名古屋外国語大学論集

第9号

2021年7月

Research Note

The Use of Cooperative Learning toEnhance Communication Skills
Eric HIRATA

Jared PEO

Abstract
The use of groupwork in EFL classrooms is beset with challenges. Group formation, motivation, group dynamics, collaboration, and willingness to communicate
are among the numerous issues that teachers must face when implementing
groupwork. Cooperative learning can alleviate many of these issues by providing
the framework to make groupwork both successful and enjoyable for teachersand students alike. Cooperative learning uses small groups to get students towork together in order to maximize each other’s learning (Johnson, Johnson, &Holubec, 2002). The student-centered approach of cooperative learning allows
students to become more autonomous in their language learning, develop criticalthinking skills, and foster social skills. This paper shares the experiences that two
teachers have had while utilizing cooperative learning to help students get themost out of their language learning while providing them with communication
skills for their future careers.

Introduction
One of the biggest challenges that university instructors face when teaching225

English communication classes in Japan is to break students from the form-based
approach to language instruction that has been drilled into them by the Japanese
school system. This style of language teaching in the Japanese education system
has been detailed by a variety of scholars (Anderson, 1993; Guest, 2000; Harumi,
2011; Mayer, 1994; Ozasa, 2001; Sato, 2004). The result of this education is
students with “weak English communication ability and low motivation to learn
the language” (Nakata, 2006, p. 166). It can become frustrating when an instructor is tasked with developing the communication skills of students but is facedwith a classroom of students with little to no motivation for achieving that goal.
With this in mind, university instructors must find ways to pique the interestof students to kindle their motivation to learn English. Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in the ability to succeed in a specific situation or task (Bandura,
1997). Bandura believed that those with high self-efficacy believe that they
can perform well and approach tasks as something that can be mastered rather
than avoided. Based on social-cognitive theory, which takes into account social
interactions and experiences, self-efficacy is a significant component of language
learner motivation in many different L2 contexts (Lamb, 2017). To promote selfefficacy, it is, therefore, necessary to provide students with social interactions
which allow them to succeed in English and find motivation from their own
success. Positive classroom experiences compose a large source of self-efficacy
beliefs (Wang & Pape, 2007) so creating an atmosphere conducive to this should
be a primary factor for instructors when designing a communication class.
One way to establish a learning environment beneficial to raising self-efficacy
is by incorporating cooperative learning in the classroom. Cooperative learning“involves students helping each other learn and helping each other become moreskillful in the learning process,” (Jacobs & Rendaya, 2019, p. 7). Furthermore,cooperative learning has “been embraced as a way of promoting communicative interaction in the classroom and is seen as an extension of the principles
of Communicative Language Teaching” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 193).
226

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■More concretely, cooperative learning is designed to get students more actively
engaged in the learning process through discussion and inquiry in small groups
with their peers (Davidson & Worsham, 1992). The use of cooperative learning
can give students the opportunity for positive classroom experiences that canboost self-efficacy.
The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how cooperative learning can beused in university classrooms to raise student self-efficacy by providing students
with opportunities to successfully complete tasks through social interaction in theclassroom. This paper describes how two instructors implemented cooperative
learning into their classrooms and the outcomes they achieved through different
teaching situations and methodologies.

Cooperative Learning
While many teachers incorporate the use of groups in their classrooms, not
all group work activities achieve the success that a teacher has intended. Largely
developed in the 1960s and 1970s, Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, widely
considered the leaders of cooperative learning, defined cooperative learning as“the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize
each other’s learning” (2002, p. 9). Cooperative learning developed in second
language learning is an attempt to address the problems often found in grouplearning such as members not participating, groups not getting along, or somemembers unable to completes tasks in addition to trying to facilitate interaction
among students (McCafferty, Jacobs, & DaSilva Iddings, 2006). Johnson,
Johnson, and Holubec (1994) use the analogy of comparing students to mountainclimbers: heights are more easily scaled when part of a cooperative team.
McCafferty, Jacobs, and DaSilva Iddings (2006) stated that the two most critical elements of cooperative learning are positive interdependence and individual
accountability. Positive interdependence is the feeling of a group that realizes
that “each person’s efforts benefit not only that individual, but all the other group227

members as well” (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1994, p. 9). In other words,
in order to be successful, each person’s efforts are needed, or each person needs
to feel that his or her efforts are needed, so success is determined by the successof the group, not by individual success.
Jacobs (2006) described individual accountability by explaining that “every
member must feel a responsibility to learn and participate in the group, andstudents must demonstrate their learning” (p. 42). All members of the group must
contribute or the group cannot successfully complete its task. Each member can“add to the overall knowledge of the group, reveal areas of weakness that groupmates can attend to” (McCafferty, S.G., Jacobs, G.M., & DaSilva Iddings, 2006,p. 5). The principle behind cooperative learning groups is that working together
makes each member a stronger individual learner (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec,
1994). While positive interdependence and individual accountability tend tooverlap, they are not always present together. An example of such an activity
would be a writing assignment in which each student must write an essay but thegrade is based on the overall performance of the group without the mechanismof feedback or assistance within the group. This would give students individual
accountability of completing their essay to help the group, but may not give thempositive interdependence because they would not necessarily be receiving any
assistance or feedback from their group.
With the two elements of positive interdependence and individual accountability in mind when doing cooperative learning, the next hurdle is groupformation. There are basically four different options for teachers when forming
groups. The four options are: 1) Students can decide the groups 2) The groups
are formed randomly, 3) The teacher can decide, 4) The groups are formed basedon a commonality such as being born in the same season, favorite food, hairstyle,etc. Of the four, the literature on cooperative learning favors heterogeneity(Jacobs, 2006), which can be achieved by forming the groups randomly or theteacher choosing which members to group together. Ruddock (1978) states that
228

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■the benefit of heterogeneous grouping is a useful way to have students see avariety of perspectives. Freeman and Freeman (1994) stated that the diversity ofstudents adds to their learning potential since they bring different experiences,knowledge, and interest. It is of great benefit to students to be able to hear theideas and opinions of their peers so a random or teacher selected formation ofgroups works best for cooperative learning.
Critics of heterogenous groups claim that if higher-level students are mixed
with lower-level students, the higher-level students may feel compelled to domost of the work and feel bored while lower-level students could feel intimidated(Allan, 1991; Slavin, 1991). Jacobs (2006) refuted this however, by sayingthat that high achievers can help themselves by enjoying greater feelings of“belonging, acceptance, and caring as they work for group rather than individual
success” in addition to the concept that “teaching others may also aid theirmemory and deepen their understanding” (p. 33). Johnson and Johnson (1991)
claim that lower-level students benefit as well by receiving help not only fromthe teacher but from their peers and may find more motivation to try because if
they fail, the entire group suffers. To avoid the potential problem of high-level
students always being in the position of being the “teacher”, creating tasks thatuse multiple intelligences should be used. In their study, Bassano and Christison(1992) used music and drawing tasks in their language lessons to give students
who were weaker in L2 abilities the chance to change their status from receiver tohelper because of their higher abilities in the arts. As a result, while heterogenous
groups can be beneficial to cooperative learning, it is also essential, when pairing
higher and lower level students, to distribute tasks so the role of “teacher” isconstantly shifting.
Cooperative learning can help create a learning environment advantageous
to language development. Students learn best when they are motivated and canobtain a working knowledge of a language with sufficient motivation, regardlessof their language aptitude (Hadfield & Dörnyei, 2013). When many university229

students begin their English communication classes, their low motivation to
improve their communication ability can be a result of the form-based language
instruction that is often the way of teaching English in Japanese secondary
schools. Cooperative learning takes students away from the traditional teachercentered classroom that students have become accustomed to and puts them on
a continuum from teacher-lectures to self-study, cooperative learning provides
students with a greater reliance on themselves and their peers (McCafferty,
Jacobs, & DaSilva Iddings, 2006). With proper group formation and the elementsof positive interdependence and individual accountability present, cooperative
learning can provide students with the motivation they need to raise their selfefficacy to become more motivated language learners.

Methods
Participants in Application One of Cooperative Learning
The first author’s course for this study was a compulsory course for nonEnglish majors. The class was an Integrated English course for second-year university students at a private university in central Japan. The 15-week course met
once a week with each class being 90 minutes in length. The classes generally
consisted of 20–30 students with most students around the intermediate CEFR
level B1, which is having the ability to express themselves on a wider range of
topics that can be understood by a native speaker. Though some students werein the basic range of A2 and some fell in the B2 range of upper intermediate,
the majority of students were at B1. Classes were not streamed by level, and the
instructor taught both sections of the course.
Application One of Cooperative Learning
The outline of the Integrated English course was to integrate the language
skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The primary goal of the class
was to increase student’s communication skills and ability. During the 15 weeks,
230

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■the students had three five-minute timed conversations, which were recorded andgraded, in the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth week. The timed conversations were ingroups of three or four students and each conversation was worth 15 percent of
the student’s grades. The topics of the timed conversations were based on the
topics covered in the class textbook, Reading Pass 1. Every week, the students
were assigned a reading on the topic from the textbook for homework. Their written homework was a worksheet (see Appendix 1) which included a pre-reading
question, student research about the topic from the Internet, a writing section
based on their experience with the topic, and a short reflection about the topic.
The homework was done individually and was used for cooperative learning
tasks the following week in class.
The purposes of using cooperative learning in class were to increase theamount of interaction time for the students in order to build communication skills
and group dynamics within the classroom, and to prepare students for the timed
conversations by having them talk to their partners about the topics in a variety
of ways. The student-centered focus of cooperative learning allowed students
more speaking time with their peers with the hope that the more opportunities
the students had to speak with each other, the more comfortable they would bewhen they had their timed conversations. The class format started with a five toten minute warm up discussion on the topic, where students would first answer
discussion questions on the topic a partner or partners before joining an overall
class discussion. That was followed by a five to ten minute slideshow which contained information relevant to the topic but not included in the reading passage
the students had for homework. The slideshow included discussion questions
for students to talk about in relation to the content being presented. Finally, thestudents were broken into groups to begin their cooperative learning tasks.
The groups were determined randomly every week so that the students would
have the opportunity to talk with many different classmates. The groups werecomposed of three to four students to replicate the format for the timed conversa231

tions. Station work was used to incorporate cooperative learning. There wereeight different stations, which were numbered to help students navigate, set up
around the classroom. The students were told and reminded each week that thetasks at the stations were to be completed while speaking in English. To enforce
this, the teacher walked around the classroom to keep the use of Japanese to aminimum. Students were also aware that their use of Japanese in the classroom
would negatively affect their participation grade, which accounted for 20% of
their overall grade. Each station had a different task for the students to complete
within a five-minute time period. The five-minute time period was determined
to parallel the time constraints of the timed conversations, so students could getused to completing tasks within five minutes. Each group worked at a station forfive minutes before moving to the next numerical station. To avoid the problemof higher-level students doing most of the tasks, Kagan and Kagan (1998) suggested that the use of tasks involve a wide range of intelligences. The students
were assigned a station to start at and then moved sequentially through eachstation until they went through every station. The eight stations were:
Station 1 – Listening Station
Station 2 – Reading Comprehension Station
Station 3 – Research Sharing Station
Station 4 – Activity Station
Station 5 – Discussion Station
Station 6 – Vocabulary Station
Station 7 – Experience Sharing Station
Station 8 – 5-Minute Conversation Station
Students were given an In-Class Worksheet (see Appendix 2) to complete
each station’s task. At Station 1 students were asked to listen to a short conversation between two people. The listening passage had five comprehension
questions. Each member in the group randomly selected questions on strips ofpaper that they had to answer based on the listening to give each person in the232The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■group a specific listening task and their own responsibility for contributing to
the group. After listening to the passage together twice, the members shared theirinformation with the rest of the group. The person responsible for comprehension
question one read the question to the group and then gave the answer to the restof the group members. This continued until all five questions were answered.
If any of the comprehension questions were unable to be answered, the group
worked together by listening to the passage again until they were satisfied thatthey answered all five questions correctly. The main purposes of this station wereto increase listening comprehension and to have students rely on each other tocomplete the task.
At Station 2, the students were asked to come up with the three key pointsof the reading passage that was assigned for homework. A copy of the reading
passage from their textbook, between 200–300 words, was at the station andthe students had to discuss the reading and negotiate with each other what they
thought the three key points of the reading were and give reasons why they
thought so. The primary goals of this station were to get students to negotiatewith each other by defending their reasons for selecting their key points andthen working together to write down their agreed upon key points and reasons.
Station 3 required students to utilize their homework by explaining to theirpartners some of their Internet research they did on the topic. For homework,
the students were asked to research two new pieces of information on the topic
that was not mentioned in the reading passage that was assigned for homework.
One of the pieces of information needed to be a statistic on the topic. For their
homework, students were asked to write down the information they researched,
the website they retrieved the information from, and the reason why they thought
the information was important. At Station 3, each group member was asked
to explain one of the things that was researched to the rest of the group. The
Station included phrases that they could use to help explain their research, suchas, “According to…,” “I researched on the website…” and “I researched…”
233

After explaining their research, the other members of the group summarized
what they heard on the In-Class Worksheet. At this station, the main goal forcooperative learning was to set up one student as the “expert” on their researchto establish both positive interdependence and individual accountability among
the students. The additional goals were to give students practice at explaining
information which would help their timed conversations and provide students
with more information to use in their timed conversations.
The activity at Station 4 varied from week to week depending on the topic.
There were a variety of different activities: cloze exercises, trivia questions,poster creation, fill-in the dialog cartoon pages, role play exercises, and researchtasks. All of the activities required participation from all of the members in order
to complete the task at each station. One example is from the topic on Artificial
Intelligence (AI), where each group’s task was to design an advertising poster fora new robot. One person was assigned to draw a picture of the robot on a pieceof A4 paper. Another person was asked to come up with a name and catchphrase
for the robot. A final task was to write up the features and functions of the robot
on a small piece of paper. If there were four members of the group, then usually
two members worked on this part together. Because there was only five minutes
to complete the advertisement, the students needed to quickly delegate and thencomplete their tasks. Because this unit on AI was towards the end of the course,
the students had become proficient at making quick decisions on task delegationin order to complete the task within five minutes. The goals, in addition to time
management, were to make each student individually accountable for a specifictask in order for the group to experience success by completing the task.
The discussions at Station 5 were largely designed to help students prepare
for the timed conversations, but also provided opportunities for the students
to develop communication strategies since they need to be able to explain andjustify their answers to the rest of their group. There were questions and statements on a piece of paper at the station and students were reminded to use follow
234

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■up questions and conversation strategies while talking about the questions orstatements. For instance, during most of the units there were five open-ended
questions followed by five statements which students had to either agree or disagree with and give their reasons. Also at the station were conversation strategies
to involve others in the conversation such as, “What do you think about that?”and “Do you agree with me?”
Station 6 was a vocabulary station which checked the student’s comprehension of the vocabulary from the reading passage. There were three pairs ofquestions which focused on word forms, as students were required to fill-in theblanks to the sentences using either the adjective, adverb, noun, or verb form.
There were six additional sentences where students needed to choose froma word bank which had the vocabulary words from the reading passage. To
complete the task at this station, the students worked together to try to selectthe correct vocabulary word for the sentence. The cooperative learning goal forthis station was to maximize the student’s learning by working together to solve
the tasks. While the activity wasn’t specifically designed to ensure cooperation,
students were encouraged, in the instructions, that working together would help
them complete the tasks in the five-minute time period.
At Station 7, the students once again used their homework to complete thework at the station. For their homework, the students were required to write aminimum of 30 words about their experience with the topic. The students wereto write on a first-hand experience about the topic. Alternatively, if the students
did not have any actual experience with the topic, then they were asked to write
about what they knew about the topic. The in-class work at the station had students sharing their experiences with their group members. The group members
were required to ask at least one question each to the student who shared hisor her experience. After this discussion, the other members of the group had towrite a one sentence summary of each group member’s experience. Thinking
and sharing experiences by engaging with others is one of the primary purposes235

of cooperative learning.
Station 8 was designed to give students the opportunity to explain theirknowledge of the topic by having a 5-minute conversation. The purpose of thisstation was to help students prepare for the 5-minute timed conversations. Unlike
the graded timed conversations, students were able to use any notes they had on
the topic. If the students reached this station toward the end of the station work,
then they had their homework as well as their in-class worksheets to assist themin the conversation. If the students were assigned this station at the beginningof the station work, they still had their homework to help guide them throughthe conversation. Unlike the graded timed conversation, this conversation was
not recorded.
Outcomes and Discussion
During the 15-week semester, the students completed the station work eighttimes. In addition to the three weeks of timed conversations, there were also
three review weeks in the class that preceded the timed conversations to help
students review the topics and prepare for the timed conversations. During thelast few minutes of every class, the students completed a short reflection about
the day’s lesson. From their reflections several themes emerged on their feelings
about the station work.
Ruddock (1978) stated that one of the benefits of heterogeneous groupingis that students are able to see a variety of perspectives. Several students commented that they enjoyed listening to the opinions of their classmates on the
topics.
I could enjoy the conversation because they often tell me their opinions.
I enjoyed my partner’s experience and enjoyed conversation. I used a
lot of vocabulary.

236

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■We have different opinions and experiences, so it’s interesting.
Group member had research well the topic. I could get new information. It’s very good for me.
I can get other partner’s ideas and answers so I enjoyed.
Additionally, students were happy to receive help from their peers while doing
the station work. Because this was a mixed-level class, the use of heterogeneousgroups put students in the position to receive assistance from their peers.
I can help members of group when they don’t understand the sentence
meaning.
I could enjoy talk with my partner. My partner helped me when I
couldn’t say what I want to say.
I could do the listening exercise more than usual. Everyone taught mekindly when I don’t know what to say in English.
We help each other. We speak a lot of the time, We enjoyed group work.
In addition to building language skills, the students were able to expand eachother’s knowledge on the topics through their work at the stations.
We could share our opinions so I can learn about new things.
They gave me some new information so I was excited.
They told me many information. They talked positively.
I knew things that I don’t know until now so I could learn and moreclever a little.
This topic is difficult for me. I heard many opinions so it is good for me.
Through their work at the stations, some students found motivation in trying to
improve some of the skills they realized they needed to improve on during thestation work.
237

In group work, vocabulary quiz is perfect!! But listening is bad so I
want to grow listening ability.
I can’t understand a lot of word, so I want to study a lot of word. I want
to become to understand the readings.
I could speak deeply about this unit! But I couldn’t do listening so I
want to listen and write smoothly.
My understanding has deepened because I have focused more on
preparatory than last week.
I need to prepare more next time. Then, I will enjoy the conversation
more than today.
Students were also able to find motivation based on their successful completionof tasks at different stations.
Today’s topic is so fun. And today, I could get correct the vocabulary
in the class. That was today’s good point.
I could answer them correctly at Station 1. I’m happy! I think there
are good things today!
For the first time, I completed Station 6’s vocabulary. I was glad!
We can complete the word section! And we caught good information.
I could participate positively than before. I enjoy to discuss with groupmembers.
Finally, group members found motivation to study English harder as a result ofworking with partners with a higher level of English ability.
He tried speaking English always! I enjoyed working with him.
Her English is very native. I want to speak well.
Our group members were very fluent in English. I want to be like them.

238

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■He always tried English in his answers!
Everyone tried to speak English. I enjoyed this class.
The main purposes of doing the station work in the course were to provide
students with more chances to interact with their peers, give them multiple
activities to complete together, and use cooperative learning to increase theirmotivation to improve their English. The focus was not to measure an increasein fluency or overall English ability but to encourage students to find motivation
through their successes in completing the stations, having enjoyable interactions
with classmates, and discovering or rediscovering that learning English can be
exciting. If a student can find this motivation, it can continue to benefit themthroughout the rest of their English education as well as their lives.
Participants in Application Two of Cooperative Learning
The second author’s course for this study was similar to the first author’s
course in many aspects. It was also a compulsory course for non-English majors,
offered to second-year students over 15 weeks, and followed an integrated
English curriculum. The course consisted of 97 students divided between fourclasses (32, 33, 15, & 17), with most students near a CEFR B1 level. This course
differed in that it met twice per week for 90 minutes each and was part of an
online semester in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary modeof participation was 12 weeks of synchronous online learning via Zoom. Also,
students participated in three weeks of on-demand learning at various stages
throughout the semester. The two smaller classes (15 and 17) were taught cotaught by the author and another lecturer. As a result, these classes had fewer
interactions using the cooperative learning tasks described below.
Application Two of Cooperative Learning
The second-year course blended content-based learning and communicative
239

English teaching to improve speaking, listening, reading, writing, and students’
overall fluency. The 12 weeks of the course spent participating in synchronous
online learning covered four units lasting five classes. Since students werejoining class via Zoom, breakout rooms were used regularly for small group
work. Students prepared and participated in debates at the end of each unit.
Also, students researched and gave presentations after studying two units. The
students selected the presentation topics, which had to be related to the units
covered in the textbook.
A typical class started with a 5 to 10-minute warm-up in which students
were able to get back into an English mindset by participating in discussions.
These warm-ups varied between small groups and whole-class discussions.
Following the warm-up, the teacher would present a short slideshow coveringclass announcements, the class schedule, and brief information connected to the
topic. The teacher would then guide students through the various tasks they would
be completing, modeling participation behaviors and expectations. Students werethen organized into small groups and given 40 minutes or more to complete thetasks. After the time was up, students would return to the main meeting room,
where the class would debrief about what they learned and accomplished that day.
Students were divided into small groups of 3–5 students and put into breakout
rooms to maximize their speaking time and opportunities to use English. There
were usually 8–10 breakout rooms open during one class period. Consequently,
time was limited for the teacher to join and assist each group. Cooperative
learning tasks were thus used to help students improve communication skills andgroup dynamics while also helping students become more autonomous. Whengroups were more independent, it allowed the teacher to spend more time withgroups that needed assistance. Throughout the semester, groups were divided in
two ways. In about half of the classes, students were divided randomly. In theother half of the classes, students were given a choice of which style of breakout
room they wanted to join. The three style options were based on English use
240

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■expectations: All-English, mostly-English, and no-requirement. The decision
was entirely up to each student and was only temporary as they had the freedom
to move between styles daily. The decision was not made as a way of tracking
but was offered to give students more flexibility in their group roles and more
control over their learning. It also freed up the teacher from “policing” students’English use to a facilitator or guide.
When readings from the textbooks were reviewed and discussed in groups,
the teacher provided a Google Jamboard with various tasks. While students could
not move physically through a room as they would with stations, this allowed
them to move through a series of tasks in a virtual space. Google Jamboard is aninteractive whiteboard system similar to a slideshow application, but it is simplified to make simultaneous interaction and collaboration more efficient. Users candraw, write, type, add shapes, add sticky notes, and post images with ease. The
activities used varied between individual, group, and class-oriented, allowing
cooperative learning to occur on different levels within one class. Once opened,
the Jamboard becomes part of each student’s Google Drive so that the content
can be accessed and reviewed at any time. Google Jamboard was chosen because
it was interactive and simple for students to master because of its limited options
and functions. When maximized to its fullest potential, all students in the group
could simultaneously work on the same task while communicating about what
they were doing via their breakout room. Once objects are on the Jamboard, they
can be manipulated instantaneously by anyone on the Jamboard, which created aform of connectedness that often was missing from breakout room discussions.
Cooperative learning tasks done in Zoom breakout rooms through Google
Jamboards varied to match the topics, but a few of the activities remained
consistent throughout many units. The following tasks were used on multiple
occasions:
1. Bilingual lists
2. Explain to a 5-year-old
241

3. Student-created discussion questions
4. What surprised you? sticky notes
5. Video response
6. DAE images
There were no set times for task completion, and groups could choose to complete
the tasks in any order. Students were instructed that it would be better to spend
more time on a few tasks than to rush through everything as quickly as possible.
The goal was for students to have deeper and more meaningful interactions withthe content. Each group likely had different interests and study preferences, andthis system allowed them to choose what was of most importance. The following
paragraphs will explain each of the six cooperative learning tasks.
The bilingual list is a task that focuses on vocabulary acquisition. Students
make a T-chart of words related to a topic. On one side, they would write thewords in English. If they did not know a word in English, they could then write
the Japanese word on the other side. After they were happy with the list, theywork together without dictionaries to complete the lists on both sides. Lists
that were not completed were then discussed during the debriefing session at
the end of class. Because this task relies on students’ background knowledge
but not English ability, it allows each student to participate and foster groupinterdependence.
Explain it to a 5-year-old is another task focused on vocabulary acquisition
and understanding. Students are asked to type a vocabulary word and then type
how they would explain it to a 5-year-old. As a group activity, the students
negotiate the meaning of the word and whether a 5-year-old could understand it.
The purpose is to get students away from dictionary definitions and start thinking
about and using words in different contexts and forms.
The next task was connected to a group reading. After reading from the
textbooks, students would post their discussion questions using sticky notes on
the Jamboard. Groups were often required to write one per group member. This
242

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■particular Jamboard was shared with all groups. Later in the class, they wereasked to come back and discuss any of the questions. To make sure they did notrush through this part of the activity, they were given an amount of time theyshould talk as a goal, and all students in the group were expected to answer.
Throughout the year, students were practicing how to read nonfiction
critically. One of the questions associated with this was, “what surprised you
about the reading?” For this task, students were asked to discuss this questionin groups and then post their ideas to the Jamboard using the sticky note tool.
To encourage more discussion, they had to explain why this piece of information was surprising. It was also expected that other group members would ask
follow-up questions and respond to opinions.
The video response activity provided a link to a video that groups could watch
together. This activity was done via Zoom by having one student play the video
while sharing his or her screen in the breakout room. After watching the video,
students discussed how it connected to the readings, how it connected to theirlives, and how they felt after watching it.
Describe, analyze, and evaluate (DAE) is an intercultural communication
exercise in which students are given an image and asked to answer the following
questions:
D: What is happening in the picture?
A: Why is it happening?
E: How do you feel about it?
The exercise is “intended to foster self-awareness of personal and cultural
assumptions, promote the appreciation of cognitive complexity, and the importance of frame-shifting when encountering the familiar” (Nam & Condon, 2010,
p. 81). The images used in this class were connected to the topics covered in
the readings. Often, these images exhibited a culture or situation with which
students were unfamiliar. Answers to the first question are often similar and canbe agreed upon when discussed. In contrast, the second question’s answers are243

open to multiple interpretations, and the final answers may be the most diverse.
The role of the teacher during these classes was dynamic. At times, students
needed encouragement to use more English or conversation strategies. The teacher could also elicit information with follow-up questions if a discussion lacked
depth. At other times, students required clarification of instructions or support
with the understanding of words and phrases. If groups were homogenous in
their answers, the teacher might share alternative information to help them seeanother perspective. As students became more familiar with the technology andexpectations, their need for help declined. This development allowed the teacher
to spend more time with the groups who still needed assistance. At the end ofeach class, the whole class would debrief on the class activities. At this time,
the teacher would go through some of the Google Jamboard activities and callon group members randomly to share information. Because they were called
on randomly, all group members had to participate in the discussions and help
each other to summarize their discussions. The objective was to facilitate groupinterdependence further.
While some of the activities seem similar, the multimodal differences offer
students multiple entry points to connect to the material. Combined with the
breakout rooms and Google Jamboard, it was possible to balance student learning preferences with promoting the essential elements of cooperative learning.
Outcomes and Discussion
The Google Jamboard cooperative learning activities were used 12 times during the 12 weeks of synchronous learning for the larger classes (32 and 33) andsix times for the smaller classes (15 and 17). At the end of the semester, students
completed a survey consisting of open-ended questions about their experienceswith the cooperative learning tasks. The general impression of the tasks was
overwhelmingly positive. Students specifically promoted the tasks as enjoyable
or useful 41 times, while students only commented that they disliked the tasks
244

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■three times. Despite having a large sample size, only 33 students completed thesurveys. From these responses, the following themes emerged.
Several students felt that the cooperative learning activities helped them
improve their English and learn something valuable.
I could try to speak all English because of this group and I think myEnglish skills have improved.
I learned a lot of things because we were able to share the opinions orideas of others in the breakout rooms.
It was difficult for me to complete Jamboard in English, but it helped
me with studying and understanding about each unit.
It was enjoy solving it. There are questions don’t appear in textbook.
We could consider to these again so I think we might develop an ability
to consider on the scene.
Similarly, many students mentioned that they appreciated the opportunity to
exchange ideas and see things from multiple perspectives, specifically using
Google Jamboard. Even when students were working in groups, they were able
to see other groups’ responses simultaneously.
It was great to be able to hear a lot of opinions from other groups.
It was interesting because I could see the opinions of people from othergroups and use them as a reference.
I very enjoyed working with classmates in breakout rooms, because,
my classmates gave me a lot of opinion and advice.
I could see the opinions of people from other groups and use them asa reference.
Some students commented that the learning environment was conducive to theirlearning. They felt more comfortable working in smaller groups, and this allowed
them to use more English than they would have in larger groups.
245

I like it. Jamboard has a lot of talking topics, so I had a lot of chances
to speak English.
It was like assuring me to practice English with my classmates. They
were also willing to speak English so that I could talk with them inEnglish freely.
Even if there are a large number of people and it is difficult to talk, asmall number of people will make it easier to talkAt first, I was nervous about break rooms because I am not good atEnglish. But I was happy when my opinion was conveyed to my friends.
This author has used cooperative learning in face-to-face classes as well, but theneed to offer more student interactions during synchronous online learning was
the primary drive for this study. The main concern was how to recreate a similar
learning environment online so that students could benefit from cooperative
learning. Students were able to develop small-group skills and interdependence
that will be useful beyond university. The multiple paths to learning provide
more opportunities for language use and development. Students spent an entire
academic year studying online. Thus, there was a need to help students maintainmotivation and to foster enthusiasm for English.

Conclusion
The authors’ purposes for using cooperative learning activities in ESL classrooms are to facilitate student talk time and increase English use, help students
move away from a focus on grammatical form and structures to a focus on meaning, and provide multiple outlets for student participation and development. Thistransition away from a teacher-centered classroom shifts the onus of learning
to the students, improving their learning autonomy. From this perspective, thepotential for cooperative learning was evident in this study, and it is effective inboth traditional face-to-face and online environments. Multiple students claimed
that they could speak more during the small group activities, they were able to246The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■exchange ideas and learn from each other, and the activities created a comfortable learning environment — these aspects aid in improving motivation, which
students also discussed. Finally, through reflections, students demonstrated thatthey had started to think about and take responsibility for their learning.
There are obstacles to implementing cooperative learning effectively.
Johnson and Johnson (1994) warn that assigning students to work together insmall groups does not magically create cooperative learning. Students need
to be guided towards being supportive and interdependent group members.
Furthermore, to be effective, cooperative learning needs to represent most of
the class activities to reinforce its relevance to students and improve teacher
expertise. Additionally, how students learn in other classes may affect the effectiveness of this learning approach. If students are consistently being asked tocompete with each other for grades, it may be more challenging to help them see
the significance of working together toward a shared goal. In such a situation,teachers may have to spend more time teaching interpersonal and small-groupskills and reflecting on what has been learned.
The authors advocate using cooperative learning; however, the generalizability of this study’s results should be considered cautiously. Even though
the students in this study are not English majors, they are language majors.
Meaning, many of them may be highly motivated to participate in ESL classes.
As second-year students, many of them have had multiple communicative ESL
classes making them ideal participants for cooperative learning. Finally, thisstudy was concerned with students’ perceptions rather than learning outcomes.
While the authors care about language development and grades, the primaryconcern is to promote student interaction, small-group skills, and autonomy.
Further research into the learning outcomes, both short and long-term, may benecessary to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this study’s activities.

247

References
Allan, S.D. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and thegifted? Educational Leadership, 48, 60–65.
Anderson, F.E. (1993). The enigma of the college classroom: Nails that don’t stick up. In P. Walden(Ed.), Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities (pp. 101–110).
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bassano, S. & Christison, M.A. (1992). Drawing out. Englewood, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bennet, A. (2015). Reading Pass 1. Nan’un-do.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Edinburgh: Pearson.
Breen, M.P. (1986). The social context of language learning: a neglected situation. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 7, 135–158.
Breen, M.P. & Candlin, C.N. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language
learning. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 89–112.
Davidson, N. & Worsham, T. (1992). HOTSICLE- Higher Order Thinking Skills in Cooperative
Learning Environments. In N. Davidson & T. Worsham (Eds.), Enhancing Thinking ThroughCooperative Learning (pp. xi-xx). New York: Teachers College Press.
Freeman, D.E. & Freeman, Y.S. (1994). Between worlds: Access to second language acquisition.
Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Guest, M. (2000). “But I have to teach grammar!”: An analysis of the role grammar plays in Japanese
university entrance examinations. The Language Teacher, 24(11), 23–29.
Hadfield, J. & Dörnyei, Z. (2013). Motivating Learning. New York: Routledge.
Harumi, S. (2011). Classroom silence: voices from Japanese EFL learners. ELT Journal, 65(3),260–269.
Jacobs, G. (2006). Issues in implementing cooperative learning. In S.G. McCafferty, G.M. Jacobs, &A.C. DaSilva Iddings (Eds.), Cooperative Learning and Second Language Teaching (pp. 30–47).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs, G.M. & Rendaya, W.A. (2019). Student centered Cooperative Learning: Linking Concepts in
Education to Promote Student Learning. Singapore: Springer.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1991). Teaching students to be peacemakers (video). Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1994). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (2002). Circles of learning (5th ed.). Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (1998). Multiple intelligences: The complete MI handbook. San Clemente,
CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Lamb, M. (2017). The motivational dimension of language teaching. Language Teaching, 50(3),301–346.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.

248

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York:
Academic Press.
Mayer, D.R. (1994). Ten Japanese English-Learners’ Syndromes. The Language Teacher, 18(5),12–15.
McCafferty, S.G., Jacobs, G.M., & DaSilva Iddings, A.C. (2006). Roots of cooperative learning in
general education. In S.G. McCafferty, G.M. Jacobs, & A.C. DaSilva Iddings (Eds.), Cooperative
Learning and Second Language Teaching (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Nakata, Y. (2006). Motivation and Experience in Foreign Language Learning. Bern: Peter Lang.
Nam, K.-A., & Condon, J. (2010). The DIE is cast: The continuing evolution of intercultural communication’s favorite classroom exercise. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1),81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.09.001
Ozasa, T. (2001). English Teaching Methodology in Japan: A Historical Perspective. Hiroshima,
Japan: Keisiusha.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ruddock, J. (1978). Learning through small group discussion. Guilford, Surrey: Society for Research
into Higher Education, University of Surrey.
Sato, N. (2004). Inside Japanese Classrooms: The Heart of Education. New York/London: Routledge
FalmerSlavin, R.E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and “untracking” harmful to the gifted? Educational
Leadership, 48, 68–71.
Wang, C. & Pape, S.J. (2007). A probe into three Chinese boys’ self-efficacy beliefs learning English
as a second language. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21, 364–377.

249

Appendix
Appendix
1 1Integrated English
Homework Sheet
Unit Title ___________________________
Pre-Reading Question
Write down the discussion question and answer it before you do the reading. Give reasons for youranswer(s).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________?

Key Points of the Reading

1.
2.
3.
Research- Information
Research one thing about the topic and explain why it is important.

Research- Information
Information___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Source (website)_________________________________________________________________________
Why it’s important___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

250

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■Research- Statistic
Research one statistic (number data) about the topic and explain why it is important.

Research- Statistic
Information___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Source (website)_________________________________________________________________________
Why it’s important__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Your Experience
Write at least 30 words about some of your experience with this topic (either your own experience orsomething that you’ve heard about).

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reflection
Answer the questions below.
1. What is something new you learned about the topic?

2. What was most interesting about the topic? Why?

3. What did you not like about the topic? Why not?

251

Appendix
2
Appendix
2
Integrated English
In-Class Sheet
Unit Title ___________________________
Station 1
Listening Activity

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Station 2
Key Points

1.
_________________________________________________________________________Why?
______________________________________________________________________
2.
_________________________________________________________________________Why?
______________________________________________________________________
3.
_________________________________________________________________________Why?
______________________________________________________________________

252

The Use of Cooperative Learning to Enhance Communication Skills ■Station 3
Research1.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Station 4
Group Work

Station 6
Vocabulary

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

253

Station 7
Experiences

Name ______________
Experience (in about 15 words)__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Name _____________
Experience (in about 15 words)__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

254