in to
help out.
LS2-I / Class 2M / Teacher: CC/ 12.2.2013
Interesting to watch [student] try and get away with Japanese instructions.
The group insisted on English. He was a caught off guard, but managed.
The group applauded him. He had the greatest smile on his face afterwards.
Confidence boost.
As Dörnyei (2001) agrees, students are resourceful as peer-teachers toconvey new materials to their peers. Additionally, students could draw upon
their existing knowledge, which provided the more knowledgeable students
with a valuable role to play (Kowalski, 2004). Many students exhibited a sense ofleadership as they wholeheartedly took on their teaching duties.

Student Comments and Reflections

An interesting point is that the stations created unforeseen changes to theclassroom dynamics. For the most part, students became not only better
acquainted but also friends early on in the semester. As one student commented,“I got to make many friends from different departments. At first, I didn’tknow anybody. Now I have many friends.” Another student expressed similarsentiments, “Each class my group was different. This class has a good feeling.”
Although many students expressed self-doubt when it came to their English
abilities, they found consolation with their fellow classmates. As one stated,
14

Language Learning Stations, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 3-20

“My classmates helped me a lot. I am not very good in English, but my grouphelped me. I’m thankful for my friends.” Cohesive learning groups are a means
for learners to feel a sense of belonging, which is paramount for learners to feelsafe and supported (Dörnyei, 2001).
What became apparent was the overwhelming praise for language learning
stations with student comments from “fun”, “enjoyed”, and “interesting” to “I
could do many things. It was exciting.” One student even went as far to state,“I forgot I was studying.” Among the praise there was also negative feedback,especially in regards to time constraints, such as “My group couldn’t finish theactivity,” or “There wasn’t enough time.” The comment made by one student,“fast”, stands out, but it is difficult to interpret whether the student meant thatthe class time passed quickly, or the pace of the lesson was too fast. Since thestations were a review of the three previous lessons, clearly students needed to bereminded that the lessons were not being graded and that it was not necessary
to complete all stations. Possibly some of the activities might have required or
asked too much from students who were not able to process the language fastenough.
Perhaps the greatest criticism from students was directed at peer-teaching.
For the majority of students, this was their first experience with peer-teaching.
Many students, particularly those at the intermediate and advanced level roseto the challenge of peer-teaching. One intermediate student remarked, “Myclassmates said I was good at explaining. That made me happy.” Unfortunately,
many seemed at a loss of how to explain an activity or expressed a sense of selfdoubt in their own abilities. As one student summed up, “It was difficult to
explain the activity to the class. I tried my best to use English, but sometimes I
couldn’t. I used Japanese.” Other learners expressed their dissatisfaction with thelack of instruction by peers with such statements as, “I didn’t always understandwhat the [peer-teacher] said. I didn’t know what to do sometimes.” The author
can only speculate that the mixed reviews in regards to peer-teaching might havebeen due to its novelty, student ability, and even cultural bias.

15

Cheetham

Overcoming Obstacles

The logs and comments were instrumental in assisting the teachers develop andimprove the format and activities of the stations. Upon reflection the teachers
would modify or replace existing activities in preparation for the following
semester.
Preparation
Perhaps the most daunting task for any teacher who takes on the station format
is preparation. Strauber (1981) shares these grievances that teacher preparationand planning is greatly increased with stations, but in many respects existing
supplementary materials can be adapted and re-used to fit the station format.
Additionally, learning stations allowed resources and materials to be shared andreused, effectively limiting the need for copies. But the most important element
when planning a lesson was to ensure that each activity could be completed in
the same amount of time. Any break in consistency could create boredom, loss ofinterest, or unfinished objectives. Although the initial establishment of materials
is intimidating, there is little doubt that the effort that an educator puts into
their lesson greatly affects the level of motivation and involvement of the learner(Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011).
Administering
Both teachers remarked that the initial introduction of the stations was
exhausting. The students at first did not seem to fully grasp their roles oradequately explain the activity to the next group. As a result, stations were notstarted simultaneously, and the initial instruction period took too long.
LS1-B / Class 1A / Teacher: CC/ 5.24.2012
Some groups took longer than 5 minutes to change. Ended up giving
instructions myself twice. A group did not take their worksheets with themwhen changing. Need to make sure nothing is left behind.
Since many low-level students struggled when performing peer-teacher
duties, the teachers suggested that the peer-teachers demonstrate the activity. The
students were also informed that if they felt uncomfortable giving instructions
in English, Japanese was acceptable. Additionally, to maintain a consistent flow16

Language Learning Stations, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 3-20

and to quickly resolve any problems or shortcomings, it was necessary for theteachers to continually wander among the stations and be readily available whencalled upon. Fortunately, these initial bumps were a non-issue by the second unit
when stations were well underway. As the format became an accepted learning
practice, students were quickly able to grasp the concept and procedures.
Time factors were an obstacle not only for the creation of the activities but
also the learner. Many students were under the misconception that if they were
not able to complete all learning stations within the 90-minute lesson that they
were at a disadvantage. After the initial introduction of each course unit, theteachers were able to identify those problem activities or lessons. For those units
the teachers proposed limiting the number of stations to three and extending
the time limit when possible. Additionally, a bonus activity was made available
to those groups that finished early. The bonus activity could easily be completed
independently as homework, if necessary.
Assessing
Activities that are used at each station need to be properly assessed in order for
students to succeed. Are the activities engaging, challenging, age appropriate, or
too difficult? All are possibilities to why an activity may not be popular with thelearner (Bassano, 1986). One notable obstacle is that students need to be focusedand self-reliant to accomplish the work. As Strauber (1981) notes, one solution
is to assign “the most interesting station” to “potentially difficult students” (p. 35)
as a way for them to become accustomed to learning stations. Being aware of
students’ past classroom experiences and language learning assumptions can be
useful in assisting students in overcoming their anxiety (Bassano, 1986).

Conclusion

The outcomes of the case study suggest that the level of enthusiasm, cooperation,
and autonomy that the stations provided were advantageous, if not liberating.
With the variety of techniques and activities produced, the learners are alert, andenthusiasm is high with a renewed sense of motivation and interest. However,
the author feels that additional research is still necessary to fully understandhow to better adapt and proceed with peer-teaching practices. The unique17

Cheethamcharacteristics of language learning stations ultimately allowed students to learn
by doing through peer collaboration, peer-teaching, and peer cooperation. As alanguage teacher, it is essential to constantly examine and reexamine lessons tofind an original and authentic way to create and present tasks. For the author thatunique way is language learning stations. The initial establishment of stations canbe challenging, but by designing straightforward content-based tasks, foreseeing
potential problems, and giving students a chance to accept and adopt the newprocedure, language learning stations can be adaptable to most classrooms. The
stations as a cooperative learning practice are a means for student needs andcurriculum objectives to be achieved with relatively little compromise.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviews and her colleagues, especially
Kristina Watanabe for her contributions.

References

Bassano, S. (1986). Helping learners adapt to unfamiliar methods. ELT Journal,
40(1), 13-19.
Bejarano, Y. (1987). A cooperative small-group methodology in the language
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 483-504.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nded.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Stane, M. (2000). Cooperative learning
methods: A metaanalysis. Unpublished manuscript. Cooperative Learning
Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/220040324_Cooperative_
Learning_Methods_A_Meta-Analysis
Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational
Leadership, 47(4), 12-15. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/
pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198912_kagan.pdf
18Language Learning Stations, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 3-20

Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: Second language learningas cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Language learning andteaching (pp. 14-39). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kowalski, C. (2004). Getting classes in GEAR: A lesson planning model for
English reteaching. The Language Teacher, 28(5), 19-24.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Olsen, R., & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (Ed.),
Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book (pp.1-30). New
York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, andinteraction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443-456.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language
teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Shaaban, K., & Ghaith, G. (2005). The theoretical relevance and efficacy ofusing cooperative learning in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESL Reporter,
38(2), 14-28.
Strauber, S. (1981). Language learning stations. Foreign Language Annals,
14(1), 31-34.
Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning andcommunication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference?
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89.
Tuan, L. T. (2010). Infusing cooperative learning into an EFL classroom.
English Language Teaching, 3(2), 64-77.
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis &D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52-62).
Oxford, England: Macmillan Heinemann.

19Cheetham

Author Bio

Catherine Cheetham is from Vancouver, Canada. She has a Master’s in TESL/TEFL from the University of Birmingham, England and over 18 years’ experiencein ESL. She is currently teaching at Tokai University (Shonan). Her main interests
are student motivation and materials development. Catherine can be reached atcatherine.cheetham@gmail.com
Received: January 19, 2015
Accepted: December 15, 201520