Developing cooperative learning in efl contents. Introduction

Specific teaching of teamwork and communication skills
Gillies and Ashman, (1996) examined the necessary pupil skills for CL to be effective and where explicit training was given, found greater success. In addition, Gillies and Boyle (2005) found that when teachers were trained to use cooperative learning, including scaffolding children's discussions, they were able to model helpful interventions which were in turn used by pupils. This study provided evidence of methods of extending children's thinking and encouraged their involvement with tasks.
Johnson and Johnson (2005) propose that every CL lesson is a lesson in social skills and supports conflict resolution, particularly where specific teaching in the latter is provided. The school thus becomes a microcosm of society, by having students work together cooperatively, embedding values of mutual support, which in turn supports consensual peace.
Veenman, Kenter and Post (2000) found that although cooperative learning was not commonly used in primary schools in Holland, research identified improved social benefits; improved self esteem; time on task and more positive attitudes to school subjects. However, implementation was not so successful if it did not include sufficient team work skills and: 'regularly reviewing the rules for effective cooperation is certainly needed for the cooperation to work well and particularly in the first years of implementing CL.' (2000:299)
Specific teaching of such skills is therefore an important factor in success of the use of CL.
The Nature of the Task
Examining studies of interaction, it is first important to ensure that the task lends itself to cooperative group work. Alongside this is the issue of motivating pupils to work as a group. Cohen (1994a) proposes that both goal and resource interdependence are necessary as neither alone will provide the group interaction.
Tasks need to be clearly designed so pupils are required to support each other in the process, as in STAD which also includes group rewards. Sharan et al (1984) compared Slavin's STAD and the Group Investigation method (Sharan, 1990) and found that the latter fosters more extensive interaction and better achievement. This is because groups are required to plan the task, divide the labour, collect and organize the information and then give elaborate presentations to the class. The key difference here is that the information is not given by the teacher; the pupils have to gather the information from a range of sources. The task stresses problem-solving skills. Nystrand, Gamoran and Heck (1991) also found that the nature of the tasks affects the interaction and where students are required to define a problem and engage in autonomous production of knowledge, it was more effective. Cohen posits the following hypothesis therefore:
'When the teaching objective is learning for understanding and involves higher order thinking, task arrangements and instructions that constrain and routinize interaction will be less productive than arrangements and instructions that foster maximum interaction, mutual exchange and elaborated discussions. ' ³⁹