Developing cooperative learning in efl contents. Introduction

Constructive Controversy (Johnson and Johnson, 1995) Johnson and Johnson state that 'creating intellectual conflict (controversy) to improve academic learning is one of the most powerful and important instructional tools'.¹⁸ The format for structuring this approach consists of:

1. 
   A topic is selected by the teacher which can be divided easily into two clear positions (for and against).
   
2. 
   Pupils are placed in groups of four, divided into two pairs, with each pair given a 'for and against' position.
   
3. 
   Each pair then learns the position and arguments, researches further information, and prepares a series of persuasive arguments.
   
4. 
   The teacher emphasizes the importance of reaching a consensus.
   
5. 
   Each pair presents its position.
   
6. 
   Discussion time is provided with pairs asking for evidence for the differing positions.
   

7. 
   The pairs reverse the positions and present the opposite arguments.
   

7. 
   The groups then reach a decision by consensus followed by either writing a group report or take a test on both positions individually.
   

Johnson and Johnson, (1995) report that pupils derive many academic and social benefits from participating in such controversies, however this approach is only suitable to certain types of activity or curriculum area. This method also could only be used by older children with the skills and maturity to carry out such tasks.
Jigsaw - is one of the earliest of the cooperative learning methods to be used. In Jigsaw, each pupil in a small group is given unique information on a topic studied by the whole group. After pupils have studied their sections, they reform in 'expert groups' with their counterparts from other groups to discuss the information. Next, the pupils return to their groups and teach their team­mates what they have learned. In this way each member of the home group plays a vital role and the group cannot succeed unless everyone contributes. The findings by Aronson et al (1978) showed five major benefits when using the jigsaw technique. Firstly, pupils showed increased likely for team-mates without decreasing their liking for others in the classroom. Secondly, both white and black children showed increased liking for school than in competitive classrooms. Thirdly, it increased self-esteem and fourthly, pupils cooperated more and viewed others in the class as a learning resource and finally pupils showed improved academic achievement and this was maintained. Bottery reported similar findings working in an inner-city primary school in the north of England. He also noted that 'the almost total absence of 'chalk and talk' by the teacher allowed the children to feel much more active and important in the learning process' .
Various models of Jigsaw have been explored, which demonstrate that they create positive interdependence and individual accountability. However, this method can be complex to organise in terms of materials, and it may work better for some topics (e.g. those that are sequential) than for others.
An adaptation of Elliot Aronson's Jigsaw technique (1978), called Jigsaw II involves pupils working in four-member, heterogeneous teams as in Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), discussed below. They read narrative materials and each member is given a special area in which to become an expert. They then work with other experts from other teams on the same material and return to teach the topic to their fellow team members. This is followed by an assessment of some form for the whole team. Individual successes are thus dependent on the contribution of each member. Studies of the success of this method have shown that there were significant positive effects particularly in certain subjects, e.g. geography (Mattingly and Van Sickle, 1991) with no significant improvement in other areas.
Student teams (STAD) - Robert Slavin (1985).¹⁹ Student team learning methods incorporate the concept of individual accountability and equal opportunity to succeed, but also include the use of team rewards. Teams usually consist of four members who are mixed in gender, ability and ethnicity. The teacher presents the lesson, and then pupils work in teams to ensure that all members have mastered the objective. Pupils then take individual tests on the material and scores are averaged for teams and compared with past scores, with teams rewarded for meeting certain criteria. Slavin (1983a) conducted 46 experiments in elementary and secondary schools in the United States and control groups showed a favourable effect in a large number of these experiments. Of 29 separate studies on STAD (reported in detail in Salvin 1996:20), 69% were found to have significant positive effects and no effects were negative.
The introduction of competition between teams has led to fierce debate, as discussed previously, for although Slavin holds that some form of reward is necessary to maintain motivation, Johnson and Johnson (1989) and Brown and Thomson (2000) hold that competition is not an essential requirement and state:
'The introduction of competition seems more likely to lead to performance goals rather than mastery goals as well as encouraging extrinsic motivation.' ²⁰