Developing cooperative learning in efl contents. Introduction

Developing and incorporating talk for learning
The very nature of CL facilitates interaction amongst pupils. It was the work of Webb (1985) who showed the importance of the explanations that children were required to give that then impacted on the learning. However, in a more recent study (1995) Webb et al found that such explanations needed to be pitched appropriately for the pupil to benefit. Other studies (e.g. King et al,1998) found that pupils can be trained in questioning and giving explanations and that this together with peer tutoring showed greater academic achievement.
Barnes and Todd's study (1977) became central to much later research. They conducted a qualitative analysis of the interaction in groups which showed the nature of understanding that arises from groups, the kinds of social and cognitive skills required for effective interaction and the effects on the interaction by the variation in tasks. Cohen describes the transcripts from this study as 'some of the best examples in the literature of the social construction of knowledge' (Cohen, 1994a: 5). Barnes and Todd's work also showed that pupils need both social and cognitive skills for effective interaction.
Explicit talk to support problem-solving is an aspect researched by Chang and Wells (1987), who concluded that in order to be effective, groups must manage the process of solving problems with explicit talk. They defined learning as problem-solving, and to work together students need to identify specific goals and then carry out a plan-do-review procedure. Vedder (1985) also sees cooperative learning as a result of an explicit process, which expounds the role of pupils controlling each other's learning. Vedder, however, was disappointed at the level of talk that takes place in small groups. From these studies, Cohen (1994a) propounded a generalisation: for pupils to engage in high-level interaction, they need specific development of skills for discourse and Barnes and Todd's work suggests that pupils also need support with interpersonal skills.
Cohen also examined any possible correlation between the extent of interaction and academic achievement. Webb (1983, 1991) has reviewed studies in this area also, but the correlation shows wide inconsistencies, and presented no system of classroom management or special skills training. Cohen, however, found, using complex instruction (Cohen, 1994b), that
'simple measures of frequency of task-related interaction are related to gains on computation and mathematical concepts and applications as well as on content-referenced tests.'³⁷
Leechor (1988) also concluded that task-related talk was a significant predictor of gains in mathematics. Cohen postulates that the reasons for the differences in findings are, first the working relationships between the group members and second, the nature of the task. A group task requires resources that are shared amongst the group and are unable to solve the problem or task without input from others. Group members must therefore exchange resources before completing the task. This therefore ensures the key element of interdependence. With complex instruction, interdependence is also established by each member of a group being responsible for the success of the rest. In this method of CL, groups have a weekly skills building activity. The other key difference between studies by Webb (1991) and Cohen (1986) lies in the nature of task, with many algorithmic mathematics tasks having one right answer. Open-ended tasks, in contrast allow the group to exchange ideas and come up with creative solutions. This led Cohen to the following general proposition: 'Given an ill-structured problem and a group task, productivity will depend on interaction.'
A key factor was also found to be:
'The most consistent, positive predictor or achievement in these studies is the giving of detailed, elaborate explanations.' (Cohen, citing
Webb, 1983, 1991)³⁸
The giving of detailed explanations concurs with what Fletcher (1985) terms 'cognitive facilitation'. This concerns verbalizing decisions, and also what has been called 'think aloud problem-solving' (King, 1989).
Research in this area has shown that structuring discussion can be beneficial. Yager (1985) studied the effects of structured oral discussion which included students being randomly assigned the role of 'learning leader' or 'learning listener'. The leader had to restate and summarise the main points of the lesson and the listener had to ask probing questions, encouraging better explanations. When compared with unstructured groups, the structured groups did significantly better on a unit test and later retention of material. This is similar to reciprocal teaching developed by Brown and Palinscar (1986) which structures interaction with questioning, clarifying, summarising and predicting. Here the pupils were given the role of teacher after 10 days of reciprocal teaching instruction, and working with groups independent of the teacher, made considerable gains compared to pupils working in traditional teaching situations. Structured oral discussion appears to be predicated on the nature of the task: such as, the recall of material; understanding of reading matter, or application of procedures in a routine way.
Controversy research (Johnson and Johnson, 1985) shows how procedures such as having pupils argue different positions on a topic and being assigned group roles can foster high level discussion. When the group is working on open-ended problems, the use of roles in groups can also foster interaction. Zack (1988) showed that the use of a facilitator role was associated with increased talking and working together on problems in maths and science. Cohen, Lotan and Leechor, (1989) used the role of the reporter whose job was to encourage the group to think and talk together and to create answers on the specific form. This showed a greater amount of interaction when the reporter role was used. Cohen describes the teacher's dilemma resulting from the above:
'If teachers do nothing to structure the level of interaction, they may well find that students stick to a most concrete mode of interaction. If they do too much to structure the interaction, they may prevent the students from thinking for themselves and thus gaining the benefits of the interaction.'
(1994b:22)
The social construction of knowledge facilitated by talk requires specific skills. These are the subject of the next key theme found in research into CL.