THE EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ACTIVITIES ON STUDENT

ATTITUDES TOWARDS ENGLISH READING COURSES

AND

COOPERATIVE LEARNING

A MASTER’S THESIS

By

ÖZLEM BAYAT

THE DEPARTMENT OF

TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE

BILKENT UNIVERSITY

ANKARA

JULY 2004
THE EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ACTIVITIES ON STUDENT
ATTITUDES TOWARDS ENLISH READING COURSES
AND
COOPERATIVE LEARNING

The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences

of
Bilkent University

by

ÖZLEM BAYAT

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in

THE DEPARTMENT OF
TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
BILKENT UNIVERSITY
ANKARA

JULY, 2004
 BILKENT UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES MA THESIS
EXAMINATION RESULT FORM

JULY 1, 2004

The examining committee appointed by the Institute of Economics and Social

Sciences for the thesis examination of the MA TEFL student

Özlem Bayat

has read the thesis of the student.

The committee has decided that the thesis of the student is satisfactory.

Title: The effects of cooperative learning activities on

student attitudes towards English reading courses and
cooperative learning.

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Kimberly Trimble

Bilkent University, MA TEFL Program

Committee Members: Dr. Bill Snyder

Bilkent University, MA TEFL Program

Dr. Paul Nelson

Bilkent University, Faculty of Education
I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope
and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Teaching English as a Foreign
Language.
---------------------------------
(Dr. Kimberly Trimble)
Supervisor

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope
and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Teaching English as a Foreign
Language.

---------------------------------
(Dr. Bill Snyder)
Examining Committee Member

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope
and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Teaching English as a Foreign
Language.

---------------------------------
(Dr. Paul Nelson)
Examining Committee Member

Approval of the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences

---------------------------------
(Prof. Dr. Kürşat Aydoğan)
Director
 ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ACTIVITIES ON STUDENT

ATTITUDES TOWARDS ENGLISH READING COURSES
AND
COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Bayat, Özlem

M. A., Department of Teaching English as a Foreign Language

Supervisor: Dr. Kimberly Trimble

Co-supervisor: Dr. Bill Snyder

July, 2004

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative

learning activities on student attitudes towards English reading courses and

cooperative learning. Possible differences in attitudes in terms of gender and

achievement level of students were also investigated.

The study was conducted with one control and one experimental group. In

total, 40 students participated in the study. Following a work shop on the

implementation of cooperative learning activities, the teacher taught the experimental

group using cooperative learning activities. The control group was taught using

traditional whole class methods. Questionnaires were given to both groups before

and after the four-week treatment. Interviews were also conducted with the teacher

and randomly selected students.

i
 Questionnaire data were analyzed by t-tests and ANOVA tests. According to

the results of these tests, no significant differences after the treatment were found

between the control group and the experimental group responses related to their

attitudes towards English reading courses and cooperative learning. In within-group

comparison, however, the experimental group’s attitudes towards the English reading

course was significantly more negative, whereas no change was found in the control

group. Gender and achievement level were found to have no significant influence on

students’ attitudes towards English reading courses and cooperative learning. Data

collected in teacher and student interviews, however, suggested that cooperative

learning had positive effects on attitudes towards English reading courses. In

addition, both the teacher and the students reported positive attitude towards

cooperative learning.

Key Terminology: Cooperative learning, cooperative language learning.

ii
 ÖZET

İŞBİRLİKLİ ÖĞRENME AKTİVİTELERİNİN ÖĞRENCİLERİN İNGİLİZCE

OKUMA DERSLERİNE VE İŞBİRLİKLİ ÖĞRENMEYE YÖNELİK
TUTUMLARI ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ

Bayat, Özlem

Yüksek Lisans, Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğretimi

Tez Yöneticisi: Dr. Kimberly Trimble

Ortak Tez Yöneticisi: Dr. Bill Snyder

Temmuz, 2004

Bu çalışmanın amacı, işbirlikli öğrenme aktivitelerinin öğrencilerin İngilizce

okuma derslerine ve işbirlikli öğrenmeye yönelik tutumları üzerindeki etkilerini

araştırmaktı. Cinsiyet ve başarı düzeyinden kaynaklanabilecek olası farklılıklar da

araştırılmıştır.

Çalışma bir deney ve bir kontrol grubu üzerinde yapılmıştır. İşbirlikli

öğrenme aktivitelerinin uygulanmasına yönelik çalıştaydan sonra ders öğretmeni

deney grubunda bu aktiviteleri kullanarak ders işlemiştir. Kontrol grubu, öğretmenin

önceden de kullandığı geleneksel öğretim yöntemi ile öğrenmeye devam etmiştir.

Dört haftalık uygulama öncesi ve sonrasında her iki gruba anket verilmiştir. Ayrıca,

öğretmen ve rasgele seçilen öğrenciler ile görüşmeler yapılmıştır.

Anketlerden toplanan veriler t-testi ve Varyans testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Test

sonuçlarına göre deney ve kontrol grubu arasında uygulama sonrasında İngilizce

iii
okuma derslerine ve işbirlikli öğrenmeye yönelik tutumlar bakımından fark

bulunmamıştır. Deney grubunun kendi içinde ilk ve son anket sonuçları

karşılaştırıldığında ise İngilizce okuma derslerine yönelik tutumlarda anlamlı bir

farklılık bulunmuştur ve bu farklılık olumsuzdur. Cinsiyet ve başarı düzeyleri

bakımından öğrencilerin İngilizce okuma dersleri ve işbirlikli öğrenmeye yönelik

tutumlarında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmamıştır. Öğretmen ve öğrenciler ile yapılan

görüşmeler sonucu elde edilen veriler, hem öğretmenin hem de öğrencilerin işbirlikli

öğrenmeye yönelik olumlu tutum sergilediklerini ve işbirlikli öğrenmenin İngilizce

okuma dersine yönelik tutumları olumlu etkilediğini göstermiştir.

Anahtar terimler: İşbirlikli öğrenme, işbirlikli dil öğrenimi.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank to my thesis advisor, Dr. Kimberly Trimble for his help

and guidance throughout my research study.

I would also like to thank to my co-superviser Dr. Bill Snyder, and my other

teachers in the program Dr. Julie Mathews-Aydınlı and Dr. Martin Endley for their

contributions.

I would like to thank to my teacher Assistant Professor Uğur Altunay who

encouraged me to attend the MA TEFL Program.

Special thanks to the participants of the study.

Finally, I am deeply thankful to my husband, Nihat Bayat, for his support,

help, patience, and love.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………… i

ÖZET……………………………………………………………………….. iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………….......... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………… vi

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………...... xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………... 1

Introduction…………………………………………………………. 1

Background of the Study……………………………………………. 1

Statement of the Problem…………………………………………… 6

Research Questions…………………………………………………. 7

Significance of the Study…………………………………………… 7

Key Terminology…………………………………………………… 8

Conclusion…………………………………………………………... 8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………… 9

Introduction......................................................................................... 9

Cooperative Learning……………………………………………….. 9

Rationale for Using Cooperative Learning…………………. 10

Well-known Cooperative Learning Activities……………… 13

Cooperative Language Learning……………………………………. 15

Cooperative Learning Versus Group Work……………….... 16

The Advantages of Cooperative Language Learning……….. 18

vi
 Cooperative Learning and the Teacher……………………... 20

Cooperative Learning and the Student……………………… 23

Reading in L2 and Cooperative Learning…………………………... 26

Conclusion…………………………………………………………... 27

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY………………………………………….. 29

Introduction…………………………………………………………. 29

Participants…………………………………………………………... 29

Instruments…………………………………………………………... 31

Questionnaires………………………………………………... 31

Interviews……………………………………………………... 33

Data Collection Procedures…………………………………………... 34

Data Analysis…………………………………………………………. 35

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS…………………………………………… 37

Introduction…………………………………………………………… 37

Data Analysis Procedure……………………………………………… 38

Data Analysis…………………………………………………………. 39

Questionnaires………………………………………………… 39

Interviews……………………………………………………... 44

Conclusion……………………………………………………………. 54

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION……………………………………………….. 55

Overview of the Study………………………………………………... 55

Discussion of the Results……………………………………………... 56

Limitations of the Study………………………………………………. 60

Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………... 61

vii
 Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………….. 63

Conclusion……………………………………………………………. 63

REFERENCE LIST…………………………………………………………... 65

APPENDICES………………………………………………………………... 70

APPENDIX A………………………………………………………… 70

APPENDIX B………………………………………………………… 74

APPENDIX C………………………………………………………… 78

APPENDIX D ………………………………………………………... 80

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

1 Characteristics of participants in terms of gender……………………… 30

2 Characteristics of participants in terms of achievement level…….......... 30

3 Effects of cooperative learning activities on reading attitudes (between

group comparison………………………………………………………. 40

4 Effects of cooperative learning activities on reading attitudes (within

group comparison………………………………………………………. 40

5 Effects of cooperative learning activities on attitudes towards

cooperative learning (between group comparison)…………………….. 41

6 Effects of cooperative learning activities on attitudes towards

cooperative learning (within group comparison)………………………. 42

7 Gender difference in attitudes towards reading after implementation of

cooperative learning activities………………………………………….. 43

8 Achievement difference in attitudes after implementation of

cooperative learning activities………………………………………….. 44

ix
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) is an approach currently used in

language classes for the purpose of creating a more learner-centered atmosphere in

which students' learning pace is supported by the students themselves. Reading, which

is one of the skills in language learning, is challenging for learners because they are

required to cope with new vocabulary, information, culture, and language structures

written in the target language. Thus, the improvement of reading skills needs to be

supported in as many alternative ways as possible. Cooperative learning activities

(CLA) integrated in reading courses are among these alternatives. However,

understanding learners' views about cooperative learning activities in reading courses

is clearly important to its success. This study investigates the effects of the use of

cooperative learning activities on attitudes of learners who are not used to learning

cooperatively in reading classes.

Background of the Study

Traditional methods in language teaching were teacher-centered and often

created classroom atmospheres in which learners competed with each other. Today,

educationalists' opinions about effective teaching have shifted from teacher-

centeredness to learner-centeredness (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). As Nunan (1992)

states, students are able to improve their language skills while interacting with other

learners in learner-centered language classrooms. One of the ways of creating a

learner-centered classroom is using Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) (Crandall,

1
1999). Because creating a learner-centered atmosphere is essential in CLL, it may be

useful to refer to language teaching approaches briefly in order to identify the

approach’s origins.

The concept ‘learner-centeredness’ was first emphasized in the Humanistic

Approach in language teaching (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). The Humanistic Approach

has made two contributions to learner-centeredness. First, it emphasizes teaching

language according to the personal concerns of learners. Second, it encourages

learners to take an active and effective role in their own learning processes (Larsen-

Freeman, 2000; Tudor, 1996).

Under the influence of the Humanistic Approach, educators tried to answer

questions related to the communicative competence of students. They observed that

students who knew the rules of the language were often unsuccessful in

communicating outside of the classroom. Educators sought to create a language

environment in which students could use the target language in order to communicate

and express their ideas and opinions. These needs and observations led to the

development of a new teaching approach known as the Communicative Approach

(Larsen-Freeman, 2000).

In Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), the desired goal is assisting

learners in acquiring the ability to use the linguistic system of the target language

effectively. In order to realize this goal, learners are supposed to interact with other

learners in the classroom through pair and group work (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) may be defined as an extended version

of CLT. Like CLT, it is a learner-centered approach and emphasizes learner

interaction. CLL provides this interaction among learners in the classroom and helps

students acquire the target language in a naturalistic way. Because learners are able to

2
work with other learners cooperatively, a classroom atmosphere is created in which

learner stress is reduced and learner motivation is supported (Richards & Rodgers,

2001).

There are different models and activities for cooperative learning such as

Learning Together (Johnson & Johnson, 1994), the Structural Approach (Olsen &

Kagan, 1992), Student Team Learning (Slavin, 1994), Jigsaw II (Slavin, 1994), and

Asking Together, Learning Together (Açıkgöz, 2002). Although there are differences

among these models of cooperative learning, all cooperative learning activities share

basic properties which have an influence on creating a positive affective classroom

climate (Crandall, 1999). First, cooperative learning activities provide positive

interdependence for learners, since in a cooperative group success depends on the

efforts of all individual members. Second, there is face-to-face group interaction in

which each learner is assigned a different role. Another feature of cooperative learning

is that it introduces individual accountability, which means learners are not only

responsible for their own success but also for all group members' success (Crandall,

1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1994), where “each student’s contribution to the group’s

efforts can be identified” (Gillies, 2003, p. 38). Next, cooperative learning activities

build social skills such as helping each other, listening, encouraging, leadership, and

problem solving, as well as providing linguistic skills. Finally, learners need to reflect

on the group process by evaluating their experiences, identifying problems they had

during the group task or appraising the contributions of each member of the group to

improve their functioning in group activities (Crandall, 1999).

Cooperative learning activities and methods such as Think-Pair-Share,

Numbered-Heads Together, Jigsaw, Jigsaw II, Teams-Games-Tournaments, and

Group Investigation (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Kagan & Kagan, 1994; Sharan &

3
Sharan, 1994; Slavin, 1995) can be used in language classes to effectively teach all

skills in language learning. Turnbull (1996) adapted two cooperative learning

activities, Timed Pair-Share and Round Robin, to use for all language skills and

received positive feedback from his students. Morley (2001) suggests that Jigsaw

listening, in which students in small groups listen to different pieces of given

information and then share it with group members so that they complete a task, is an

effective strategy. Murray (1992) utilized types of writing cooperatively and noted

their positive effects in a language classroom.

Within the area of teaching reading, cooperative learning has also attracted a

great deal of positive attention. For instance, Grabe (1991) listed cooperative learning

as one of his seven guidelines for reading instruction. He noted that cooperative

learning activities should be used regularly in reading instruction to discuss reading

texts, work with the given information or explore solutions or answers. Coelho (1992)

stated that using the Jigsaw method is one of the effective ways of teaching reading in

a language classroom. Klinger & Vaughn (2000) investigated the frequency and

means that bilingual students used to assist each other’s learning in collaborative

strategic reading. They reported that students assisted each other in understanding

word meanings, asking and answering questions, understanding the main idea of the

text, and recycling their previous knowledge. They also noted that students’

vocabulary test scores improved greatly when compared to their previous scores.

Jacob, Rottenberg, Patrick & Wheeler (1996) found that second language learners had

more opportunity to acquire academic English when cooperative learning activities

were used to teach reading. Cooperative learning activities also motivate students,

support instruction, and enhance learning in reading classes (Readence, Moore &

Rickelman, 2000). In addition, Gersten and Jimenez (as cited in Freeman & Freeman,

4
2003) found that efficient teachers in reading courses are those who encourage

collaborative interactions.

Researchers have noted that the successful implementation of cooperative

learning depends upon teachers' and learners' attitudes towards cooperative learning

activities, as they are the ones who will have active roles in their use. Research in the

field has shown that teachers and students had positive attitudes towards cooperative

learning. Teachers using cooperative learning “value collaboration and encourage

cooperation among the students within their classroom” (McDonell, 1992, p. 165). In

their study Bailey, Dale, and Squire (1992) used a questionnaire to research teachers'

reactions to statements about cooperative teaching. They concluded that teachers

supported the use of CLA. This investigation examined only teachers' attitudes.

However, in the same questionnaire the teachers were also asked about their students'

attitudes towards CLA. According to the results of the questionnaire, teachers had the

opinion that their students appreciate cooperative learning activities.

As previously mentioned, one of the most important elements of Cooperative

Language Learning is that it is learner-centered. Students' attitudes towards learner-

centeredness may also help us to predict students' attitudes towards cooperative

learning activities. Lea, Stephonson, and Troy (2003) investigated higher-education

students' attitudes towards student-centered learning. According to the survey they

conducted, they stated that a great deal of participants in the survey perceived student-

centered learning as an effective approach. Wilhelm (1997) also reported that

students viewed learner-centeredness positively after implementation of cooperative

learning activities in their courses.

All language teachers want to help their students in their learning process.

Cooperative learning activities (CLA) may help both teachers and students in

5
language classes. Knowing about the attitudes and perceptions of learners about CLA

and effects of CLA in reading classes may help teachers and institutions arrange better

reading classes in which learners achieve effective learning.

Statement of the Problem

Reading is one of the four skills to be taught in language teaching. During the

reading process, language learners have to cope with new vocabulary, structure,

culture, and information written in the target language. A number of studies (Ediger,

2001; Grabe & Stoller, 2001; Weinstein, 2001; Ur, 1996) suggested activities to

empower learners in this process. One type of promising activities is Cooperative

Learning Activities (CLA), in which learners work and learn together in groups.

Although there has been some research about teachers’ attitudes towards CLA, and

the effects of CLA on the teaching process (Bailey, Dale, and Squire, 1992; Baloche,

1998; Gwyn-Paquette & Tochon, 2003; Kauchak & Eggen, 1998), there is a lack of

studies regarding students’ attitudes towards CLA and the effects of CLA in reading

in a foreign language.

In preparatory classes of the School of Foreign Languages at Dokuz Eylül

University, there are three class hours weekly for reading lessons, with different

course books for different levels. Students are given reading quizzes each month, mid-

term exams, including a reading section, six times a year, and a proficiency exam,

including reading questions at the end of the educational year. In all these exams,

students are supposed to apply the knowledge and skills which they acquire during

reading lessons. Because of the intensive curriculum to be followed, teachers

concerned with keeping up with the schedule find it challenging to teach the necessary

knowledge and skills needed for effective reading in class. As a result, learners may

see themselves as responsible for developing their own reading expertise. In fact, if

6
teachers are informed and encouraged about using CLA in reading lessons, they may

be able to both follow the schedule and promote an effective reading instruction by

empowering students in the reading process. Investigating the attitudes of students to

CLA and the effects of CLA in reading lessons may contribute to the creation of a

classroom atmosphere in which effective reading is promoted.

Research Questions

1. What are the effects of cooperative learning activities on students' attitudes

towards English reading courses?

2. What are the effects of cooperative learning activities on students’ attitudes

towards cooperative learning?

3. Is there a significant difference between female and male students in their

attitudes towards reading and cooperative learning?

4. Is there a significant difference between high-achievement and low-

achievement students in their attitudes towards reading and cooperative

learning?

Significance of the Study

Because there is a lack of research in the field of foreign language instruction

concerning learner attitudes towards CLA and the effects of CLA on learners' attitudes

towards reading, the results of this study may contribute to the literature in these

areas. In addition, since the research will be carried out in reading classes in which

CLA has not been previously used, the results may provide information to compare

teacher-centered and learner-centered techniques (Tudor, 1996), as learner-

centeredness is a key element in Cooperative Language Teaching.

The study may also contribute to improving the reading courses held in

preparatory classes of the School of Foreign Languages at Dokuz Eylül University.

7
The teachers who have not used CLA in their reading classes may be encouraged to

use CLA after seeing that carefully designed cooperative learning activities may be

used in reading instruction while following the schedule. If there is a positive response

to CLA the teachers who see an influence of CLA on learners' attitudes to reading

courses may want to design their own cooperative reading activities.

Key Terminology

The following terms are repeatedly used in the following chapters:

Cooperative Learning: A set of teaching strategies used to promote face-to-face

interaction among students and help them reach specific learning and interpersonal

goals in structured groups (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Slavin, 1997).

Cooperative Language Learning: Cooperative Language Learning is utilizing

strategies that group students within the classroom and have them engage in specific

assignments cooperatively which provide opportunities for each team member to

practice the target language while interacting with each other (Kessler, 1992).

Conclusion

In this chapter, a summary was provided to outline the scope of the study.

Background of the study, statement of the problem, research questions of the study,

significance of the study, and key terminology were explained. In the second chapter,

detailed information related to the review of the literature will be presented. In the

third chapter methodology of the study is examined by giving information about the

participants, instrument, and data analysis procedures. The fourth chapter presents

analysis of the data and findings of the study. In the fifth chapter, an overview of the

study, discussion of the findings, pedagogical implications, limitations of the study,

and suggestions for further research are presented.

8
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This study investigates the effects of cooperative learning activities on the

attitudes of students towards English reading courses and cooperative learning

activities in language learning settings. In order to clarify the use of cooperative

learning activities in language classes in reading instruction, the rationale for using

cooperative learning activities in classrooms and well-known cooperative learning

activities will be examined. Next, the objectives of cooperative language learning, its

advantages and its distinguishing characteristics will be discussed. Research on the

role of the teacher and the students in cooperative learning as well as attitudes

towards use of cooperative learning activities will be reviewed. Finally, use of

cooperative learning activities in reading instruction will be explored.

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is a set of teaching strategies used to promote face-to-

face interaction among students and help them reach specific learning and

interpersonal goals in structured groups (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Slavin, 1997).

While most cooperative learning approaches share this definition, cooperative

learning strategies employed within them may vary in a number of ways.

Cooperative learning strategies may be informal groupings to allow students to work

together. They may be structured, with students having specific tasks in their group

and assessing their group and individual performance. While cooperative learning

groups generally involve four members, the number of students may be greater or

9
fewer. Groups may work together for a few minutes, a couple of weeks or for many

months (Slavin, 1997).

Johnson and Johnson (1994) describe three types of cooperative learning

groups: Cooperative base, informal cooperative learning, and formal cooperative

learning groups. Cooperative base groups are long-term “heterogeneous learning

groups with stable membership” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p: 196) which may last

a year or more. This type of grouping is established to provide support,

encouragement, and assistance among students to achieve shared academic goals.

The students in these groups are also responsible to check their team members’

attendance to lessons and completion of assignments. They may also discuss their

personal problems in learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2003). Informal cooperative

learning groups are short-term groupings in which membership is usually random.

The main purpose of informal cooperative groups is to focus student attention on the

material and facilitate learning during direct teaching. Short pre- or post-lecture

discussions, Round Robin, and Think-Pair-Share are among the activities that can be

used in this kind of cooperative learning groups. In formal cooperative learning

groups, students work together on specific tasks to achieve shared learning goals or

complete a given assignment. These groups may last from one class period to several

weeks. The activities in which students can improve their reading skills or practice

problem solving and decision making, such as Jigsaw, Jigsaw II, and Numbered

Heads Together, are among the activities which can be used in this kind of grouping.

Rationale for Using Cooperative Learning

The research on cooperative learning clearly suggests that no matter what

form cooperative learning takes within classrooms, when well-structured, it offers

many benefits for both teachers and students. Cooperative learning helps teachers in

10
classroom management and provides an alternative instructional practice while

creating a more learner-centered atmosphere (Cangelosi, 2000; Sharan, 1994). For

students, cooperative learning seems to improve their management (Baloche, 1998;

Good & Brophy, 2000), social (Kagan & Kagan, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1992),

and academic skills (Jacob et al., 1996; Stahl, 1995; Wohl & Klein-Wohl, 1994).

Research suggests that cooperative learning provides benefits for teachers.

Orlich et al. (1998) stated that cooperative learning helps classroom management and

instruction. Cangelosi (2000) states that use of cooperative learning activities

provides student engagement in lessons, helps students develop intrinsic motivation,

contributes to solutions for conflicts among students, and reduces disruptive

behaviors of students. Thus, he suggests that language teachers should organize

cooperative learning groups to have more efficient classroom management. The

study conducted by Gwyn-Paquette and Tochon (2003) has shown that teachers who

include cooperative learning activities in their teaching plans have fewer classroom

management problems.

In addition, the use of cooperative learning activities provides an alternative

instructional practice for teachers by creating more learner-centered classes and

focusing on students’ learning needs (Nunan, 1992). Teachers using cooperative

learning activities concentrate on engaging students in the learning process rather

than concentrating on the presentation of instruction through direct teaching. During

cooperative learning activities teachers have opportunities to observe each student’s

difficulties in learning, strengths, and learning styles. This information helps teachers

in organizing and presenting the instruction to be taught (Sharan, 1994).

Cooperative learning offers benefits for students as well as teachers. Research

has pointed to cooperative learning’s positive effect upon student’s self-management

11
skills. Good and Brophy (2000) suggest that cooperative learning teaches

management skills to students since it encourages student responsibility for each

other. Each student has a task in the group and without completing each task and

coordinating with others, group work cannot be completed. Several tasks associated

with cooperative learning such as organizing materials, keeping the group working,

watching the time, and following directions also seem to be factors that help improve

the management skills of students (Baloche, 1998; Orlich et al., 1998).

Kagan and Kagan (1994) have shown that students acquire social skills with

cooperative learning. They state that when cooperative learning is used, students

learn to understand, respect, and support one another. In addition, other studies in the

field have shown that cooperative learning improves students’ self-esteem, enables

them to establish positive interpersonal relationships, and fosters positive

interdependence (Johnson & Johnson, 1992).

Cooperative learning assists students in developing higher level academic

skills in different academic disciplines. In language arts Wohl and Klein-Wohl

(1994) suggest that cooperative learning activities assist students in acquiring skills

for effective communication by creating learning environments similar to real life

situations. Stahl (1995) noted that cooperative learning encourages students to

interact, ask and answer questions, solve problems, and make decisions. Stahl (1995)

also stated that because it improves academic skills of students in language arts such

as synthesizing, generalizing, summarizing, drawing conclusions, and determining

relevant and irrelevant ideas, cooperative learning activities may be useful in

teaching reading. In their study Jacob et al. (1996) also reported that second language

learners had opportunities to improve their academic skills while cooperatively

studying on reading texts.

12
Well-known Cooperative Learning Activities

Cooperative learning builds on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky, who

stated the importance of discussion and problem solving among peers in the learning

process. In the 1970s, cooperative learning began to be used as a structured method

of learning. Initially, cooperative learning was used mostly in elementary and

secondary schools in North America (Slavin, 1997). However, current studies show

that cooperative learning activities may be successfully used both in colleges

(Ghaith, 2003; Zimbardo, Butler & Wolfe, 2003) and universities (Fox-Cardamone,

2003; Morgan, 2003).

A variety of models and activities have emerged in the field of cooperative

learning which are used both in schools and higher levels of education. The Learning

Together Method (Johnson & Johnson, 1994), Group Investigation (Sharan &

Sharan, 1994), Teams-Games-Tournament, Student Teams-Achievement Divisions

(Slavin, 1994), Jigsaw (Aranson as cited in Good & Brophy, 2000), Jigsaw II

(Slavin, 1994), Asking Together, Learning Together (Açıkgöz, 2002), Think-Pair-

Share (Olsen & Kagan, 1992), and Numbered Heads Together (Stone & Kagan,

1995) are among the best-known and widely researched cooperative methods and

activities.

The Learning Together model of cooperative learning was developed by

Johnson and Johnson (1994). In this model, heterogeneous groups of four or five

learners work on assignment sheets. A main aspect of this model is having students

who differ in achievement, gender or ethnicity work together to achieve shared

learning goals and to complete the group assignments.

Group Investigation was developed by Sharan and Sharan (1994). Students

form groups and study subtopics of a unit studied by the whole class. The group

13
members determine the subtopics, plan their investigations, carry out individual

tasks, plan and make presentations. Eventually, the teacher and the students evaluate

their projects together.

In Slavin’s (1994) Teams-Games Tournament (TGT) model, students work

together in heterogeneously grouped teams to compete against other teams. After the

teacher presents the instruction, groups discuss and work on the material. Finally,

they compete with other teams to answer questions prepared by the teacher. The

tournaments may last for several weeks. Student Teams-Achievement Divisions

(STAD) is a simpler version of TGT. Students are grouped and work as in TGT;

however, in STAD tournaments are replaced by quizzes. After cooperative group

work, students are given quizzes to be answered individually. Both individual and

group quiz scores are used for evaluating student learning.

Jigsaw was developed by Aronson and his colleagues (as cited in Good &

Brophy, 2000). Each member of the group studies his/her own piece of material in an

expert group and returns to the home group to discuss this material. In order to

complete the group’s task, each member must participate in the activity. At the end

of the activity students may be given individual quizzes (Clarke, 1994; Good &

Brophy, 2000).

Jigsaw II, developed by Slavin (1994), is a modified version of the original

Jigsaw. In this version, students work on common material first and then are given

separate topics to become experts on. Having worked on their topics in the expert

groups, students return to their home groups to explain the materials that they have

studied.

In the activity, Asking Together, Learning Together, developed by Açıkgöz

(2002), students study reading texts in their cooperative learning groups. Each group

14
prepares high consensus questions for the reading assignment, writes them on pieces

of paper, and gives them to other groups and the teacher. Answers to the questions

are discussed in groups and the teacher elicits the answers from randomly chosen

students.

Apart from the cooperative learning models above, there are brief, informal or

formal cooperative structures such as Blind Hand, Pens in the Middle, Round Robin,

Think-Pair-Share and Numbered Heads Together that can be applied in classroom

teaching (Baloche, 1998). In Think-Pair-Share (Olsen & Kagan, 1992), for instance,

students are given a question or problem. They think about the answers individually

and share it with a partner. Answers can then be shared with the whole class. In

Numbered Heads Together (Stone & Kagan, 1995), students number off in their

groups with each student having a different number. The teacher asks a question to

be discussed by the group members together. The teacher calls out a number, and

each student who has that number from each group stands up. The teacher chooses

one of them to answer the question.

Cooperative Language Learning

Cooperative Language Learning is grouping students within the classroom,

having them study on specific assignments cooperatively and providing benefits for

each team member to practice the target language while interacting with each other

(Kessler, 1992). In language teaching cooperative learning has five major objectives:

- to provide opportunities for naturalistic second language

acquisition through the use of interactive pair and group activities
- to provide teachers with a methodology to enable them to achieve
this goal and one that can be applied in a variety of curriculum
settings (e.g., content-based, foreign language classrooms;
mainstreaming)
- to enable focused attention to particular lexical items, language
structures, and communicative functions through the use of
interactive tasks

15
 - to provide opportunities for learners to develop successful learning
and communication strategies
- to enhance learner motivation and reduce learner stress and to
create a positive affective classroom climate
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 193)

Although cooperative learning enthusiasts have advocated its use in teaching

a variety of subjects and its successful use has been widely researched over a number

of years (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), it has only recently gained importance in

language instruction (Dörnyei, 1997). The failure of cooperative learning to be an

area of major interest may result from its similarity to typical group work activities in

communicative language teaching.

Cooperative learning versus group work

Because group work does not necessarily describe each learner’s task and

promotes peer tutoring, it may differ from cooperative learning. Cooperative learning

activities are well-structured tasks which involve “genuine information gap,

requiring learners to both listen to and contribute to the development of an oral,

written or other product which represents the group’s efforts, knowledge and

perspectives” (Crandall, 1999, p. 227). In typical group work activities, the tasks are

usually not as well and clearly designed as cooperative learning activities. Besides,

as students are responsible for both their own learning and their group member’s

learning in activities such as Jigsaw, students practice peer-tutoring (Bruffee, 1993)

which is not necessarily a part of group work. Putnam (1998) states that one of the

other differences between typical group work and cooperative learning group work is

the heterogeneous nature of cooperative learning groups. Cooperative learning

groups are usually intentionally mixed in terms of ability and achievement level of

the students, gender, culture, and language characteristics.

16
 Several problems often occur in the implementation of typical group work.

Some group members may not contribute equally to the success of the group, so

members who complete most of the work may feel abused. High-achievement

students may benefit from the work more than the low-achievement students. In

addition, responsibility within the group cannot be divided equally (Açıkgöz, 2002).

Dörnyei (1997) also confirmed that these possible problems in typical group work

activities are directly addressed in well-structured cooperative learning groups.

Johnson & Johnson (1994) introduces five essential elements to be structured

in cooperative learning groups to make them work well and overcome the problems

faced in typical group work. The most important element is positive interdependence.

Students must be aware of the fact that they must support and assist each other in

completing every single phase of the assigned task, since the output of cooperation

will be the success of each individual in the group. The second important element is

face-to face promotive interaction. Students need to help, assist, and encourage each

other to learn by problem solving and discussing items that are learnt. Individual

accountability is one of the other elements of cooperative learning groups. Each

group member needs to perform well and assist in their team members’ performance,

since they are assessed both individually and as a group. Incorporating the teaching

of social skills to students is also an essential element for structuring effective

cooperative learning groups. Leadership, organization, decision-making, trust-

building, and communication are among the skills that should be taught to students.

Group processing, which is the last element includes the discussions by group

members on how each member contributed to the group product, what problems they

encountered, and what to do in the next cooperative group learning activity to avoid

17
similar problems. These discussions are performed after completion of each group

work.

The advantages of cooperative language learning

Cooperative learning offers many advantages in language classroom settings,

such as reducing anxiety, increasing motivation, and assisting in the development of

the language skills of learners. Cooperative language learning helps teachers create a

positive affective classroom atmosphere in which psychological barriers, such as

student anxiety, are lowered and self-confidence and self-esteem are increased

(Crandall, 1999; Dörnyei, 1997; Oxford, 1997). As Crandall (1999) states, students’

anxiety results from the fear of making mistakes, especially when they are asked a

question to be answered individually. When students are allowed to study together,

they have more time to think, to share their opinion with other students, receive

feedback from them, and correct any mistakes. As a result, their anxiety level is

reduced, and they become willing to participate in answering the questions of the

teacher. This often results in enhanced self-confidence and self-esteem (Crandall,

1999; Dörnyei, 1997).

One of the other reasons of anxiety is interpersonal competition among

students. Interpersonal competition may take place in traditional classes and causes

high anxiety, poor communication among students, a sense of uselessness. However,

in intergroup competition, which is provided by cooperative learning, anxiety is

reduced, interaction among students increase and student confidence is enhanced. In

interpersonal competition, the goal is winning whereas in intergroup competition the

goal is group success (Johnson & Johnson, 1994).

In language classrooms where student anxiety is lowered and self-confidence

and self-esteem are enhanced, it is not surprising that motivation increases. More

18
motivated students in the language classroom tend to use the target language more

which helps them improve their language proficiency. In cooperative learning

groups, students assist their classmates in learning. Because each member of the

group is responsible not only for his own learning but also for other members’

learning, students support each other. With support, shy, insecure or uninterested

students are often motivated (Crandall, 1999; Dörnyei, 1997). In addition, because

the groups have specific goals to achieve and sometimes a reward to win,

cooperative learning activities are enjoyable for students. Enjoyable activities

encourage learners to participate in lessons; hence they contribute to motivation

(Crandall, 1999). Cangelosi (2000) concluded that engaging students in cooperative

learning activities, especially those which focus on problem solving, promotes

intrinsic motivation which is crucial in learning.

Cooperative language learning also empowers learners to acquire increased

language skills (Crandall, 1999; Jacob, Rottenberg, Patrick & Wheeler, 1996;

Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Because cooperative language learning promotes

interaction, learners have more opportunities to listen to, talk and produce the

language (Crandall, 1999) which means more practice in the target language

(DeVillar, 1991).

Other research has suggested improvement in specific language skills through

the use of cooperative learning. In her study, Bejarano (1987) implemented two

small-group cooperative techniques in two different EFL classrooms and compared

their effects with another classroom in which the traditional whole-class method of

instruction was used. Her research showed that cooperative learning techniques

helped students improve their listening comprehension in both classes more than

19
with the whole-class method of instruction. Total achievement test scores of these

students were higher than the students exposed to whole-class method.

Another study conducted by Jacob et al. (1996) has shown that the

implementation of cooperative language learning helps L2 learners acquire language

skills while improving their academic English. Their study explored whether

cooperative learning influenced opportunities for acquiring academic English. The

participants of the study were 625 K-6 grade elementary school students from

different ethnic backgrounds, including African Americans, Asian Americans, and

Hispanic Americans. The teacher in the classroom implemented The Learning

Together Method in her classroom instruction. The class was observed for one year

and 6 cooperative learning groups were videotaped. In addition, regular interviews

with the teacher and the students were conducted throughout the year. The students

were observed while assisting each other in explanation of meaning and correct

pronunciation of words. They also helped each other succeed in learning difficult

academic concepts. It was also observed that even the most silent students were

invited to produce more language and contribute to the group task. At the end of the

study, it was concluded that use of cooperative learning activities provide significant

opportunities for L2 learners to acquire academic English and improve language

skills.

Cooperative learning and the teacher

The role of the teacher in the classrooms where cooperative language learning

is implemented is significantly different from the traditional teacher-centered

classrooms (Bejarano, 1987; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Cooperative learning

allows teachers to create more learner-centered classes and focus upon students’

learning needs instead of the manner in which instruction is presented by the teacher.

20
The teacher is “no longer a lecturer or transmitter of material, but rather a facilitator

of learning who focuses on the learning process by encouraging cooperation among

the students” (Bejarano, 1987, p. 485). In the role of facilitator, the teacher gives

students the opportunity to learn the material by themselves while helping them if

need arises. Teachers interact with students, encourage them to solve the problems

they encounter by using thinking skills, give feedback, clarify difficulties, and

empathize as a facilitator (McDonell, 1992).

Teachers in cooperative language classrooms are also observers. They listen

to learners while they are studying in cooperative groups to discover the needs,

interests, problems, and strengths of learners. These observations help teacher gather

information about the learning process of the students, and organize plans and

activities according to this process (McDonell, 1992). Teachers as observers also

may intervene in the cooperative group activities if students in the group need

assistance or redirection towards the objectives of the given tasks (Sharan, 1994).

In order to achieve the objectives of cooperative language learning and

provide maximum benefit, teachers have to create well-structured tasks, set the goals

of activities clearly, organize groups and assign students to different roles, and select

suitable materials to be taught (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). The success of all these

preparations and effectiveness of cooperative language learning depend on the belief

and the attitude of the language teacher towards cooperative language learning.

The research in the field shows that language teachers who utilize cooperative

learning in language classes have positive beliefs and attitudes towards it. Gwyn-

Paquette and Tochon (2003) asked four final year pre-service language teachers to

include cooperative learning activities, namely Think-Pair-Share, Snowball,

Learning Together, Cooperative Review, Jigsaw, and Group Investigation, into their

21
planning. These teachers were observed in classrooms over one year during their

teaching period. The conversations between the supervisors and the teachers and

between the students and the teachers were reported. According to the results, all

teachers were enthusiastic about using cooperative learning activities in their lessons.

In spite of the problems they encountered, such as noise, they developed the

confidence to implement those activities and tried to solve the problems that

emerged.

Another study conducted by Horwitz, Bresslau, Dryden, McLendon, and Yu

(1997) also supports the idea of teachers’ having positive attitudes towards

cooperative language learning. The participants of the study were class members of a

graduate course that helps language teachers prepare for language instruction. The

topics in the course were learnt by the participants in cooperative learning groups. At

the end of the course they were asked to reflect on their ideas about collaboration.

Most of the participants stated that they would increase the amount of cooperative

learning activities in the classes they taught. They also reported that cooperative

learning activities enabled them to understand the needs and abilities of the learners

better and offered them a chance to see the perspectives of language learners.

In the study conducted by Bailey, Dale, and Squire (1992), several EFL

teachers were asked to reflect on their opinions about using cooperative learning

activities in instruction. The questionnaire results showed that the language teachers

had a positive attitude towards the implementation of these activities. In the same

questionnaire most of the teachers also agreed on their students’ positive reactions

towards use of cooperative learning activities.

22
Cooperative learning and the student

The roles of the students in cooperative language classes are significantly

different from their roles in the traditional teacher-centered classrooms. The students

in cooperative language learning classrooms are “no longer trying to impress their

teacher but are busy learning actively” (Bejarano, 1987). The primary role of the

learner is to contribute to the completion of the group tasks while collaboratively

working with the members of the group. Because they are taught how to organize

their study to keep their group working and to monitor and assess their learning

process, they become the directors of their own learning (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1992;

Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Students organizing their own learning become

autonomous learners (Dörnyei, 1997; Jacobs, Power & Inn, 2002).

There are several studies on student attitudes towards use of cooperative

learning activities in teaching subjects other than language. Morgan (2003), for

instance, investigated student reflections on cooperative written examinations for

group grades. One hundred fifty university seniors from method classes in the School

of Education were chosen for the study. The students were given a writing exam

which had to be done in cooperative groups. After the exam they were asked to

reflect on their experiences about the implementation of the exam. All students who

participated in the study reported that cooperative examinations were less stressful

than individual examinations. Almost all the students reported that the feeling of

support from the group members helped them feel more relaxed and confident. Many

students said that they learnt more information while answering the questions in the

exam compared to their self-study for the examination. In a similar study conducted

by Zimbardo, Butler, and Wolfe (2003), the participants experienced cooperative

team testing and were asked to report their experiences. The participants reported

23
largely positive attitudes towards this implementation. According to the participants,

cooperative team testing reduced anxiety, built self-confidence, prevented cheating,

and created more positive attitudes towards the course and the subject matter.

Although there are several studies on attitudes of students towards

cooperative learning, the attitudes of students towards cooperative language learning

has not been widely studied. The research on cooperative language learning

including students is mostly about its effect on achievement (Bejarano, 1987; Ghaith,

2003), anxiety, self confidence, and motivation (Crandall, 1999; Dörnyei, 1997;

Ghaith, 2003; Oxford, 1997). However, achievement, anxiety, self-confidence, and

motivation may be a directly related to attitudes. For instance, Clément, Dörnyei, and

Noels (1994) found a correlation between student attitudes and their achievement,

anxiety, self-confidence, and motivation. According to the results of the

questionnaires, students who had positive attitudes towards learning English as a

foreign language were those who had low anxiety, high achievement, and

motivation. Since the use of cooperative language learning reduces anxiety and may

increase achievement, self-confidence, and motivation, students are likely to have

positive attitudes towards use of cooperative learning activities in language learning

settings.

There are also studies on the relationship between achievement level of

students and their attitudes towards their courses and cooperative learning. In eight

experimental studies reported by Shachar (2003), both high achievers and low

achievers in classes where cooperative learning methods were used developed

positive attitudes towards their courses, teachers, school, and cooperative learning.

A decline was observed in positive attitudes of high achievers and low achievers in

the control groups, where traditional whole class instruction was used. It was also

24
reported that low achievers positive attitude change was more significant compared

to high achievers. In an earlier study (Ghaith, 2001) which was conducted with

participation of sixty-one Lebanese EFL learners, one of the cooperative learning

models, STAD, was used for instruction. After a twelve-week treatment, both high

and low achievers considered the STAD experience useful for their learning. They

also recommended the use of the strategy for their future classes. In addition, none of

the low achievers reported that they did not learn, and only 3% of high achievers

reported that they did not learn a lot.

The gender difference in attitudes towards cooperative learning has not been

widely researched in the field. In one study (Ghaith, 2001), male students found

cooperative learning experience more useful, less frustrating, funnier, more

interesting, more worthwhile, and clearer than their female classmates. In addition,

83% of the male students reported that they learnt a lot whereas the percentage of

females who reported that they learnt a lot was 49%. This difference might arise

from grouping the students for the cooperative learning experience. As Webb (as

cited in Gillies, 2003) confirmed, in gender-balanced groups achievement level of

males and females are almost the same and they are equally interactive. However, in

majority male groups, females are not as interactive as they are in gender-balanced

groups. Males’ showing more positive attitude towards cooperative learning

activities may result from groupings of students. As Johnson and Johnson (1994) and

Putnam (1998) have stated, in order to benefit from cooperative learning groups and

help learners develop positive attitudes towards cooperative learning, heterogeneous

groups, including gender balance, should be formed.

25
 Reading in L2 and Cooperative Learning

Alderson (1984) states that reading in a foreign language is both a reading

and a language problem, especially for lower proficiency students. Students who

have problems in reading in their L1 have problems in reading in L2, too. Students

who have fewer problems in reading in L1, read slower in L2 than they read in L1.

They also may have comprehension problems which result from difficulty with

understanding syntactic structures, grammar, vocabulary, and reading strategies in a

foreign language. A number of research studies suggest that use of cooperative

learning activities assists lower-level students in solving their language problems in

reading. Klinger and Vaughn (2000), for example, found that bilingual students

helped their limited English proficient peers in understanding meanings of

vocabulary, main idea of the texts, asking and answering questions, and activating

previous knowledge as they experienced cooperative learning activities in reading.

The results of the English vocabulary tests also proved that students significantly

improved their vocabulary knowledge compared to their previous test results.

Grabe (1991) urges the regular use of cooperative learning activities in

reading instruction “to promote discussions of readings and to work with information

from the readings, exploring different solutions for complex activities” (p. 396).

Jacob et al. (1996) found that the Learning Together form of cooperative learning

allowed students to ask questions to one another and discuss answers to understand

the academic language in the reading materials. As a result, cooperative learning

activities assisted learners in understanding the information in the texts while they

were studying the difficult academic terms and concepts in the reading material.

An experimental study (Ghaith, 2003) conducted with the participation of 56

Lebanese high school learners of English as a foreign language has shown that the

26
Learning Together form of cooperative learning improved the EFL reading

achievement of students. Both experimental and control group students were given

the same reading exam before the treatment. During the 10-week-study, the same

reading material was taught in both experimental and control groups. In the control

group the material was taught according to the procedures in the text book, whereas

the experimental group was exposed to the Learning Together model of cooperative

learning. At the end of 10 weeks, both groups were given another reading exam.

When the exam results were compared, it was seen that there was a significant

difference between two groups in achievement in favor of experimental group.

Research also reports that Jigsaw, another form of cooperative learning, is

effective for teaching reading in second language classrooms (Bejarano, 1994;

Coelho; 1992). Coelho (1992) found that the activity provides “an excellent learning

environment” (p. 137) for students to learn the language through meaningful tasks

while developing academic skills. The use of Jigsaw in reading activities develops

students’ “cognitive skills of analysis, comparison, evaluation, and synthesis of

information” (Coelho, 1992, p. 137). The students improve these skills in two phases

within the Jigsaw method. In the first phase, the students study their parts in the texts

to become experts on that piece of material. In the second phase, students teach the

content of their part to their group members and help them comprehend the reading

material. By teaching their piece of material the students “further internalize both the

content and the process of their own learning” (Bejarano, 1994, p. 203).

Conclusion

In this chapter, the literature about cooperative learning in general, the

rationale behind its use, well-known cooperative learning activities and the use of

cooperative learning activities in second language classrooms have been discussed in

27
detail. The importance of using cooperative learning activities in reading lessons was

emphasized by giving examples studies from the field. Further it was seen that most

of the studies in the field found positive effects of cooperative learning activities on

student achievement in EFL reading.

28
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This study investigated the effects of cooperative learning activities on

students’ attitudes towards English reading courses and cooperative learning. The

study also investigated if there was a significant difference in the attitudes of male

and female students and high-achievement and low-achievement students towards

the reading courses and cooperative learning.

In this chapter, participants, instruments used to conduct the study, data

collection procedures, and data analysis will be discussed in detail.

Participants

Since this was a quasi-experimental study, the participants were divided into

two groups: a control and an experimental group. In order to determine these groups,

three instructors teaching two different English reading classes were chosen. These

six classes were given the pre-questionnaire in order to choose the most appropriate

control and experimental groups. After data analysis of the questionnaire, the two

classes in which students’ responses to the questionnaire items were most similar

were chosen as the control and experimental groups.

Students in both groups were in intermediate English level classes. There

were 3 females and 15 males in the control group. In the experimental group, there

were 4 females and 18 males. In total, 40 students participated in this stage of the

study. This information is summarized in Table 1.

29
Table 1

Characteristics of Participants in Terms of Gender

Groups Male Female Total

Experimental 18 4 22
Control 15 3 18

The participants’ achievement levels were also important to investigate one of

the research questions of the study. There were 12 low-achievement and 10 high-

achievement students in the experimental group. In the control group there were 7

low-achievement students and 9 high-achievement students. Students were asked to

indicate their first semester grades on the questionnaire to find out their achievement

levels. Since a passing grade at the institution is 70 or more, students who reported

70 or above were considered to be high-achievement level students. Students who

indicated below 70 were considered as low-achievement students. Two of the

students in the control group did not answer the question related to their achievement

level. Their responses were excluded in the analysis conducted to answer research

Question 4. Table 2 presents characteristics of the participants in terms of their

achievement levels.

Table 2

Characteristics of Participants in Terms of Achievement Levels

Groups Low High Total

achievement achievement
Experimental 12 10 22
Control 7 9 16

Note: Two participants from the control group did not answer this question.

The participants were chosen from Dokuz Eylül University. There were two

reasons to choose these participants. First, it was important for the researcher to

30
investigate the effects of cooperative learning activities on foreign language

university students since there were few studies about the effects of cooperative

learning on university students. Second, Dokuz Eylül University was chosen for its

accessibility to the researcher.

The instructor who implemented cooperative learning activities in her reading

course was chosen among a group of instructors who taught two reading classes of

the same level. The instructor had 19 years experience in her job, and she had been

teaching reading for seven years. She had no previous experience in implementation

of cooperative learning activities in teaching any language skills. Before the

implementation, she was given a one-day workshop. Cooperative learning activities

adapted to the course material by the researcher were explained to the teacher and

she was given different packets for each unit, as well as explanations of activities.

Information about how to group students and assign tasks and procedures for each

activity were explained in detail.

Instruments

A pre-questionnaire and a post-questionnaire were used in this study. In

addition, interviews were conducted with the instructor and students from the

experimental group.

Questionnaires

The questions in the pre-questionnaire and the post questionnaire were the

same for both groups. Participants in both groups were asked questions to evaluate

their attitudes towards reading, reading in English, the reading course they attend,

and cooperative learning activities.

In both questionnaires, the participants were asked thirty-six questions. Five

questions were related to the participants’ attitudes towards reading in general, four

31
questions were related to their attitudes towards reading in English, fourteen

questions were related to their attitudes towards the reading course they attended, and

thirteen questions were related to students’ attitudes towards the basic properties of

cooperative learning and its classroom implementation.

Prior to completion of the pre-questionnaire, the participants were informed

about the study and asked to sign an informed consent form to participate in the

study. In the first section of the questionnaire, all the participants were asked to write

their names, surnames, classes, and departments. The reason for this information was

the need to compare the pre-questionnaires with the post-questionnaires in order to

clarify the effects of cooperative learning activities. In this section, participants’

gender and their first semester grades were also asked to help determine whether

there was a significant relationship between these properties and their attitudes.

Because of its versatility and reliability (Dörnyei, 2002), a six-point Likert

scale was used in the questionnaires. There were 36 statements to which participants

indicated their opinions by marking “strongly agree”, “agree”, “slightly agree”,

“slightly disagree”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree”.

Although the questions were initially written in English, they were translated

into Turkish for the participants. The Turkish versions of the questions were given to

two native speakers of Turkish, who are also English instructors, to translate back

into English. After this process, necessary adjustments on the questions were made.

The pilot study of the questionnaire was conducted at Anadolu University

Preparatory School with 25 preparatory class students. Anadolu University was

chose for the pilot study since reading courses held there are similar to the courses at

Dokuz Eylül University. After the pilot study, necessary adjustments and corrections

were done with problematic questions.

32
 A Cronbach’s Alpha Test was run to establish the reliability of the

questionnaire. The reliability of the pre-questionnaire was 0.79. For the section in

which students’ attitudes towards reading were investigated the reliability was 0.73,

and 0.79 for the section in which students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning and

its classroom implementation. In the post-questionnaire the reliability of the whole

questionnaire was 0.80, with the section about students’ attitudes towards reading

0.77, and the section about students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning and its

classroom implementation 0.82.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted with the instructor and six randomly chosen

students from the experimental group. The purpose of the interviews was to gather

more information about the effects of the use of cooperative learning activities.

Interviews were recorded and later transcribed. Written notes were taken by the

researcher. A content analysis was conducted on these data to determine emerging

patterns.

After implementation of cooperative learning activities in the reading courses

of the experimental group, the instructor was asked questions about her perceptions

related to the use of these activities. These included the effects of cooperative

learning activities on classroom management, student motivation, students’ attitudes

towards the reading courses, and issues related to the classroom implementation of

cooperative learning.

After collecting post-questionnaires of both groups, six students were chosen

randomly from the experimental group for interviews. Two high-achievement

females and one high-achievement male, and one low-achievement female and two

low-achievement males were chosen for the interview. These students were asked

33
about their feelings related to use of cooperative learning activities in their reading

courses, their opinions about the use of cooperative learning activities in their other

courses, and problems they encountered while doing these activities.

Interviews were completed with four of the participants since two of the

participants could not answer the interview questions related to the implementation

of cooperative learning activities. These two participants reported that they did not

attend the courses regularly after the distribution of the pre-questionnaire. Their

responses related to their reasons for not attending the course, however, were

included in the study.

Data Collection Procedures

On December 20, 2003, permission was received from the School of Foreign

Languages at Dokuz Eylül University to conduct the study. In the third week of

March 2004, the first questionnaire was given to 112 students in order to determine

the control group and the experimental group. On March 22, 2004, based on the data

analysis of the first questionnaire, the control and the experimental groups were

chosen.

On March 25, 2004, the instructor was given a workshop by the researcher.

With the instructor, the cooperative learning activities were adapted according to the

reading course book which had been used. Asking Together, Learning Together,

Jigsaw II, Numbered Heads Together, and Think-Pair-Share were the cooperative

learning activities which were adapted to four units of the course book. The

instructor was given all necessary handouts for the activities. Beginning April 2,

2004, the instructor began to implement these activities in the experimental group for

4 weeks. None of the lessons were observed by the researcher in order not to affect

the internal validity of the study. However, the instructor communicated with the

34
researcher about progress of the implementation. On May 10, 2004, both groups of

students were given the post-questionnaire. Interviews with the instructor and the

students were completed by May 14, 2004.

Data Analysis

In order to choose the control and experimental groups, the answers of 112

participants were calculated by using t-test from the Statistical Packages for Social

Sciences (SPSS). In calculation of the answers, the scales for Questions 4, 5, 8, 9, 19,

20, 24, 28, 33 were reversed as these questions were stated negatively. Two groups

whose SPSS results were the closest to each other and whose reading teacher was the

same were chosen as control and experimental groups. These two groups’ pre-

questionnaire results were kept to be compared with the post-questionnaire after the

treatment.

After the post questionnaire, the answers of students from the control group

and the experimental group were compared. First, answers of both groups for the

questions related to their attitudes towards reading courses in the pre-questionnaire

and the post-questionnaire were compared. Then, the same comparison was

completed for the section related to students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning

and its classroom implementation. Within comparison was also conducted to find out

the differences after implementation of cooperative activities. In order to determine

the significance of the results, a t-test was used. Male and female and high achievers’

answers and low achievers’ answers for each question were also compared to see if

there was a significant difference in terms of gender and achievement level of the

students. ANOVA test was used to compare the groups in terms of gender and

achievement.

35
 The interviews with the instructor and students were reported separately. The

data from the teacher’s interview was organized into five categories and the students’

interviews into six categories. These categories were determined according to the

content of the interview questions, research questions, and common issues raised by

the participants. The raw data was presented in order to present detailed information

about the findings.

36
 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

Introduction

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative learning

activities on students’ attitudes towards English reading courses and cooperative

learning. The study also examined differences between female and male students and

high-achievement and low-achievement students in their attitudes towards

cooperative learning. In order to answer these questions, both a control group and an

experimental group were given a pre-questionnaire. After the implementation of

cooperative learning activities in reading courses for 4 weeks in the experimental

group, both groups were given a post-questionnaire.

The questionnaires consisted of three sections. The first section included

questions about students’ identity, gender, and grades. In the second section,

questions were asked about students’ general attitudes towards reading, towards

reading in English, and towards reading courses at Dokuz Eylül University. In the

third section, questions related to students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning

were asked. In answering all these questions, students were asked to mark a six-point

Likert scale (“strongly agree”, “agree”, “slightly agree”, slightly disagree”,

“disagree”, and “strongly disagree”) to indicate their level of agreement with each

statement.

Following collection of the data from the questionnaires, the teacher and six

randomly chosen students were interviewed. The aim of interviewing the teacher was

to gather information about her observations during implementation of the

37
cooperative learning activities. Students were also interviewed to ascertain their

attitudes in more detail. Although six students were selected, two of the students had

not regularly attended the reading courses. Only partial interview information was

collected from these two students.

Data Analysis Procedure

There were three sections in the questionnaire. In the first section, students

were asked supply personal information, including their names, classes, departments,

gender, age, and course grades. In the second section, 23 questions were asked about

students’ general attitudes towards reading, reading in English, and the reading

courses they attended. The third section contained 13 questions meant to gather

information about students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning activities (See

Appendix A).

Several statistical tests were used to look at differences in students’ attitudes.

To determine changes in attitudes towards reading, students’ responses to questions

from the second section were compared on both the pre-questionnaires and the post-

questionnaires. T-tests were used to determine whether significant changes occurred

in the control group and in the experimental group. Similar statistical tests were

conducted to determine important changes in students’ attitudes towards cooperative

learning. T-tests were also run to detect any significant changes in attitudes in the

control group and the experimental group.

To compare male and female students’ attitudes and high-achievement and

low-achievement students’ attitudes before and after the treatment ANOVA tests

were also run for section two questions concerning reading and section three

questions concerning cooperative learning.

38
 The taped interviews with both the teacher and students were transcribed for

analysis. After repeated reading and analysis, the data were sorted in topical

categories. These categories were then matched with the research questions as a

source of additional information.

Data Analysis

In this section, data from the pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires and

from the teacher and student interviews will be discussed separately.

Questionnaires

For each question in section two and three of the questionnaires, students

were asked to select from six possible responses (“strongly agree”, “agree”, “slightly

agree”, slightly disagree”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree”) to indicate their level

of agreement with the statement. A value of 1 was assigned to strongly disagree, 2 to

disagree, 3 to slightly disagree, 4 to slightly agree, 5 to agree, and 6 to strongly agree.

Questions involving negative statements were reversed. Using these values, mean

scores and standard deviations were calculated for each question and for the

questions concerning reading and those addressing cooperative learning as groups.

Changes in students’ responses from the pre-questionnaire to post-questionnaire were

then examined for both the control and experimental groups using a t-test.

Research Question 1: What are the effects of cooperative learning activities

on students’ attitudes towards English reading courses?

The questions in section two of the questionnaire gathered information about

student’s attitudes towards reading, reading in English, and reading courses. Table 3

presents the comparison between groups before and after implementation of

cooperative learning activities in the experimental group. It presents the calculated

means for the 23 questions for the control and the experimental group on the pre-

39
questionnaire and the post-questionnaire. Although there was no significant

difference between groups in both pre- and post-questionnaires, the calculated mean

of the experimental group in the post-questionnaire was less than the control group’s

calculated mean. For a further analysis, a within group comparison was conducted.

Table 3

Effects of cooperative learning activities on reading attitudes (between groups

comparison)

Questionnaire Groups N M Sd t
Pre-questionnaire Experimental 22 93.73 9.03 .477
Control 18 92.05 13.08
Post-questionnaire Experimental 22 87.95 11.17 -1.145
Control 18 92.05 11.37
N: Number of the participant groups, M: Mean, Sd: Standard deviation, t: t-test value

Table 4 presents the analysis of within group comparison of the experimental

and the control group. As the table presents, changes in attitudes towards reading in

the experimental group were notable. Interestingly, students expressed less positive

attitudes after exposure to cooperative learning as measured by the pre- and post-

questionnaires. The change in the attitudes was significant in the experimental group.

As expected, for the control group which received no exposure to cooperative

learning, there was no change.

Table 4

Effects of cooperative learning activities on reading attitudes (within group

comparison)

Groups Questionnaire N M Sd t
Experimental Pre-question 22 93.73 9.03 2.844*
Post-question 22 87.95 11.17
Control Pre-question 18 92.05 13.08 .000
Post-question 18 92.05 11.37

N: Number of the participant groups, M: Mean, Sd: Standard deviation, t: t-test value, p‹.05

40
 Research Question 2: What are the effects of cooperative learning activities

on students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning?

The thirteen questions in the third section of the questionnaire were designed

to learn about students attitudes towards cooperative learning. When pre-

questionnaire and the post-questionnaire of two groups are compared, it can be seen

from the Table 5 that there is a non-significant difference between groups.

Table 5

Effects of cooperative learning activities on attitudes towards cooperative learning

(between groups comparison)

Questionnaire Groups N M Sd t
Pre-questionnaire Experimental 22 56.68 9.66 .288
Control 18 55.83 8.77
Post-questionnaire Experimental 22 55.00 10.05 -.332
Control 18 56.00 8.68
N: Number of the participant groups, M: Mean, Sd: Standard deviation, t: t-test value

Table 6 presents a within group comparison of experimental and control

group in terms of their attitudes towards cooperative learning. When mean scores of

thirteen questions on the pre-questionnaire and the post-questionnaire were

compared, there was a slight change in both groups. The data suggest that attitudes in

the control group became marginally more positive while attitudes in the

experimental group became marginally more negative.

41
Table 6

Effects of cooperative learning activities on attitudes towards cooperative learning

(within group comparison)

Groups Questionnaire N M Sd t
Experimental Pre-question 22 56.68 9.66 .762
Post-question 22 55.00 10.05
Control Pre-question 18 55.83 8.77 -.100
Post-question 18 56.00 8.68

N: Number of the participant groups, M: Mean, Sd: Standard deviation, t: t-test value

Research Question 3: Is there a significant difference between female and

male students in their attitudes towards the reading courses and cooperative learning?

Table 7 presents the test results between female and male learners in their

attitudes towards reading and cooperative learning after implementation of

cooperative learning activities. As it is seen in the table, male students’ means are

higher than female students in the experimental group before and after

implementation of cooperative learning activities, but the difference is statistically

non-significant. Male students’ means were higher than the female students in the

control group for both the pre-questionnaire and the post-questionnaire. Overall,

there was no significant difference between groups, so further analysis which may be

used to find the group causing a significant difference was not needed.

42
Table 7

Gender difference in attitudes towards reading after implementation of cooperative

learning activities

Questionnaire Groups N M Sd F
Pre-Q-Reading Exp-male 18 94.44 9.12 .310
Exp-female 4 90.50 9.11
Con-male 15 91.40 13.60
Con-female 3 95.33 11.84
Post-Q-Reading Exp-male 18 89.34 10.89 1.031
Exp-female 4 81.50 11.59
Con-male 15 91.53 12.38
Con-female 3 94.67 3.78
Pre-Q-CoopLearn Exp-male 18 57.28 9.97 .242
Exp-female 4 54.00 8.83
Con-male 15 56.33 9.55
Con-female 3 53.33 2.08
Post-Q-CoopLearn Exp-male 18 55.22 9.90 .058
Exp-female 4 54.00 12.45
Con-male 15 55.87 9.49
Con-female 3 55.67 3.05

N: Number of the participant groups, M: Mean, Sd: Standard Deviation, F: Variance

Research Question 4: Is there a significant difference between high-

achievement and low-achievement students’ in their attitudes towards reading and

cooperative learning?

Table 8 presents the results of ANOVA tests showing that there is no

significant difference in the attitudes of high-achievement and low-achievement in

the experimental group after the implementation of cooperative learning activities.

There is also no significant difference in the attitudes of the high-achievement and

low-achievement students in the control group. Further analysis was not conducted

since there was no significant difference between groups.

43
Table 8

Achievement difference in attitudes after implementing cooperative learning

activities

Questionnaire Groups N M Sd F
Pre-Q-Reading Exp-lowach 12 93.21 6.93 .141
Exp-highach 10 94.60 12.91
Con-lowach 7 91.28 7.82
Con-highach 9 92.11 16.23
Post-Q-Reading Exp-lowach 12 87.57 8.80 .369
Exp-highach 10 89.50 13.79
Con-lowach 7 91.28 9.03
Con-highach 9 92.44 14.27
Pre-Q-CoopLearn Exp-lowach 12 56.36 10.19 1.138
Exp-highach 10 57.11 8.59
Con-lowach 7 60.43 5.71
Con-highach 9 52.11 9.87
Post-Q-CoopLearn Exp-lowach 12 55.43 9.60 .446
Exp-highach 10 54.50 10.12
Con-lowach 7 59.00 9.02
Con-highach 9 53.78 9.23

N: Number of the participant groups, M: Mean, Sd: Standard deviation, F: Variance

Interviews

Interviews were conducted with both the teacher and six randomly selected

students to provide opportunities for more detailed analysis of attitudes towards

reading and cooperative learning.

Interview with the teacher

A structured interview was conducted by the researcher with the reading

course teacher who implemented cooperative learning activities in her reading

course. The interview was transcribed from audiotape and read numerous times to

identify patterns and themes. These five major themes to be discussed separately are:

1. Comparison between her previous teaching style and using cooperative

learning activities in her teaching instruction.

44
 2. Problems encountered in the implementation.

3. Positive effects of implementation on students observed by the teacher.

4. Specific activities that worked better than others.

5. Other opinions about use of cooperative learning activities in language

teaching.

Changes in teaching

The teacher stated that her previous teaching style was completely teacher-

centered. She was doing all the work in the class such as explaining sentences or

vocabulary in the texts and all questions were answered by individual students. She

had developed this teacher-centered style in response to students’ attitudes. The

teacher noted:

While I was using my own method, our lessons were teacher-

centered, because…you know students. They hate getting
ready for a unit at home. They expect everything from their
teacher.

According to the teacher, the most important difference between her previous

teaching style and using cooperative learning activities in her course was related to her

role in the lesson. While she was doing all the work in the class previously, during the

implementation of cooperative learning, she became a monitor and a guide in the

classroom:

….but after you gave me the activities, I just monitored. So, I

tried to see what they were able to do on their own. But what
I noticed was that they were at a loss. They needed a guide.
Sometimes they clearly stated it.

It is clear from this comment that the teacher realized cooperative learning

required new roles both for her and her students. In another quote, she said:

You know, you gave me little pieces of paper for each

student. I gave (them) their papers, I explained again and
again, but I think they preferred someone else to teach them.

45
 She noted that students felt at a lost, since they were not used to studying by

themselves. They saw the teacher as responsible for teaching them. When they were

asked to study together and be active participants of the lesson, they did not know

what to do.

Problems encountered

When the teacher was asked about the problems she encountered in

implementing the activities, she mentioned that students were often not so enthusiastic

about completing the task in the cooperative activities. However, she emphasized that

this problem was not caused by the activities by the materials used in the course. The

teacher offered her evaluation of the materials in the following way:

…..not only me but all my colleagues who teaches those

books in the same series, we hate those books. Our students
do, too. Because the topics are not really attractive…There is
no climax in the units. So, mostly our classes were a kind of
torture because of the material. This is what I and my students
share mutually. I know it, I know it. It is nothing to do with
me, nothing to do with something else. It is directly related to
the material.

Because of the strict schedule followed in the reading classes and the need to

cover the required content, the cooperative learning activities were based on the

course books used in the class. The teacher, herself, believes that the activities would

have worked better if they had been used with a different material.

Although the whole study was a failure in my opinion, it is

because of the reason I mentioned earlier. I really enjoyed
your activities, the techniques you have suggested. So, I
really would like to use them in the future if I have reading
classes.

Positive effects

At least two notable positive effects of cooperative learning were identified by

the teacher. She mentioned that she had few problems in classroom management in

46
implementing the cooperative learning activities. In addition, she mentioned that

students enjoyed taking part in cooperative group activities:

I think, they enjoyed the freedom of studying cooperatively

and I think they enjoyed this part of activities.

Another positive but limited effect was observed on shy and quiet students’

participation level in the course. In talking about two students who did not previously

participated much, she said:

To be specific I can say, names are not important for you I

think, two of my students became more relaxed and active.
That’s true. But only for two.

Successful cooperative learning activities

While the teacher expressed her satisfaction with most of the cooperative

learning activities, she observed that the most successful activity was Asking

Together, Learning Together. The students also enjoyed it more than the others:

The activity in which they prepared their own questions. That

really worked well. They enjoyed preparing questions.

Other opinions

At the end of the interview, the teacher was asked to express any additional

opinions about the use of cooperative learning activities in teaching instruction. She

said she generally believed the activities were valuable and useful, and that she was

planning to keep the materials prepared by the researcher and her to use in her reading

lessons for the following educational year.

Interviews with students

Six students participated in the interviews. These participants were randomly

chosen. In selection of these students low-achievement and high-achievement students

and male and female students in the experimental group were determined and random

selection was conducted to choose three females and three males. Three of the

47
participants were high-achievement students and three of the others were low-

achievement students. The interviews were conducted in Turkish and then translated

into English by the researcher. Although six students were chosen to be interviewed,

only four interviews were completed since two participants did not regularly attended

the course after the pre-questionnaire was distributed.

As with the teacher interview data, the interviews were repeatedly read and six

major themes identified. These were:

1. What the participants liked about studying in cooperative groups.

2. What the participants did not like about studying in cooperative groups.

3. Comparison of individual learning and learning in cooperative groups.

4. Problems encountered in cooperative group work and how they were handled.

5. Preference between learning from a classmate and learning from the teacher.

6. Complaints about the reading course material.

What the participants liked

When all student statements are considered, it can be concluded that they

generally liked studying in cooperative groups. In their words, they emphasized

concepts such as responsibility, sharing, confidence, relaxation, and contributing to

each other’s learning, all of which are supposed to emerge in classroom atmospheres

in which cooperative learning is used.

(Participant A) Studying in groups is more enjoyable

compared to studying by yourself. I do not know, compared to
sitting and memorizing all vocabulary by yourself, group
work is more enjoyable. You learn sharing. We will have a
business life in the future. We have to share life in the future,
too. You share something. This is very important. As I said
before, you learn faster and better by studying in group.

(Participant B) I liked studying in group; there is a more

sincere atmosphere. I do not know. You feel shyness when
you talk with the teacher, but with your class-mates, you do
not feel so. When you do not understand something you read,

48
 you can directly ask it to your class-mate. You may ask only
three or five questions to your teacher, then you think you
have asked too much questions so you stop asking. However,
you may ask questions to your class-mate as many as you
want. He also asks questions to you.

(Participant C) Studying in group is useful. You can ask

vocabulary to your classmates. You do not understand the
paragraphs when you study alone, so you ask your classmate.
He/she helps you. You also help them. I especially learnt
vocabulary more easily.

Participant D emphasized another positive effect of cooperative learning on learners.

She expressed that she felt relaxed about the learning process and more confidence in

herself:

It made me relax. It brought me confidence. I said to myself

‘so I can do it myself, too’. I realized that I was able to teach
my knowledge to my classmates. I saw that I had the ability to
teach something. I want to do the same thing in my other
courses in my department.

What the participants did not like

When the participants were asked to report what they did not like about

studying in cooperative groups, only two of them mentioned problems they

encountered. These problems were related to organizational problems within the

groups. Participant A noted a problem that occurred early during the implementation

of cooperative learning activities:

Of course we had problems, but only in my first group work.

Maybe, my friends did not realize the seriousness of the work
or maybe I had an adaptation problem with the group. But
later, I did not have any problems.

Resistance by group members to actively engage in group work was identified

as a problem mentioned by participant D. Like the previous problem, however, this

too seemed to be resolved as students became accustomed to group work. In her

49
second group experience, she did not have these problems since all members were

willing to participate in the work:

When I am the only one who studies on the paragraph, then I

do not like working in groups. In my first group work, I said
my team-mates “Let’s do it, let’s look up the unknown words
in the dictionary.” When they did not contribute, I also did not
want to do anything. I am easily affected by this kind of thing.
However, it was better in the last week. It was very nice. All
group members studied together, so I did, too. I mean…it
depends on who you work with.

Individual learning and cooperative learning

When the participants were asked to compare individual learning and learning

in cooperative groups, all of them mentioned the benefits of learning cooperatively,

especially the effectiveness of learning in cooperative groups. Participant A

compared individual learning and cooperative learning with these words:

There are a lot of differences. You have to handle problems

on your own when you study alone. Nobody helps you and
says “you may do it like this”. But in group, you discuss some
of the things...your friend may show you positives and
negatives. …Much better than studying alone. …It also
increased my participation in the lesson. I liked English and
reading courses beforehand. However, after studying in
groups I wanted to show the teacher that I did a lot of things
in the lesson. I wanted to show that I was successful. Studying
in groups caused me to do so.

Participant B used a different example to emphasize how much he learnt

during cooperative group work. His comment also suggests that students were

encouraged to interact in the target language:

You learn language easily in a foreign country. People around

speak that language. It is the same with your classmates. You
speak the language that they speak. You feel obliged to speak
the language they speak.

Participants also emphasized that information learnt in cooperative groups was

more permanent than information learnt individually. They also said that when they

study alone they prefer skipping parts that they have difficulty in understanding.

50
However, when they experienced studying in groups, they asked their classmates’

help when they had difficulty in understanding. Participant D expressed her ideas in

these words:

There were some sentences that I had difficulty in

understanding. One of my groupmates helped me translate it.
Then I understood. If I were alone, I would skip some of those
sentences without understanding.

Problems encountered and how they were handled

In experiencing cooperative group work in the reading courses, participants

met only a few problems which they themselves handled successfully. These

problems were related to adaptation and organization problems which occurred in the

first group work activity, but reportedly disappeared when participants and their group

mates got used to working in groups. Another problem which occurred in Participant

B’s group was related to a conflict they faced in choosing the best questions to be

asked to the other groups. In the Asking Together, Learning Together activity, they

could not decide on group questions because everyone in the group thought that their

questions were better than the others. Here is the solution found by the all group

members, in the words of participant B:

While we were preparing our questions, some of my mates

insisted on that their questions were better than the other
questions. Some members said sentences like “Your question
has nothing to do with the reading text.”(Here, he laughs)
Thus, we decided on reading the text carefully again and then
decided on our group’s questions.

This comment suggests that studying in cooperative groups improves students’

management skills, such as problem solving and organizing group work. When faced

with difficulties, students organized themselves to complete the task within the time

frame. They used a variety of strategies to address problems that arose, such as

51
deciding on the best question, encouraging group members to keep on working, and

prioritizing tasks to be completed.

Preference between learning a classmate and learning from a teacher

When asked about their preferences about learning from classmates or learning

from the teacher, all the participants said that although learning from a classmate had

many advantages, learning from the teacher was better; however, they recognized that

both had district benefits. The students said they preferred learning from the teacher

because she provided more correct information, was a professional, knew different

ways of explaining and teaching.

(Participant A) In the lesson, I think teachers contribute to

your learning more than your classmates. Because this is
his/her job. He/she focuses on this job for his/her entire life. I
prefer a teacher teaches me rather than one of my classmates.
But this does not mean that I do not ask my classmates’
contribution.

(Participant B) Learning from your classmates is reasonable.

It’s a kind of interaction to learn information. You have some
strength and so does your friend. Something like ‘you know
this but I know that’. But the teacher knows everything.
He/she is superior to you… Thus, learning from your
classmates is nice. However, there is a risk that your
classmate may be mistaken unlike the teacher. I do not know.
Not exactly the teacher and not exactly my classmates.

Participant C and D preferred that a teacher taught them rather than their

classmates. They said that teacher was the most reliable source and what he/she taught

was correct. Participant D especially emphasized the grammatical correctness of the

sentences produced by the teacher:

…her sentences are grammatically correct, we can understand

easily. We take them as examples. I say ‘Well, then this is the
formula, I should use it in the same way’ to myself.

52
 Complaints about the reading course material

Although the participants were not asked about the material used in the reading

course, all of them complained about the material. The Participants E and F, with

whom the interviews were not completed, stated that their non-attendance to lessons

were because of the material used in the course. For this reason, the researcher found

it significant to report their opinions about the material.

Participant E, who had the highest grades in the course, thought that it was

unnecessary for her to attend the lessons, since it was very easy for her to memorize

the vocabulary in the texts by herself at home. She explained her opinions as follows:

It is unnecessary to attend lessons to memorize the

vocabulary. I study them at home. They only ask vocabulary
in the exams. The book is too boring. Why should I spend my
time on it?

Participant B focused on another point related to vocabulary taught in the

material. He compared the vocabulary used in the material with his native language

use. He also compared the book with one of his other course books which he believed

was more useful for him especially in writing essays. He preferred a reading course

book which recycled the vocabulary which had been taught in other courses.

Specifically, he noted:

Vocabulary is useless in the reading book. I read once, and

then I forget. … They have nothing to do with the real life. I
used these words in Turkish once or twice in my whole life.
The vocabulary used in the book “X” (he tells the exact name
of the book here) is all about real life, I use them in writing
lesson, too.

Participant C said that it would be better to study in groups if the material was

different. Unlike the other participants, he wanted to learn new information from

readings, not only new vocabulary. He commented:

The reading book is boring. It would be more enjoyable if we

had a chance to read more interesting topics. I do not talk

53
 about the vocabulary; I mean it would be better if I had a
chance to learn something new. These stories are nonsense
because they are useless. They do not teach anything so they
are not meaningful for me.

The other participants also stated that the material which was used in the

reading course was not useful for their learning. They mentioned that their

unwillingness to participate was caused by the material, not by the teacher or the

instruction used by their teacher.

Conclusion

There was not seen a statistically significant difference in the attitudes of the

participants towards English reading courses and cooperative learning when

experimental and control groups were compared. There was a significant difference in

the attitudes of experimental group towards English reading courses after

implementation of cooperative learning activities which was reported as a negative

change. There was not a significant difference in terms of gender and achievement in

both the experimental and the control groups. However, interview results provided

clear information about what participants felt about cooperative learning experience.

The opinions of the participants were generally towards positive and all participants

were willing to learn and teach cooperatively in their future studies.

54
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

Overview of the Study

This study investigated the effects of cooperative learning activities on

students’ attitudes towards English reading courses and cooperative learning. It also

examined possible differences in attitudes of female and male students and high-

achievement and low-achievement students towards the reading course and

cooperative learning activities. The study was carried out at the School of Foreign

Languages at Dokuz Eylül University. Using the results of the pre-questionnaire the

two most similar groups were selected with one randomly assigned as the

experimental group and the other the control group. The same teacher taught both

groups to reduce teacher effects on the study.

The teacher implemented cooperative learning activities in the experimental

group for four weeks. These activities were adapted to the reading course book with

no additional material used. The teacher did not change her previous teaching

instruction in the control group. When the treatment ended, both the control group

and the experimental group were given the post-questionnaire. In addition to the

questionnaires, interviews were conducted with the teacher and six randomly chosen

students from the experimental group.

The pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire results were analyzed by using

t-test and ANOVA test. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed in relation to

the research questions and other common issues raised by the participants.

55
 Discussions of the Results

The First Research Question

The first question of the study explored the effects of cooperative learning

activities on students’ attitudes towards English reading courses. After

implementation of the activities, the attitudes of the students in the experimental

group were changed slightly towards negative. However, the change was not

statistically significant compared to the control group’s responses. In the within

group statistical analysis, the responses of the students in the experimental group to

the pre- and post-questionnaires after the implementation of the cooperative learning

activities indicated that their attitudes became significantly negative towards reading

and the reading courses.

In the interviews, however, participants who attended the class regularly

during the treatment had a positive attitude towards the reading courses after the

implementation of the activities. In particular, they stated that they felt more

comfortable in the reading courses, especially in answering questions from the

teacher. They also said that they felt they had more opportunities to ask and answer

questions with their classmates in groups and so practice the language. The findings

of this study were consistent with the findings of Jacob et al. (1996) who found that

cooperative learning activities allowed students to ask questions to their group

members and discuss the answers of these questions to understand the academic

language and concepts in the reading materials.

A second positive effect of cooperative learning in the reading course also

appeared in the interviews but not in the questionnaires. Students’ comments

suggested that cooperative learning seemed to reduce anxiety and develop students’

self-esteem and self-confidence in reading course. This is consistent with the

56
advantages of cooperative language learning cited by Crandall (1999) and Dörnyei

(1997).

The difference in findings of the statistical analysis and interview analysis

may arise from two reasons. In the interviews, two of the respondents explained that

they had not attended the reading class regularly since the pre-questionnaire. They

did, however, fill in the questionnaire like the other students present on the day of

administering of the post-questionnaire. There may have been others in the

experimental group who also did not regularly attend class, but who filled out the

post-questionnaire. Their lack of experience with the cooperative learning activities

might have affected the results of the study.

In the interviews, all participants including the teacher, complained about the

reading course book. These observations reinforce the literature in highlighting the

importance of course materials in students’ learning and perceptions of their learning

(Coelho, 1992). Students’ attitudes towards reading as seen on the questionnaire may

be more a reflection of their dissatisfaction with the material rather than with

cooperative learning.

The Second Research Question

The second research question was related to the effects of cooperative

learning activities on students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning. Statistical

analysis of the experimental group’s responses on the pre- and post-questionnaire

showed that there was not a significant change in students’ attitudes towards

cooperative learning after the implementation of the cooperative learning activities.

In the interviews, however, participants’ responses were generally positive about

their experience in cooperative learning activities. They emphasized that the

activities encouraged them to take responsibility in their own learning process, to

57
share their knowledge with other learners, and to feel more confident. They also said

that studying with their classmates was more enjoyable and useful than studying

alone.

It seems that cooperative learning experience also helped learners improve

their management, social, and academic skills. This is consistent with Baloche

(1998), who found that management skills of the students improved with the use of

cooperative learning. Students in the interviews mentioned independent management

strategies that they used during cooperative learning activities. They tried to organize

group work and complete the given task in a limited time. When they met a problem

in their groups, such as deciding on the best questions of the group, they handled the

problem in a manner that respected all team members’ opinions. Such behavior

suggests that the activities also helped them in improving their social skills, which is

one of the most important benefits of cooperative learning according to Johnson &

Johnson (1992). Stahl (1995) noted that cooperative learning activities improved

students’ academic skills by encouraging them to interact, ask and answer questions

of each other, solve problems, and make decisions. In the reading courses, the

participants had great opportunities to interact with each other. In particular,

interviewees said that they asked questions of their team members about the

structures and concepts they had difficulty in understanding in the reading texts. The

findings also showed that the students who had avoided asking the teacher questions

during class began to ask questions of their classmates during cooperative learning

activities.

Problems identified during the interviews were mostly related to students’

becoming accustomed to cooperative learning groups. As the teacher of the course

mentioned, the students were not used to studying in groups and taking an active role

58
in the reading courses and they had difficulty in adapting themselves. This dramatic

change in the learning environment and the role of the teacher and students was

perhaps more difficult for the students to adjust to than had been anticipated. This

adaptation process might have affected their responses in the questionnaires.

The difference between information collected in the interviews and the

questionnaire results about cooperative learning might have also been because of

students who had not attended class responding to the questionnaire as four

participants with whom interviews were completed expressed positive opinions about

the use of cooperative learning activities.

The Third Research Question

The third question of the study sought to identify the difference between

male and in attitudes towards reading and cooperative learning. Statistically, no

significant difference was found, though after implementation of cooperative

learning activities, female students’ attitudes were more negative. Male students’

attitudes towards reading and cooperative learning also were more negative after the

treatment, but less than female students. Only one of the respondents in the interview

was female since the two other females selected for the interviews did not attend the

course during the treatment. The only female respondent of the interviews generally

shared the same opinions as the male respondents.

Since there were only four female students in the experimental group, no

generalization can be made from the results that were found to answer the research

question of the study.

The Fourth Research Question

The fourth research question of the study looked at any possible difference in

the attitudes of high-achievement and low-achievement students towards cooperative

59
learning. Based on the pre- and post-questionnaires both type of students’ attitudes

became more negative after the treatment. This difference between the two groups,

however, was small and not statistically significant.

In the completed interviews, there were two high-achievement and two low-

achievement students. There was little difference in their opinions. All expressed

positive opinions about cooperative learning and identified similar problems they

encountered during the experimental treatment. Both the questionnaires and

interviews suggest then that there was not a difference between high-achievement

students and low-achievement students in their attitudes towards the reading and

cooperative learning.

Limitations of the Study

In interpreting the results of this study, there are several limitations to be

considered. These limitations are related to the participants, the length of the study,

and the material used in the course.

The participants of the study were chosen from the School of Foreign

Languages at Dokuz Eylül University. In the pre-questionnaire, three teachers and

their two reading classes were given the questionnaire. It was difficult to find

teachers who taught two reading classes with the same level of students. Had more

classes been available, groups that resembled one another more closely might have

been chosen for the study. In addition, in both the experimental group and the control

group, the number of the female participants was small. This situation limits the

ability to generalize the findings for the third research question.

Two of the participants in the interviews and the teacher stated that absences

were a problem. No mechanism was put in place to prevent students who did not

60
attend the courses during the treatment from answering the questions in the post-

questionnaire, too. Their answers might have affected the statistical results.

Another limitation of the study was the length of the treatment. Although a

six-week implementation of cooperative learning was planned with the teacher, she

could only implement activities for four weeks. For one of the six weeks, classes

were not held at the university. The instructor also finished one unit earlier than

anticipated. A longer treatment might have affected the results.

The instructional materials which were used in the reading courses during the

study were not changed and no supplemental material for the cooperative learning

activities were used; instead, the cooperative activities were based on the existing

readings in the course textbook. This was done to accommodate the strict course

content schedule followed at the school. As respondents expressed in the interviews,

the course book is very negatively viewed by the students and appears to have had a

negative effect on students’ attitudes towards reading and cooperative learning

activities, as well.

Pedagogical Implications

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative

learning activities on students’ attitudes towards English reading courses and

cooperative learning. Possible differences in attitudes among male and female

students’ and high-achievement and low-achievement students were also sought. As

a part of the study, the researcher gathered information about students’ attitudes

towards the reading courses held at the School of Foreign Languages at Dokuz Eylül

University. These findings may be used to redesign the reading courses at the School

of Foreign Languages at Dokuz Eylül University. Furthermore, complaints related to

the reading material may be reported to the material development committee.

61
 The findings of the interviews may be used to suggest teachers use

cooperative learning activities in their courses since participants’ attitudes were

positive towards participating in cooperative learning activities. The teacher’s

opinion about the further use of the activities and her willingness to implement them

in spite of the problems she encountered may serve as an important example for

other teachers in the institution. All these findings may encourage teachers to use

cooperative learning activities in their teaching instruction.

As Açıkgöz (2002) stated, in education systems in which traditional methods

such as lecture and dictation are used, students easily forget what they have learnt

during lectures. The reason for this problem is caused by the roles of the teacher and

the student in the class. In classes where traditional whole class methodology is used,

the teacher is the expert and the decision maker, whereas students are passive

listeners and note-takers. Students generally memorize information presented by the

teacher, review it, and then forget it after the examination. However, in classes where

cooperative learning is used teachers are facilitators. Students are investigators and

discoverers. They ask questions, make predictions, analyze, discuss, assess their

strengths and weaknesses, interact, and try to learn. For teachers and students in

Turkey, where traditional whole class methods have been used for a number of years,

changing these roles might be very difficult. The findings of this study may also be

important since they give clear evidence about the difficulties that the teacher and the

students in the experimental group encountered during the implementation. Knowing

about the possible problems related to adjusting to new roles beforehand may help

teachers who plan to use cooperative learning activities in their instruction.

In order to prevent the problems which may result from the difficulty in

adapting new roles, both teachers and students may be given training on cooperative

62
learning. In these training sessions, they may be informed about how to work

effectively in cooperative groups, how they can handle difficulties, and other

cooperative learning group skills.

Suggestions for Further Research

Several suggestions for further research emerge from the findings of this

study. First of all, for more meaningful results–negatively or positively–treatment

should extend over a longer period of time. Positive attitudes towards unfamiliar

ways of learning may need longer than four weeks to develop. In addition, the

students’ adaptation problems in this study might have become less severe during a

longer treatment.

Another suggestion is related to the numbers of the groups. Having more

experimental groups in a study in which effect is sought may provide more reliable

findings. Having identical numbers in gender and achievement level of the students

may also affect further studies in significant ways.

In this study, students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning after

implementation of cooperative learning activities were sought in the reading courses.

In a further study, their attitudes may be sought in different language skills such as

writing and speaking, in which the effect on students’ attitudes may be different.

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of cooperative learning

activities on students’ attitudes towards English reading courses and cooperative

learning. Although no statistically significant differences were found between the

control group and experimental group, there was a significant negative change in

attitudes of experimental group towards reading. However, interview data suggested

positive changes in students’ attitudes towards both the reading courses and

63
cooperative learning after a four-week exposure to cooperative learning activities.

The findings did not indicate any difference among students in terms of gender or

achievement level.

This study may be considered as an initial step to encourage learners to have

active roles in their learning process by examining their attitudes towards cooperative

learning. The study also aimed to identify effects of cooperative learning on learners.

The findings at least partially confirmed previous studies on the same field that found

positive effects on students. Language teachers seeking to implement innovations in

their teaching instruction may also look to the findings of the research to encourage

them in their efforts.

64
 References

Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2002). Aktif Öğrenme. İzmir: Eğitim Dünyası Yayınları.

Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a

language problem? In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a
foreign language (pp. 1-24). New York: Longman.

Bailey, K. M., Dale, T., & Squire, B. (1992). Some reflections on collaborative
language teaching. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and
teaching (pp. 162-178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baloche, L. A. (1998). The cooperative classroom: Empowering learning. Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bejarano, Y. (1987). A cooperative small-group methodology in the language

classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 483-501.

Bejarano, Y. (1994). An integrated group work model for the second language
classroom. In S. Sharan (Ed.), The handbook of cooperative learning methods
(pp. 193-211). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Cangelosi, J. S. (2000). Classroom management strategies (4th ed.). New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Clarke, J. (1994). Pieces of the puzzle: The jigsaw method. In S. Sharan (Ed.), The
handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 34-50). Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.

Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and
group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44, 417-
448.

Coelho, E. (1992). Cooperative learning: Foundation for a communicative curriculum.

In C. Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative language learning (pp. 31-50). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Crandall, J. J. (1999). Cooperative learning and affective factors. In J. Arnold (Ed.),

Affect in language learning (pp. 226-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

65
DeVillar, R. A. (1991). Cooperative principles, computers, and classroom language. In
M. E. McGroarty & C. J. Faltis (Eds.). Languages in school and society (pp.
247-261). Berlin: Mouten de Gruyter.

Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group

dynamics and motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 482-493.

Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Questionnaires in second language research. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Ediger, A. (2001). Teaching children literacy skills in a second language. In M. Celce-

Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed),
(pp.153-169). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Freeman, Y. & Freeman, D. (2003). Struggling English language learners: Keys for
academic success. TESOL Journal, 12(3), 5-10.

Fox-Cardamone, L. & Rue, S. Students’ responses to active-learning strategies: An

examination of small-group and whole-class discussion. [Electronic version].
Research for Educational Reform, 8(3), 3-13

Ghaith, G. (2003). Effects of the learning together model of cooperative learning on

English as foreign language reading achievement, academic self-esteem, and
feelings of school alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 451-474.

Ghaith, G. (2001). Learner’s perceptions of their STAD cooperative experience. System,

29, 289-301.

Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring co-operative learning experiences in primary school.

In R. M. Gillies., & A. F. Ashman (Eds.) Co-operative learning (pp. 36-53).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York:
Longman.

Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL

Quarterly, 25, 375-406.

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. L. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the
ESL/EFL teacher. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or
foreign language (3rd ed) (pp.187-203). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Gwyn-Paquette, C., & Tochon, F.V. (2003). The role of reflective conversations and
feedback in helping preservice teachers learn to use cooperative activities in their
second language classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 503-
545.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1992). Understanding interactive behaviors: Looking at six

mirrors of the classroom. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds). Interaction
in cooperative groups (pp. 71-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

66
Horwitz, E. K., Bresslau, B., Dryden, M., Mclendon, M. E., & Yu, J. (1997). A graduate
course focusing on the second language learner. The Modern Language Journal,
81, 518-526.

Jacob, E., Rottenberg, L., Patrick, S., & Wheeler, E. (1996). Cooperative learning:
Context and opportunities for academic English. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 253-280.

Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A., & Inn, L. W. (2002). The teacher’s sourcebook for
cooperative learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective

cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds). Interaction in
cooperative groups (pp. 174-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together. In S. Sharon. (Ed.), The

handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 55-65). Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Student motivation in co-operative groups:

Social interdependence theory. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.) Co-
operative learning (136-176). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (1994). The structural approach: Six keys to cooperative
learning. In S. Sharon. (Ed.), The handbook of cooperative learning methods
(pp. 115-133). Westport, CT: Preager Publishers.

Kauchak, D. P. & Eggen, P. D. (1998). Learning and teaching: Research-based

methods (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kessler, C. (1992). Part one: Foundations of cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (Ed.),

Cooperative language learning (v-xiv). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Klinger, J., K. & Vaughn, S. (2000). The helping behaviors of fifth graders while using
collaborative strategic reading during ESL content classes. TESOL Quarterly,
34, 69-98.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lea, S.J., Stephonson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher-education students' attitudes to
student-centered learning: Beyond 'educational bulimia'? Studies in Higher
Education, 28, 321-333.

McDonell, W. (1992). Language and cognitive development through cooperative group

work. In C. Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative language learning (pp. 51-64).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

67
Morgan, B. M. (2003). Cooperative learning in higher education: Undergraduate student
reflections on group examinations for group grades. [Electronic version].
College Student Journal, 37(1), 40-50.

Morley, J. (2001). Aural comprehension instruction: Principles and practices. In M.

Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed),
(pp. 69-85). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Murray, D. E. (1992). Collaborative writing as a literacy event: Implications for ESL
instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching
(pp. 100-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1992). Introduction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning

and teaching (pp. 1-10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olsen, R. E. W-B. & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (Ed.),
Cooperative language learning (pp. 1-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Orlich, D.N., Harder, R.J., Callahan, R.C., & Gibson, H. W. (1998). Teaching
strategies, (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction:

Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 81, 443-456.

Putnam, J. W. (1998). Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion: Celebrating

diversity. Baltimore, MD: P.H. Brookes Publishers.

Readence, J. E., Moore, D. W., & Rickelman, R. J. (2000). Pre-reading activities for
content area reading and learning.(3rd ed.) Dover, DE: International Reading
Association.

Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching

(2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shachar, H. (2003). Who gains what from co-operative learning: an overview of eight
studies. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.), Co-operative learning (103-
118). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Sharan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning and the teacher. In S. Sharan (Ed.), The
handbook of cooperative learning methods, (pp. 336-348). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1994). Group investigation in the cooperative classroom. In S.
Sharan. (Ed.), The handbook of cooperative learning methods, (pp. 97-114).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Slavin, R. E. (1994). A practical guide to cooperative learning. Needham Heights, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

68
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (1997). Co-operative learning among students. In D. Stern & G. L. Huber

(Eds.), Active learning for students and teachers (pp. 159-173). Frankfurt am
Main: Lang.

Stahl, R. J. (1995). Cooperative learning: A language arts context and an overview. In

R. J. Stahl. (Ed.), Cooperative learning in language arts (pp. 1-16). Menlo Park,
CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Stone, J. M., & Kagan, S. (1995). Integrated language arts instruction: The structural
approach. In R. J. Stahl (Ed.), Cooperative learning in language arts (pp. 111-
135). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Turnbull, M. (1996). Cooperative learning in second language classes: Two techniques

to consider. Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 150-157.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weinstein, G. (2001). Developing adult literacies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching

English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed), (pp.171-186). Boston: Heinle
& Heinle.

Wilhelm, K. H. (1997). Sometimes kicking and screaming: Language teachers-in-

training react to a collaborative learning model. The Modern Language Journal,
81, 527-542.

Wohl, A., & Klein-Wohl, E. (1994). Teaching and learning the language arts with
cooperative learning methods. In S. Sharan. (Ed.), The handbook of cooperative
learning methods (pp. 177-192). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Zimbardo, G. G., Butler, L. D. & Wolfe, V. A. (2003). Cooperative college

examinations: More gain, less pain when students share information and grades.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 101-125.

69
 APPENDIX A

Informed Consent Form

Dear students,

My name is Özlem Bayat and I attend MA TEFL Program at Bilkent

University. I am conducting a survey about student views of reading and the reading

course. The following questionnaire has been prepared for this survey. I would

appreciate it if you would answer the questions in the questionnaire. Another version

of the same questionnaire will be distributed later this term.

Although I ask your name for the questionnaire, it is only to match your

answers on the questionnaire with the second questionnaire. No information about

your identity will be included in any reports derived from this research. No one

including your teacher will be able to associate your names with your answers to

either questionnaire.

Please read the questions carefully and answer all of them. Your answers will

contribute to my study. Thank you for your participation.

Özlem Bayat

MA TEFL Program
Bilkent University
Ankara

I read the information in the form and I accept participating in the study. I

know that my name will not be included in any reports by the researcher.

Name and surname:

Signature:

Date:

70
 QUESTIONNAIRE

Section I

Please fill in the following information.

Name : ………………..
Surname : ………………...
Class : ………………..
Department : ………………..
Sex : Male (…..) Female (…..)
Age : ………………..
First semester grade: 0-20 (…..), 20-50 (…..), 50-60 (…..), 60-70 (…..), 70-100 (.....)

Section II

Please place an “X” in the most appropriate box.

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
disagree

disagree
Slightly

Slightly
Agree
agree

agree

1. One can learn a lot by

reading.
2. Reading in English is
difficult for me.
3. Reading helps me in learning
new English vocabulary.
4. Reading is a waste of time.

5. In my reading class, the

teacher’s instruction is
boring.
6. In my reading class, the
teacher’s instruction helps me
learn the material.
7. I look forward to coming to
my reading class.
8. I have difficulty in learning
new vocabulary in the
reading course.
9. The reading course is
difficult.
10. My reading class makes me
want to learn more English.

71
 Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
disagree

disagree
Slightly

Slightly
Agree
agree

agree
11. The reading course helps me
improve my reading in
English.
12. I like learning new
vocabulary in the reading
course.
13. I like the reading course.

14. Reading helps me improve

my English.
15. I enjoy reading.

16. Reading helps me improve

my English grammar.
17. I like reading outside of
school.
18. The reading course is
enjoyable.
19. I often feel anxious about
answering a question in the
reading course.
20. I am afraid of making
mistakes in my reading class.
21. The activities in my reading
class give me opportunities to
improve my reading skills.
22. The reading course is one of
the most important courses
that I have.
23. I like reading for school.

Section III
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
disagree

disagree
Slightly

Slightly
Agree
agree

agree

24. I think other students

CANNOT contribute to my
English.
25. I think I feel more relaxed if I
work on an answer with other
students.

72
 Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
disagree

disagree
Slightly

Slightly
Agree
agree

agree
26. Working with other students
on a problem gives me
confidence to answer a
question in the class.
27. I prefer that the teacher rather
than another student teaches
me.
28. I think it is difficult for me to
concentrate if I study in a
group.
29. I think sharing information
about different readings helps
me learn.
30. I think working on questions
with other students helps me
learn.
31. I think studying in class for
an exam with other students
is better than studying alone.
32. I think studying with other
students can improve my
English in the reading course
more than studying alone.
33. I think learning from other
students is a waste of time.
34. I think working with other
students in class gives me
more opportunities to practice
newly learned vocabulary.
35. I think reading the texts is
easier if I study within a
group.
36. I think teaching another
student can help improve my
English.

Thank you ☺

73
 APPENDIX B

BİLGİ VE KABUL FORMU

Sevgili öğrenciler,

Adım Özlem Bayat ve Bilkent Üniversitesi’nde İngilizce’nin Yabancı Dil

Olarak Öğretimi Yüksek Lisans Programında öğrenciyim. Öğrencilerin okuma ve

okuma derslerine yönelik görüşleri ile ilgili bir araştırma yapıyorum. Elinizdeki

anket bu araştırma için hazırlandı. Anketteki soruları cevaplarsanız memnun olurum.

Bu anketin başka bir versiyonu bu dönem içinde size tekrar dağıtılacak.

Anketi cevaplarken adınız istense de, bu yalnızca cevaplarınızı ikinci

anketteki cevaplarınızla karşılaştırmak içindir. Kimliğinizle ilgili hiçbir bilgi bu

araştırma sonucunda hazırlanan hiçbir raporda kullanılmayacaktır. Ders öğretmeniniz

dahil hiç kimse verdiğiniz cevaplarla birlikte adınızı bilmeyecektir.

Lütfen soruları dikkatlice okuyun ve hepsini cevaplayın. Cevaplarınız

araştırmaya katkıda bulunacaktır. Katılımınız için teşekkür ederim.

Özlem Bayat

MA TEFL Programı
Bilkent Üniversitesi
Ankara

Bu formdaki bilgileri okudum ve araştırmaya katılmayı kabul ediyorum.

Çalışmanın sonunda hiçbir raporda araştırmacı tarafından adımın kullanılmayacağını

biliyorum.

Adı ve soyadı:
İmzası :
Tarih :

74
 ANKET

Birinci Bölüm

Lütfen aşağıdaki bilgileri doldurunuz.

Adı :

Soyadı :

Sınıfı :

Bölümü :

Cinsiyeti : Bay (…..) Bayan (…..)

Yaşı :

Birinci dönem başarı notu: 0-20 (…), 20-50 (…), 50-60 (…), 60-70 (…), 70-100 (…)

İkinci bölüm

Sizin için uygun olan kutuyu “X” ile işaretleyiniz.

Katılmıyorum
katılmıyorum

katılmıyorum
Katılıyorum
katılıyorum

katılıyorum
Tamamen

Kesinlikle
Kısmen

Kısmen

1. İnsan okuyarak çok şey öğrenebilir.

2. İngilizce okumak benim için zordur.

3. Okumak yeni İngilizce kelimeler

öğrenmeme yardımcı oluyor.
4. Okumak vakit kaybıdır.

5. Okuma dersinde öğretmenin anlatımını

sıkıcı buluyorum.
6. Okuma dersinde öğretmenin anlatımı
konuyu öğrenmeme yardımcı oluyor.
7. Okuma dersine büyük bir istekle
geliyorum.
8. Okuma dersinde yeni kelimeler
öğrenmekte güçlük çekiyorum.
9. Okuma dersi zor bir derstir.

10. Okuma dersi bende daha çok İngilizce

öğrenme isteği yaratıyor.

75
 Katılmıyorum
katılmıyorum

katılmıyorum
Katılıyorum
katılıyorum

katılıyorum
Tamamen

Kesinlikle
Kısmen

Kısmen
11. Okuma dersi İngilizce okuma becerimi
geliştirmeye yardımcı oluyor.
12. Okuma dersinde yeni kelimeler
öğrenmeyi seviyorum.
13. Okuma dersini seviyorum.

14. Okumak İngilizce’min gelişmesine

yardımcı oluyor.
15. Okumayı seviyorum.

16. Okumak İngilizce gramerimin

gelişmesine yardımcı oluyor.
17. Dersler dışında okumayı seviyorum.

18. Okuma dersi zevkli bir derstir.

19. Okuma dersinde sorulara cevap verme

konusunda sık sık endişeli hissediyorum.
20. Okuma dersinde hata yapmaktan
korkuyorum.
21. Okuma dersindeki aktiviteler okuma
becerilerimi geliştirmede bana olanak
sağlıyor.
22. Okuma dersi en önemli derslerimden
biridir.
23. Dersler için okumayı seviyorum.

Üçüncü bölüm
Katılmıyorum
katılmıyorum

katılmıyorum
Katılıyorum
katılıyorum

katılıyorum
Tamamen

Kesinlikle
Kısmen

Kısmen

24. Diğer öğrencilerin İngilizce’me katkıda

bulunamayacağını düşünüyorum.
25. Bir sorunun üzerinde diğer öğrencilerle
çalışırsam kendimi daha rahat
hissedeceğimi düşünüyorum.
26. Sınıftaki diğer öğrencilerle bir soru
üzerinde çalışmak soru cevaplamada
bana güven veriyor.

76
 Katılmıyorum
katılmıyorum

katılmıyorum
Katılıyorum
katılıyorum

katılıyorum
Tamamen

Kesinlikle
Kısmen

Kısmen
27. Bir öğrencidense öğretmenin öğretmesini
tercih ederim.
28. Grup içinde çalışırken konsantre
olmamın zor olduğunu düşünüyorum.
29. Farklı okuma parçaları ile ilgili
bilgilerimizi paylaşmanın öğrenmeme
yardımcı olacağını düşünüyorum.
30. Sorular üzerinde diğer öğrencilerle
birlikte çalışmanın öğrenmeme yardımcı
olacağını düşünüyorum.
31. Sınıfta diğer öğrencilerle birlikte sınava
çalışmanın tek başına çalışmaktan daha
iyi olacağını düşünüyorum.
32. Okuma dersinde diğer öğrencilerle
çalışmamın İngilizce’mi yalnız
çalışmaktan daha çok geliştirebileceğini
düşünüyorum.
33. Diğer öğrencilerden öğrenmenin vakit
kaybı olduğunu düşünüyorum.
34. Sınıfta diğer öğrenciler ile çalışmamın
yeni öğrenilen kelimelerin pratiğini
yapmak için daha fazla fırsat vereceğini
düşünüyorum.
35. Grup içinde çalışırsam okuma parçalarını
anlamamın daha kolay olacağını
düşünüyorum.
36. Başka bir öğrenciye benim öğretmemin
İngilizce’min gelişmesine yardımcı
olabileceğini düşünüyorum.

Teşekkür ederim ☺

77
 APPENDIX C

Interview Questions for the Students

1. Did you notice a difference in your teacher’s strategies in the last several

weeks? If so, what were these differences?

2. Did you like working in groups? Why / why not?

3. What was it specifically you liked / did not like about working in groups?

4. Did you feel that you learnt more in groups than working by yourself?

5. What kind of problems (if any) did you experience in group work? What

did you do to handle them?

6. Did working in groups increase your participation in class? Why/why not?

7. Did working in groups make you feel more comfortable to speak English?

Why/why not?

8. Did you find you were more comfortable in working in groups after

experiencing several group learning activities? Why/why not?

9. What did you think about learning from students rather than from the

teacher? Which one do you prefer? Why?

78
 Interview Questions for the Teacher

1. To what extent were you able to implement cooperative learning activities in

your reading course?

2. What were some major differences between your previous teaching style and

using cooperative learning?

3. What problems (if any) did you meet in implementing CLA?

4. What kind of problems did you have in terms of materials / classroom

management?

5. How did students respond to cooperative learning? Did you see any

differences in attitudes / participation level / participation of shy or quiet

students / male and female attitudes / high achievement and low achievement

students / attendance?

6. Were there specific activities that worked especially well?

7. Do you think CLA are useful and valuable to teach reading? Why / why not?

79
 APPENDIX D

Öğrenciler ile görüşme soruları

1. Son haftalarda okuma dersi öğretmeninizin ders anlatma tekniğinde /

stratejilerinde bir farklılık gözlemlediniz mi?

2. Grup içinde çalışmayı sevdin mi? Neden?

3. Grup içinde çalışmakta özellikle neyi sevdin /sevmedin?

4. Kendi başına çalışmana kıyasla grup çalışmasında daha çok öğrendiğini

hissettin mi?

5. Eğer olduysa grup çalışmasında ne tür sorunlarla karşılaştın? Bunlarla başa

çıkmak için ne yaptın?

6. Grup içinde çalışmak derse katılımını artırdı mı? Neden?

7. Grup içinde çalışmak İngilizce konuşurken daha rahat hissetmeni sağladı mı?
Neden?

8. Bir kaç grup içinde öğrenme aktivitesinden sonra kendini grup içinde çalışma
konusunda daha rahat hissettin mi? Neden?

9. Bir öğretmendense bir öğrenciden öğrenme konusunda ne düşünüyorsun?

Hangisini tercih edersin? Neden?

80