Feature Article

Student Attitudes of Cooperative
Learning in EFL Classrooms

Tomoko Hashimoto
Meiji University, Graduate Student
Previous research shows that cooperative learning (CL) has positive effects in classrooms.
However, there has been limited research conducted comparing the two types of CL:
informal (short-term) and formal (long-term). Furthermore, little has been investigated on
student attitudes for each. This study takes a qualitative approach to investigate differences
and similarities in student attitudes toward CL according to the type they experienced.
Students from two EFL university classes participated in the study. One class of students
engaged in informal CL (n = 30) and the other, in formal CL (n = 30). After a treatment
period of six weeks, a questionnaire was handed out to measure student attitudes regarding
their learning experiences. Results obtained showed that student attitudes seem to beaffected in different ways according to the type of CL they experience.

The benefits of cooperative learning (CL) in classrooms have been discussed inprevious research (Isoda, 2012; Jacobs, Power, & Loh, 2002; Johnson, Johnson,& Holubec, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1999), and English language classrooms
are not an exception (Asakasa, Kanamaru, Plaza, & Shiramizu, 2016; Jacobs &Kimura, 2013). According to Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec (1993), CL is “theinstructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize theirown and each other’s learning” (p. 9). Sekita and Yasunaga (2005) defined it as an
educational method where students work together to learn and acquire material.
The goal is for students to comprehend the importance of working with eachother, to personalize what they have learned, and to sharpen their interpersonal
skills.
Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991) delineated CL into three types:
informal, formal, and cooperative base groups. In informal CL, a class period is7Hashimoto

divided into short segments. In between each segment, ad-hoc groups conduct
group activities which last for a few minutes each ( Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,1991). In formal CL, students stay together for one class period to a few weeks
to work on a longer project ( Johnson et al., 1991). In cooperative base groups,
groups stay together for at least a year and support each other on various
issues. Whereas the main aims of informal and formal CL involve academic
improvement, cooperative base groups aim to improve academic as well as
personal issues ( Johnson et al., 1991). Despite the important role of personal
issues, this study only investigates informal and formal CL. Table 1 summarizes
the differences between informal and formal CL.
CL does not occur simply by putting students in groups and having themwork on a task. Johnson and Johnson (1999) introduced five principles of CL
which differentiate CL from regular group work, where a number of individuals
are simply put in a group and given an assignment to work on. The five principles
are positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual
accountability, interpersonal and small group skills, and group processing.
Positive interdependence means that individuals are dependent on one anotherfor the group to succeed ( Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Johnson et al., 1993). Faceto-face promotive interaction involves individuals being present and actively
involved in the group. Individual accountability is the idea that each groupmember realizes the contribution they must make in relation to the group target(Davis, 1999). Interpersonal and small group skills are the social skills neededin order to function effectively as a group ( Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Johnson
et al., 1993). Lastly, group processing occurs when the group reflects on which
member actions were helpful and not helpful and decides on what needs to bechanged ( Johnson & Johnson, 2009). These five principles need to be present
in order for group work to be CL ( Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Johnson et al.,1993).

8

Student Attitudes of Cooperative Learning in EFL Classrooms, OCJSI 1, pages 7-24
Table 1
Difference Between Informal and Formal CL
Informal

FormalNumber of individuals 2-3 per group

2-4 per group

Duration

1 class

1-several classes

PurposeTo fill in any gaps in knowledge
that individuals may have aboutclass material.

To achieve shared learning
objectives and complete jointly
specific tasks & assignments, etc.

Description

Once every 10-15 minutes,
students are put into ad-hoc
groups & are asked to go overinfo. they have covered in class,answer questions, etc.

Students are in the same groupuntil task completion. Teacher’srole is to uncover material withthe students, not cover material
for the students.( Johnson et al.,1991).

Procedure

1. Teacher asks students to
conduct an introductory
focused discussion.
2. Teachers encourage turnto your partner discussions
intermittently throughoutclass period.
3. Teachers initiate a closure
focused discussion tosummarize what students havelearned and integrate this intoa broader framework.

1. Teacher makes preinstructional decisions.
2. Teacher announces task andgoes over cooperative learning
principles.
3. Teacher monitors groups &intervenes when necessary.
4. Teacher prompts group selfevaluation and processing.

Note: Adapted from Johnson et al., 1991.

Previous studies on CL in JapanThe modern use of CL is said to have started in 1966, with roots in social
interdependence theory ( Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,2014). However, if one focuses on Japan, it is only recently that empirical studies
on CL in second language acquisition, namely, English education, have started
to be conducted. Empirical studies at various levels of study such as elementary,
secondary, and higher education can be found. For example, Erikawa (2012)9Hashimoto

introduced 14 practical reports of CL by different researchers at various age
groups, concluding that CL is a way for students to communicate candidly intheir English studies. Isoda (2012) conducted an applied CL writing activity
in his English writing class. Findings suggested significant growth in students’
TOEIC writing test scores. A qualitative study conducted by Ohba (2015)
involved giving his students a communication task based on the principlesof CL in English. He used text mining to analyze open question responses inEnglish. Results showed that individuals in the CL group were more motivatedto learn English through the task than those in other groups. Lastly, Makino(2013) conducted a mixed-methods study on CL by administering an English
speaking activity in her classroom. Her participants were university students who
had a strong dislike for English. Analysis showed that her students thought CL
speaking activities helped them improve their English speaking skills.
The empirical research conducted on CL in Japan so far had either only
looked at one type of CL or had conducted several types together and analyzed
results comprehensively. While this may be worthwhile, studies which compare
the effects of different types of CL should also be fruitful as such studies canhelp practicing teachers of English construct lessons suited for their particular
students and curriculum. For example, in a classroom composed of students fromvarious high schools and geographical locations in Japan, teachers may want towithhold conducting formal CL for a while until students feel more comfortable
to share their inner thoughts with one another, as this type of CL lasts longer
and requires group members to know each other at a deeper level. Therefore, ina classroom such as this, informal CL, where time per interaction is shorter, may
be preferable.
In this study, differences in student attitude towards informal and formal CL
were investigated. The reason for focusing on attitude is because while attitude
toward a target language is a vital factor in acquiring a second language (Dörnyei,
2001; Oxford & Ehrman, 1992), student attitude toward CL has been rarely
investigated. Attitude is a relatively stable and broad evaluation of people andthings which are often thought of as coming from specific emotions, beliefs, andpast experiences linked to these objects (Attitude, n.d.). From this definition,
10

Student Attitudes of Cooperative Learning in EFL Classrooms, OCJSI 1, pages 7-24

it can be inferred that there are differences in attitude between individuals.
Finally, Lincoln and Guba (1985) stated that whereas a quantitative researcher
assumes that “there is a single, tangible reality ‘out there’” (p. 37), a qualitative
researcher assumes that “there are multiple constructed realities” (p. 37). Thus, aqualitative approach was taken for this study in order to shed more light on theidiosyncrasies of attitude in CL. This study aims to answer the following: Is thetype of CL experienced by students related to their attitudes toward CL?

Methods
Participants and lessons
Two beginner-level EFL classes at a private university in Tokyo participated in
the study. Both classes were each composed of 30 students, 24 females and 6
males in the Department of Early Childhood Education. All participants were
between the ages of 18 and 19 years old and had recently graduated from highschool. Students in both English classes were randomly selected at the beginningof the year. The English level of the students in all four skills was presumed tobe beginner level according to a quiz conducted at the start of the course andthrough evaluating classroom activities. There was no significant difference inquiz scores between the two classes indicating that their English abilities werelikely to be similar. Students were non-English majors, and the course was
mandatory for graduation. None of the students took English lessons outside ofschool. All had received six years of compulsory English education as part of theirsecondary school curricula prior to entering university.
Lessons were 90 minutes each and held once a week. Content was English
for specific purposes in early childhood education in the four skills (reading,writing, listening, and speaking). Lessons were held in the university CALL
(computer assisted language learning) classroom, and teaching materials
included textbooks, picture books, and audiovisual educational material.
Research process
The study took place from April to June of the students’ first year of university.
Although students were aware that they were taking part in an experiment, there11Hashimoto

appeared to be no evidence of cross-talk between classes. This might have been
because it was explained to them at the beginning of the course that different
classes may conduct various activities, but by the end of the year, all classes would
have covered the same material and conducted identical activities. My role wasboth teacher of the classes and researcher for the study.
Prior to any intervention, an informed consent form was distributed andexplained to the students. Students were told that participation was strictly
voluntary and would have no effect on their grades. All students who agreed totake part in the study were asked to sign and submit the informed consent form.
Everyone agreed to take part in the research.
Next, informal CL was conducted on one class, and formal CL on another.
After six weeks of intervention for both classes, a free descriptive questionnaire
was handed out to students to measure their attitudes on CL. These are explainedin more detail below.
In addition to the informed consent form, students signed a consent on
the five principles of CL. These were also explained in detail to students prior
to the CL activities, and a question and answer session was held to answer any
inquiries they may have had about the principles. Upon ensuring that students
had a clear understanding of what each principle entailed, they were asked tosign two copies of the consent on the five principles of CL. One copy of thesigned agreement was handed in, and the other was kept so they could go overthe principles at any time if needed. All students signed the agreement. The
five principles were periodically reviewed with the students to make sure they
remembered these when participating in group work. Data concerning student
attitude was collected via a descriptive questionnaire.
Descriptive questionnaire
The free descriptive questionnaire consisted of the following question and was along-form written type, “Freely describe your experience and what you learnedin conducting CL.” Both the questionnaire and student comments were written
in Japanese, as the purpose was to know about student attitude and not tomeasure their English abilities. This data was analyzed using User Local (https://12

Student Attitudes of Cooperative Learning in EFL Classrooms, OCJSI 1, pages 7-24

textmining.userlocal.jp), an on-line text mining system which deconstructs texts
written in Japanese. In order to maintain authenticity of the comments as muchas possible, the data were analyzed in Japanese, then translated into English. In all,
2,075 Japanese characters for informal CL (M = 69.17, SD = 19.09) and 3,152
Japanese characters for formal CL (M = 116.74, SD = 21.28) were assessed. The
discrepancy in numbers between the types of CL indicate that students wrote
more comments for formal CL than informal CL. Translation was initiallyconducted by myself and then double checked by a Japanese-English bilingual toensure reliability.

Analysis

Data for informal and formal CL were analyzed separately to see whether thefive principles of CL could be detected from student comments. Comments were
tagged according to class (C) and ID in class (student numbers 1-30). Students
in class 1 (C1) took part in informal CL, and class 2 (C2) participated in formal
CL. An example of how a comment was tagged is as follows: C1-2 would indicate
a comment made by the second student on the class list in the informal CL class.
Once it was confirmed that the classes participated in CL, data generated
from User Local were analyzed. This was conducted in two ways: frequency of
appearance, which only considers how often a certain word is seen, and word
clouds, which analyze words and phrases according to frequency of appearance
and relevance.
Frequency of appearance was analyzed according to rules of characterization.
The words were separated into five categories: words appearing only in informal
CL, words often appearing in informal CL, words appearing often in informal
and formal CL, words often appearing in formal CL, and words appearing only
in formal CL.
Relevance was analyzed by investigating word clouds. The more relevant aword is, the higher the score it has, and the bigger it is shown in word clouds.
Words that do not appear as often in normal texts but can be seen many times
in the text being analyzed are given a high score. The general logic used behindthe scoring system is TF-IDF (term frequency – inverse document frequency)
13

Hashimoto

statistical analysis (User Local, n.d.). For this study, words were categorized into
stages by the researcher according to how big they were in word clouds: stage 1
included words with the highest scores, stage 6 included those with the lowest
scores. Stage 1-6 words ranged from otagai-happyou, gakushuu-taihen, kyoudouotagai, aite-anki, iroiro-kureru, and ooi-yasui, respectively.
Outline of research
Table 2 provides an outline of the research. It shows what was conducted fromlessons 1 to 8 in the informal and formal CL classes. For both classes, at lesson 1,
the consent to participate in study, the consent on the five principles of CL, andan English quiz were administered. During lessons 2 to 7, one class engaged in
informal CL and the other in formal CL.
The informal CL consisted of a two-minute introductory focused discussion
and a three-minute introduction on material. This was followed by 15 minutesof teacher-led instruction. After this, four minutes were allocated for a turn-toyour partner discussion. The teacher-led instruction and turn-to-your partner
discussion routine was conducted four times, followed by a two-minute closure
Table 2Outline of Informal and Formal CL Class by Lesson
LessonInformal CL

Formal CL

1

Consent to participate in study

Consent to participate in study

Consent on the five principles ofcooperative learning English quiz

Consent on the five principles ofcooperative learning English quiz

2

Informal CL

Formal CL

3

Informal CL

Formal CL

4

Informal CL

Formal CL

5

Informal CL

Formal CL

6

Informal CL

Formal CL

7

Informal CL

Formal CL

14

Student Attitudes of Cooperative Learning in EFL Classrooms, OCJSI 1, pages 7-24

focused discussion and three-minute wrap-up session.
Formal CL consisted of 20 minutes of project work per class. Other thanthat, teacher-led instruction was administered for 66 minutes. The total time thatstudents engaged in informal and formal CL was calculated to be 20 minutes
per class. The formal CL consisted of a task to create a dialogue in pairs and topresent this in front of the class. Although a video camera could not be set up
due to administrative restrictions, a timer was used to keep track of time.
At the end of the CL period (lesson 8), students were asked whether or notthey felt that the five principles of CL were met in their group work, to which
three students in the formal CL group replied negatively. Thus, data for thesethree students were omitted. A descriptive questionnaire was filled out by theremaining students after the study period to investigate student attitudes toward
CL. Students in the formal CL class also made presentations prior to answering
the questionnaire.

Results and Discussion

Table 3 shows the total number of comments made for each of the five principles.
In informal CL, positive interdependence could be perceived from comments
such as “because I am not working by myself, I realized that I study more inorder not to cause any trouble for my partner (C1-24).” Face-to-face promotive
interaction was seen through comments such as “I realized that if one person
is absent, no work can be done, so I needed to make sure to come to class (C127).” The statement, “I’ve started to understand what areas I need to study
more of to be able to help others (C1-2)” signified the presence of individual
accountability. Several students indicated that they had learned interpersonal andsmall group skills. An example of a remark made from a student is, “I learned how
to cooperate with someone who has different opinions from myself (C1-28).”
Group processing allowed students to positively reflect on their task throughstatements such as “This time around, I kept on learning from my partner since
my English skills are not that good. I felt bad. If I have a chance to do this again,
I would like to contribute more (C1-19).”
Next, data for formal CL were analyzed. The comment “I would not have15

Hashimoto
Table 3
Total Number of Comments Made in Informal and Formal CL
Informal CL

Formal CL

Positive interdependence

30

35

Face-to-face promotive interaction

10

20

Individual accountability

21

22Interpersonal and small group skills

20

20Group processing

9

8

been able to do the presentation by myself. I did not know that working withanother person could empower you so much (C2-21)” is an example which
reveals this student realized positive interdependence. The presence of face-toface promotive interaction was seen through comments such as “I was absent
often, so I ended up putting a lot of burden on my partner. If I do another project
like this, I will make sure to come to class (C2-1).” Individual accountability was
noticed in a statement, “I realized how difficult it is to create a dialogue fromscratch and so little English I knew. I will work harder to improve my English
skills (C2-18).” Interpersonal and small group skills were present in comments
such as “I learned communication skills (C2-21).” Group processing could beseen through the comment, “our group ended up finishing our presentation
early, so I regretted not having practiced a couple of times beforehand using atimer (C2-17).”
Comments indicated that CL, not merely individuals working in groups,
seemed to have been experienced by students in both classes. It is interesting
to note that for both informal and formal CL comments, the two principles
that were mentioned the most were positive interdependence and individual
accountability. For positive interdependence, informal CL yielded 30 comments,
compared to 35 comments for formal CL. There were 21 comments for informal
CL and 22 for formal CL on individual accountability. This is not surprising, as
these results are in line with previous research which pointed out that the two
16

Student Attitudes of Cooperative Learning in EFL Classrooms, OCJSI 1, pages 7-24

principles of CL which are the most widely accepted are positive interdependence
and individual accountability ( Jacobs & Ball, 1996; Kato, Bolstad, & Watari,
2015; McCafferty, Jacobs, & Iddings, 2006). Also, there is traditionally a giri
culture in Japan, where people often feel socially obliged to others. This could
have been present in this study as well, causing students to work hard so as to notdisappoint their group member. Another result of this study is that the numberof comments made for interpersonal and small group skills were the same as
individual accountability (there were 20 comments for both informal and formal
CL). This could also be explained by the giri mentioned above, or by the fact thatstudents may have been sensitive to interpersonal issues. This was the students’first semester in university, and social relationships could have still been in theirdevelopmental stage.
Next, frequency of appearance was analyzed. A word which only appeared in
informal CL comments was “pronunciation” (hatsuon) (five times). “Difficult”(taihen) (7 times) and “reassuring” (kokorozuyoi) (6 times) were seen exclusively
in formal CL comments. These results could possibly be explained by theseparate aims of the two types of CL. The goal of informal CL is to “ensure thatstudents cognitively process and rehearse the material being taught” ( Johnson, etal., 2014, p. 12), whereas formal CL aims “to achieve shared learning goals andcomplete jointly specific tasks and assignments”( Johnson, et al., 2014, p. 11).
Although there were words seen exclusively for each CL type, there were also
some which were similar. For example, one idea which frequently appeared forboth types of CL was “fun” (tanoshii) and variations of “enjoy”. In formal CL
comments, “fun” (tanoshii) appeared 10 times, and variations of “enjoy” (yoi, ii)
appeared 14 times. In informal CL comments, “fun” (tanoshii) was seen 5 times,
and variations of “enjoy” (yoi) 12 times.
When simply comparing frequency of appearance, it may seem that student
appreciation of formal CL may have been higher than informal CL. However,when these values are compared according percentage in total Japanesecharacters that were written, it can be found that the difference between the two
types of CL is minimal. For example, “fun” was seen 0.32% of the time in formal
CL comments and 0.25% of the time in informal CL comments. Thus, although17Hashimoto

frequency of appearance successfully shows the differences and similarities ofwords that students used to describe each CL experience, the results cannot be
over-interpreted.
Results of the generated word clouds are shown in Figure 1 (The appendix
includes a list of the words used in the word clouds for both the informal andformal CL and English translations for each). As mentioned previously, word
clouds visualize words according to frequency and relevance. Words are given ascore, which rates them according to importance in the text.
A word seen in stage 1 for informal CL was “each other” (otagai) (score:
30.43. Numbers shown in parentheses after the words below are the scores foreach), and for formal CL this was “presentation” (happyou) (34.59). In stage
2, “learning” (gakushuu) appeared in both CL types, but whereas informal CL
showed a specific English skill, “pronunciation” (hatsuon) (21.86), formal CL
exhibited “English” (17.56) and “difficult” (taihen) (17.95). In terms of numberof words in the stage, stage 3 showed twice as many in informal CL than informal CL. Examples of words in this stage for informal CL were “cooperation”(kyoudou) (11.56), “do not know” (shiranai) (10.74), “interpersonal relationship”(ningenkankei) (12.59) and “understand” (wakaru) (10.83). Formal CL words
were “cooperation” (kyoudou) (16.84), “nervous” (kinchou) (10.38), “group”(guruupu) (11.01), “communication” (comyunikeishon) (11.57) and “each other”(otagai) (10.28).
In stage 4, there were over twice as many words for formal CL than informal

Figure 1. Word clouds of descriptive data for informal and formal CL.

18

Student Attitudes of Cooperative Learning in EFL Classrooms, OCJSI 1, pages 7-24

CL. Examples of stage 4 words for informal CL were “partner” (aite) (6.92),“collaboration” (kyouryoku) (7.14), “fun” (tanoshii) (9.98), “can” (dekiru) (9.89)
and “idea” (kangae) (7.53). For formal CL, these were “English sentence” (eibun)(7.72), “improvise” (adoribu) (7.36), “fun” (tanoshii) (6.48), “collaboration”(kyouryoku) (9.95) and “memorizing” (anki) (6.96). Some stage 5 words for
informal CL were “various” (iroiro) (5.93), “think” (omou) (5.12), “properlytell” (chanto tsutaeru) (5.98), and “formation” (keisei) (5.68). Words in the samestage for formal CL were “troublesome” (mendoukusai) (4.81), “reassuring”(kokorozuyoi) (3.73), “be able to” (dekiru) (5.97), and “receive” (kureru) (3.61).
As mentioned before, when considering each word according to its
percentage in total number of Japanese characters, the difference between words
in each stage is probably not that significant. However, similar to the results offrequency of appearance, students who took part in informal and formal CL
seem to have used more dissimilar words than related ones when describing theirexperience. Thus, there is a possibility that different types of CL may provide
students not only with different experiences but also with various practicalknowledge.

Conclusion

This study points to the possibility that student attitudes toward CL might havebeen influenced in different ways according to the type of CL they experienced.
The findings suggest that teachers might want to consider implementing different
types of CL into their classrooms in order for students to acquire different
experiences and practical knowledge.
This study is meaningful as a pilot study to examine the effects that different
types of CL have on student attitudes. However, it has its limitations. One isthat it did not collect data on student attitude after each CL lesson. This kind of
information would have provided more detailed information on which students
engaged in CL and which ones did not per lesson. A second limitation involves
not taking data on student attitude toward CL prior to intervention. Had thisbeen done, student attitude before intervention could have been investigated,which would have shown how student attitude transitions as a result of engaging
19

Hashimoto

in different types of CL. Finally, it might have been better to analyze words inphrases instead of individually. When conducting analysis, it is important toconsider context in which words are used, because doing so may reveal more
profound results. These three limitations should be kept in mind in the eventthat a similar study to this one is conducted in the future.

References

Attitude. (n.d.). In American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology.
Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/attitude
Asakawa, M., Kanamaru, A., Plaza, T., & Shiramizu, C. (2016). Usefulexpressions for implementing cooperative learning in English. TESL-EJ,
19(4), 1-6.
Davis, B. G. (1999). Cooperative learning: Students working in small groups.
Speaking of Teaching, 10(2), 1-4.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation
research. Applied Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59.
Erikawa, H. (2012). Kyoudou gakushuu wo toriireta eigo jyugyou no susume[Promoting the use of cooperative learning in English classes]. Tokyo,
Japan: Taishuukan shoten. (in Japanese)
Isoda, T. (2012). Kyoudou gakushuu wo ouyoushita Eigo jyugyou no kouka
kenshou [Effectiveness of cooperative learning in an English class].
Hiroshima Gaikokugo Kyouiku Kenkyuu ,15, 65-73. http://doi.
org/10.15027/32295
Jacobs, G. M., & Ball, J. (1996). An investigation of the structure of group
activities in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal, 50(2), 99-107.
Jacobs, G. M., & Kimura, H. (2013). Cooperative learning and teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A., & Loh, W. I. (2002). The teacher’s sourcebook forcooperative learning: Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently
asked questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). What makes cooperative learning
work? In D. Kluge, S. McGuire, D. Johnson, & R. Johnson (Eds.), JALT
20

Student Attitudes of Cooperative Learning in EFL Classrooms, OCJSI 1, pages 7-24

applied materials: Cooperative learning (pp. 23-36). Tokyo, Japan: Japan
Association for Language Teaching.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology successstory: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational
Researcher, 38(5), 365-379.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Circles of learning:
Cooperation in the classroom (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book
Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning:
Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book
Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning:
Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory.
Journal on Excellence in University Teaching, 25(3&4), 85-118.
Kato, Y., Bolstad, F., & Watari, H. (2015). Cooperative and collaborative
learning in the language classroom. The Language Teacher, 39(2), 22-26.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London, England:
Sage Publications.
McCafferty, S. G., Jacobs, G. M., & Iddings, A. C. D. (2006). Cooperative
learning and second language teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Makino, M. (2013). Eigo supiichi ni okeru kyoudougakushuu no yuukousei:
Rimediaru kyouiku wo hitsuyou to suru daigakusei wo taishou toshite [Benefits of cooperative learning in English speaking activities:
An investigation of university students who require remedial English
education]. Kinki Daigaku Kyouyou Gaikokugo Center Kiyou (Gaikokugohen), 4(1), 99-116. (in Japanese) Retrieved from http://id.nii.
ac.jp/1391/00012720/
Ohba, H. (2015). Kyoudou gakushuu ni motozuku Eigo comyunikeishon
katsudaou ga Eigo gakushuu iyoku ya taidoni oyobosu eikyou: Tekisuto
mainingu ni yoru bunseki [Effects of implementing cooperative learning in
an information-gap task in English on learners’ motivation for and attitude
21

Hashimoto

toward learning English]. Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education, 34, 177186. (in Japanese) Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10513/2792
Sekita, K., & Yasunaga, S. (2005). Kyoudou gakushuu no teigi to kanren
yougo no seiri [A proposal for proper use of “cooperative learning” and“collaborative learning” in Japanese]. Kyoudou to Kyouiku, 1, 10-17. (inJapanese) Retrieved from https://jasce.jp/docs/jasce_001.pdf
User Local, Inc. (n.d.). User Local [on-line software]. Retrieved from https://
textmining1.userlocal.jp/home/result/0c4e44ad98ed769ef4a77176009
ba155

Author bio

Tomoko Hashimoto is a graduate student at Meiji University. She teaches parttime at Hosen College of Childhood Education. She believes in the importance oflinking theory to practice and is especially interested in the psychological aspects oflanguage learning. hondat1.th@gmail.com
Received: November 1, 2018
Accepted: June 16, 201922

Student Attitudes of Cooperative Learning in EFL Classrooms, OCJSI 1, pages 7-24

Appendix

Words Appearing in Word Clouds for Informal and Formal
CL from Stages 1 through 5
Informal CL

Formal CL

Stage 1

お互いeach other発表

presentation

Stage 2

学習

learning

学習learning

発音pronunciation大変

difficult

英語

EnglishStage 3

Stage 4

授業

class

協同

cooperation

文法

grammar緊張

nervous

英語

English

グループ

group

共有

share

コミュニケーション

communication

協同cooperationお互い

each other

知らない

do not know

大切

important

部分

part

人間関係

interpersonal
relationship分かる

understand確認

confirm相手

partner

英文English sentence

協力collaboration

アドリブ

improvise

楽しい

fun

グループ

group

できる

can

大切

important23

Hashimoto
Informal CL

Stage 5

Formal CL

意見

opinion

楽しい

fun

考え

idea

協力

collaboration

相手partner

思う

think

今回

this time

暗記

memorizing

経験

experience

台本

script良い

enjoyable

意見

opinion

できる

can

苦手

weak point

色々various

面倒くさいtroublesome良いenjoyable

心強いreassuring

思う

think

出来る

be able toちゃんと伝える

properly tell

よい

enjoy

形成

formation

すごい

great

くれる

receive24