Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction: Three Communicative

Strands in the Language Classroom

Author(s): Rebecca L. Oxford
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 81, No. 4, Special Issue: Interaction,
Collaboration, and Cooperation: Learning Languages and Preparing Language Teachers
(Winter, 1997), pp. 443-456
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/328888
Accessed: 09-01-2019 02:35 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Wiley are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Cooperative Learning, Collaborative
Learning, and Interaction: Three
Communicative Strands in the
Language Classroom
REBECCA L. OXFORD

Education Dean's Office

University ofAlabama
Carmichael Hall, Box 870231
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0231
Email: [email protected]

This article describes important distinctions among three strands of communica

foreign or second language (L2) classroom: cooperative learning, collaborative learn
teraction. These three strands have different connotations, which, when understo
us better comprehend language learning and teaching. Cooperative learning refer
ticular set of classroom techniques that foster learner interdependence as a route
and social development. Collaborative learning has a "social constructivist" phil
base, which views learning as construction of knowledge within a social context
therefore encourages acculturation of individuals into a learning community. Int
the broadest of the three terms and refers to personal communication, which is fac
an understanding of four elements: language tasks, willingness to communicate, s
ences, and group dynamics.

THE CONCEPTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARN- eral field of education and as applied to L2 learn-
ing, collaborative learning, and interactionI ing andareteaching. Table 1 provides a comparative
widely used in the teaching of mathematics, overviewsci-
of the main aspects of these three strands.
ence, social studies, languages, and manyCooperative other learning, as compared with collabora-
subjects. tive learning, is considered more structured, more
Although common usage sometimes treats prescriptive to teachers about classroom tech-
these concepts as though they were the same, niques, more directive to students about how to
each has developed special connotations and work together in groups, and more targeted (at
classroom applications in recent years. In the lan- least it was in its beginnings) to the public school
guage teaching field, the differences (and simi- population than to postsecondary or adult edu-
larities) among these three concepts are particu- cation (Matthews, Cooper, Davidson, & Hawkes,
larly important for teachers to understand. 1995). "Cooperative learning researchers and
Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and theoreticians are educational or social psycholo-
interaction are three "communicative strands" in gists or sociologists whose original work was
the foreign or second language (L2) classroom.intended for application at the K-12 level" (Mat-
The purpose of this article is to distinguish thews et al., p. 39). Cooperative learning is de-
among these three strands, both within the gen- fined as "group learning activity organized so
that learning is dependent on the socially struc-
tured exchange of information between learners
The Modern Language Journal, 81, iv, (1997) in groups and in which each learner is held ac-
0026-7902/97/443-456 $1.50/0
@1997 The Modern Language Journal
countable for his or her own learning and is mo-
tivated to increase the learning of others" (Olsen

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 444 The Modern LanguageJournal 81 (1997)
TABLE 1

Conceptual Comparisons among Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction

Strand 1: Strand 2: Strand 3:

Aspects Cooperative Learning Collaborative Learning Interaction

Purpose Enhances cognitive and Acculturates learners Allows learners to

social skills via a set of into knowledge communicate with
known techniques communities others in numerous ways

Degree of Structure High Variable Variable

Relationships Individual is accountable Learner engages with

to the group and vice "more capable others" other
versa; teacher facilitates, (teachers, advanced other in
but group is primary peers, etc.), who provide
assistance and guidance

Prescriptiveness of
Activities High Low Variable

Key Terms Positive Zone of proximal Interaction-producing

interdependence, development, cognitive tasks, willingness
accountability apprenticeship, interact, learning styles,
teamwork, roles, acculturation, group dynamics, stages
cooperative learning scaffolding, situated of group life, physical
structures cognition, reflective environments
inquiry, epistemology

& Kagan, 1992, p. 8). Thus, cooperative Neu, 1990; Oxford, 1995). In educational set-
learning
has taken on the connotation of a set of highly
tings, interaction involves teachers, learners, and
others
structured, psychologically and sociologically acting upon each other and consciously or
based
unconsciously
techniques that help students work together to interpreting (i.e., giving meaning
to) those
reach learning goals. Both the goals and the tech-actions. Thus, interaction involves
niques of cooperative learning are explained
meaning, but it might or might not involve learn-
later with reference to L2 learning. ing new concepts.
This article uses a variety of sources to com-
In contrast, the concept of collaborative learning
derives from different intellectual roots,pare
that is,
cooperative learning, collaborative learn-
"theoretical, political, and philosophical ing, and interaction. Many of the sources come
issues
such as the nature of knowledge as a socialfrom the
con- field of L2 learning and teaching. How-
struction and the role of authority in ever, the research on at least two of these three
the class-
strands--cooperative learning and collaborative
room" (Matthews et al., p. 40). More specifically,
learning-is
"collaborative learning is a reacculturative proc- more abundant outside of the L2
ess that helps students become members field.
of Therefore,
the references are frequently made
knowledge communities whose common here to investigations beyond the L2 arena, on
prop-
erty is different from the common property the assumption
of that it is possible and important
knowledge communities they already belong to learnto,"
from research across disciplines.
according to Bruffee (1993, p. 3). Qualley Weandturn first to the most highly structured
strand,
Chiseri-Strater (1995) describe collaborative learn-cooperative learning. This strand is com-
ing as a "reflexive dialogue, a knowingmonly 'deeperfound in many L2 classrooms.
than reason"' (p. 111). Collaborative learning has
thus taken on the connotation of social con- COOPERATIVE LEARNING
structivism, which holds that learning is accul-
turation into knowledge communities. Cooperative learning has developed into
Interaction refers to the situation in which rather
peo- complicated set of activities and options i
ple act upon each other. This article focuses the last 10 or 15 years. This section demystifie
mostly on verbal interaction as opposed to non-cooperative learning and demonstrates that it
verbal interaction (for nonverbal behaviors,muchsee more than just small-group work. Cooper

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Rebecca L. Oxford 445

ative learning is
Advantages based
of Cooperative on
Learning Might Not Ap- t
Table 2, summarized from
ply to Everyone. Not all students consistently gain
non-L2 sources. the same benefits from cooperative learning, ac-
cording to an analysis of four studies with sam-
Research on Cooperative Learning ples totaling almost 1,000 students from grade
school through university (Huber et al., 1992). In
this multistudy analysis, students (and student
Research on Frequency of Use of Cooperative Learning.
Large-scale North American research outside teachers) who could deal with uncertainty showed
the L2 field shows that class sessions are struc-
a preference for cooperative learning over tradi-
tured cooperatively only between 7% and 20% of expository learning. Students (and stu-
tional
the time (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1990, dent teachers) who needed greater certainty
1994), and teachers do 75% of the talking (Good- were more negative and performed worse in co-
lad, 1984). Because many L2 classrooms are in- operative learning than in traditional learning
tentionally communicative, it is probable that (Huber the et al., 1992). In a different investigation
percentages are somewhat different, but L2 class- by Li and Adamson (1992), gifted secondary stu-
room research is not adequate to produce large- dents tended to like individualistic learning (and
scale information on these percentages. sometimes competitive learning) better than co-
operative learning, and for these students, coop-
Research on Advantages of Cooperative Learning. Re-
erative learning was not significantly related to
search findings both outside the L2 field (John-
higher achievement.
son,Johnson, & Holubec, 1994; Slavin, 1991) and
within the L2 domain (Holt, 1993; Kessler, 1992) Research on Promoting Positive Interdependence and
suggest that cooperative learning has benefits Accountability. Research on cooperative learning
for many learners.2 Johnson, Johnson, and outsideHol- the L2 field shows that positive interde-
ubec (1990) assert that "what we know aboutpendence
ef- is promoted by giving individuals spe-
fective instruction indicates that cooperative cific role assignments within the group (Cohen,
learning should be used when we want students 1994). Assigning a role (e.g., gatekeeper, encour-
to learn more, like school better, like each other
ager, recorder, explainer) to each student has the
better, like themselves better, and learn moreeffect
ef- of assigning competence to each student,
fective social skills" (p. 5). Numerous studies indi-
which can improve self-esteem for low-status
cate that compared to competitive or individual-learners. Moreover, positive interdependence is
istic learning experiences, cooperative learningenhanced by having a group goal to which each
is more effective in promoting intrinsic motiva-person must contribute (Johnson, Johnson, &
tion and task achievement, generating higher- Holubec, 1990, 1994). Positive interdependence
order thinking skills, improving attitudes toward
can sometimes be improved by structuring the
the subject, developing academic peer norms, materials (e.g., one pencil per group, one com-
heightening self-esteem, increasing time on task,
puter terminal per group, jigsawed division of
creating caring and altruistic relationships, aand given reading for the group to share) (Slavin,
lowering anxiety and prejudice. 1991). Positive interdependence is enhanced by

TABLE 2

Principles of Cooperative Learning

1. Positive interdependence: Gains for one person are associated with gains for others; can be at
through structuring the goals, rewards, roles, materials, or rules

2. Accountability: Every person is accountable through individual grading and testing; the group is ac
able through a group grade; improvement scores are possible

3. Team formation: Teams are formed in various ways-randomly; by student interest; by the teacher usi
cific criteria (heterogeneously, representing different characteristics such as aptitude or gender; or ho
geneously)

4. Team size: Groups of smaller than 7 members usually work best

5. Cognitive development: This is often viewed as the main goal of cooperative learning
6. Social development: Development of social skills such as turn taking, active listening, and so forth can be as
important as cognitive development

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
446 The Modern Language Journal 81 (1997)

systematic,
having clearly defined rules and clearexplicit practice
criteria with these
forskills
grading both individual and(Hertz-Lazarowitz & Miller, 1992).
group performance;
methods that use only a group grade without
making each person accountable do not
Approaches to Cooperative consis-
Learning
tently produce achievement gains (Slavin, 1991).
"Improvement scoring" for Threethe
primary approaches are mentioned
individual and fre-
quently
for the group gives everyone a in the research
chance toon improve
cooperative learning.
The first approach consists(Olsen
and provides a sense of accountability of a multistep&lesson-
Kagan, 1992). However, suchplanning process, the second
scoring might approachbe is com-
prised of organized,
perceived negatively by initially high repeatable classroom "learn-
achievers
ing structures,"
who have less room to improve thanand thedothird approach involves
initially
low achievers. Perhaps thisthe packaging
is one of entire
reasoncurricula.
that
many gifted students (see The Lilesson-planning
& Adamson, approach, 1992)
called Learn-
ing Together, organizes
preferred individualistic learning overcooperative
coopera- learning for
tive learning. use in any grade or age level with any subject
(Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1990, 1994).
Research on EffectiveFormation of Cooperative Groups.
Eighteen steps are divided into five categories,
According to cooperative-learning research out-
representing lesson-planning decision points:
side the L2 field, structured forms of teacher-
(a) specifying objectives; (b) making decisions
assigned heterogeneous grouping can enhance
(e.g., about group size and assignments, arrang-
relations among classmates, promote learner-
ing the room, planning materials, and assigning
to-learner tutoring, increase tolerance, decrease
group roles); (c) communicating the task, the
prejudice, and promote cross-cultural under-
goal structure, and the learning activity; (d) mon-
standing (Slavin & Oickle, 1981; Kagan, 1985),
itoring and intervening; and (e) evaluating and
although such grouping involves increased
processing. Virtually any L2 activity or task can fit
thought, effort, and energy
into thison theWhat
structure. part
definesof
this the
model as
teacher. Heterogeneous grouping can be done
cooperative learning rather than merely as group
on the basis of language proficiency, language
work-and as potentially valuable for L2 in-
background, ethnicity, gender, or other factors.
struction-is the fact that interdependence, ac-
Random grouping or interest-based grouping
countability, group formation, social skills, and
can provide a perception of fairness, although it
structure are all built into the sequence and com-
can also create possible incompatibilities and
municated to the students in multiple ways.
"loser teams" (Olsen & Kagan, 1992). Homoge-
The second approach, sometimes called the
neous grouping (according to language profi-
Structural Approach, is based on the use of se-
ciency or other factors) can ease classroom man-
quences of organized, content-free, repeatable
agement but can create group
classroomlabeling problems
behaviors, known as "structures" (Ka-
and inhibit learner-to-learner tutoring opportu-
gan, 1989; Olsen & Kagan, 1992; Sharan, 1990;
nities (Olsen & Kagan, 1992).
Sharan & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1980; Slavin, 1990;
Wade, and
Research on Developing Social Abrami, Poulsen, & Chambers, 1995).
Communicative
Skills. Non-L2 research indicates These are different
thatfrom develop-
"activities," which are
ment of specific social and defined as content-bound and cannot
communicative skillsbe re-

is possible through cooperative peated meaningfully

learning many times. Multiple struc-
(Slavin,
1991). Such skills include asking tures canforsometimes be used within a given class
clarification,
checking the understanding period,
ofdepending
others, on the learning objectives.
explain-
ing, paraphrasing, acknowledging There is littlecontributions,
or no systematic L2 research on
asking others to contribute, these particular structures
praising others, with regard to effec-
veri-
fying consensus, and mediating tiveness with students of different L2 proficiency
conflicts.
In the L2 classroom, many levels.of
However,
these one might
skills speculate
arethat class- or
viewed as socioaffective learning team-building structures (Similarity
strategies (O'Mal- Grouping,
ley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, Line-Up, Roundtable,
1990, Round Robin),
1996a), and division-of-
some are included as memorized L2 routines or labor structures (Partners, Jigsaw), communica-
"gambits" (Coelho, 1992). These behaviors aretion-creating
es- structures (Talking Tokens, Para-
sential in normal human communication, so it is phrase Passport, Match Mine), and mastery and
no surprise that many L2 teachers pay attention review structures (Numbered Heads Together,
to them. If these skills are to be learned most ef- Pairs Check, Inside-Outside Circle, Co-op Cards,
fectively, teachers must provide opportunities for Student Teams Achievement Divisions, and Teams-

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Rebecca L. Oxford 447
COLLABORATIVE LEARNINGmight
Games-Tournaments) b
ers of varying L2 proficienc
This section describes the second communica-
development structures (G
Three-Step tive strand, collaborative learning.
Interview, Pair In its current
Int
Share, meaning, collaborative learning is related
Solve-Pair-Share) and to so-
(Co-op/Co-op cial constructivist
and philosophy. Not all users
Group Invof the
require term collaborative
students to learning
have refer to grea
social con-
The third structivism, but increasing
approach numbers of people in
consists
published academia have begun to use this
cooperative term to imply a
learnin
dress one or constructivist epistemology.
more aspects Epistemologyof is the
instance, field of studyOut/Discubr
Finding that deals with what is known and
al., 1987) is ahow it is known.
Spanish and En
signed for elementary math
lish as a second language (ESL
Dewey's Pragmatic Form of Social Constructivism
In this package, teams are a
centers; each Johnteam member
Dewey, an American philosopher and ed-
assignment ucator who is often viewed
before theas a social construc-
team
rapid tivist
completers (although the term
helping constructivism was not
slow
prehensive yet in vogue during hisReading
Integrated lifetime), developed a a
on work by pragmatic/instrumentalist
Slavin, 1990; Ste
approach to epistemol-
combines cooperative
ogy (for details, see Oxford, 1997). learnin
In Dewey's
reading and view, learners do not learn
process in isolation; the indi-
writing. T
struction (Slavin vidual learns by etbeing part
al., of the 1986)
surrounding
learning structures community and the world to mathe
as a whole. Dewey pro-
lem Solving posed a triangular relationship
Approach forfor the social
lan
students to construction of ideas among
identify the individual, the
differen
pairs (see Kessler, community, and the 1992).
world. Liste
Techniques (Palmer
Dewey believed that ideas et al.,only
are meaningful 19
data in four kinds
if they are (a) partof pairwor
of an acceptable theory, (b) in-
learning: describingstrumentally useful for creating picturepositive action,
scriptions of (c) constructed by participants
pictures, in society, and
listenin
tening for cues to
(d) related to a scripted
the guideposts or reference points
age called All provided Sides by society. ofIn Dewey'sthe Iss
view, disciplined,
Olsen, 1989) reflective asks inquiryeach
promoted by agroupcommunity of
ers to deal with learners four sides
(i.e., the knowledge community) of helps
from which debates
create meaning among seeminglyand unstabledisc
events.
In many modern publications about L2 teaching
Comparison. and Aslearning, canreferencesbe are made to Dewey-
seen
tion of these based ideasthree appro
such as reflective learning, reflective
learning is indeed
teaching, and communities
highly of scholars or learn-
org
cific aims. All
ers. (For anof excellent these
example of some of app these
within the L2
usages, seesetting,
Richards & Lockhart, 1994.) but
needed about the effectiveness of these models In the educational setting, Dewey preferred to
for the variety of purposes (e.g., fluency develop-organize content around broad content-rich
ment, accuracy, and cultural understanding) ideas rather than around smaller problems or
served by L2 instruction. projects. He was later mistakenly viewed as pro-
The next section, which deals with collabora- moting project work in the classroom, but in fact
tive learning, shows a very different outlook from he did not believe in discrete projects uncon-
that of cooperative learning. Cooperative learn- nected to major themes. Modern-day thematic
ing concentrates on rigorously prescribed, al- instruction, covering themes such as family,
though creative, features of classroom organiza- friendship, power, emotions, health, technology,
tion designed to lead to skill development. and so forth, is found in some of today's most in-
Collaborative learning has a possibly deeper epis- novative L2 textbooks. This type of instruction
temological basis and focuses on social relation- echoes Dewey's concept of content-rich ideas or
ships in a community of learners. themes, as filtered through various L2 instruc-
tional concepts such as functional-notional teach-

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 448 The Modern LanguageJournal 81 (1997)

theyinstruction
ing and proficiency-based participate. In a community
(Nyikos,of learners,
personal communication,both
March 15,
children and adults1997).
are active in structuring
the inquiry conversationally, although usually
with asymmetric
Vygotsky's Social Constructivist Ideasroles.
For social constructivists, the emphasis is on
Lev Vygotsky, a Russian the learning process, rathercontrib-
psychologist, than just the com-
pletion
uted significantly to social of projects, in activity-based
constructivist episte- situations
with meaningful
mology. Like Dewey, Vygotsky purposes. The student
recognized that becomes
ideas have social origins; acculturated,
they are enculturated, or reacculturated (i.e.,
constructed
through communication with apprenticed into a particular
others. An learning
individ- culture or
ual's cognitive system is aenvironment
result[Bruffee, 1993]) through classroom
of communica-
tion in social groups and cannot
activities and throughbethe separated
modeling and coach-
from social life (Vygotsky,ing1978,
of the teacher and many
1986). others. Rather than
Vygotsky
(with Dewey) focused onjust the individual
the teacher/learner power-
dyad, there exists a field
fully rooted in the groupofcontext
many actors and(Donato,
many different 1994;
kinds of rela-
tionships.
John-Steiner, 1985; Lantolf, Many people can provide the scaffold-
1993).
For Vygotsky, the teacher ingacts
that theasstudent needs.
a facilitator or
guide and the provider of assistance. Teachers
perform a great service toApplications
students by
of Social providing
Constructivism to
any and all forms of assistance that might help
Collaborative Learning in the L2 Classroom
students develop their language and cultural
skills. In the L2 classroom, The L2 learning process idea
Vygotsky's is situated
of in as-
a partic-
sistance might include a hint ular socialorcontext.
clue,It involves
a word becomingof part of
praise, a suggestion, a learning the culture of the learning community.
strategy, a gram- For the L2
mar reminder, or an intensive learner, thereview-anything
immediate, close-at-hand learning
that the particular L2 student community is the classroom.
needs at a Forgiven
instance, an
time. When the learner needs Australian the
or North American or British
greatest learner
assis-
tance, the teacher gives "scaffolding" of Spanish finds a learning community in the
to ensure
that the learner's constructs will continue to Spanish language classroom, if the atmosphere is
grow stronger and more complex. As the learner nurturing and the proper assistance is available.
requires less help, the teacher slowly removes However,
the the L2 learning community can and
no longer needed scaffolding that props up should
the also extend beyond the classroom. L2
learner, and the learner becomes increasingly learning can be a global adventure that involves
self-directed and self-empowered. learning about, understanding, and (at least to
Vygotsky introduced the concept of the zone some ofextent) identifying with another culture in
proximal development (ZPD), that is, the realm whichof people use a different language, possibly
potential learning that each learner could in a completely different part of the world. In
reach
within a given developmental span underfact, opti-the proficiency standards of the American
mal circumstances and with the best possibleCouncil sup- on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
port from the teacher and others in the environ- (ACTFL, 1995) specifically highlight the cultural
ment. Lantolf (1993) emphasizes that the ZPD aspects
is of language learning. Few other fields are
negotiated between the teacher and the student as culture-oriented in the Deweyan sense as the
(or between the student and peers or others). field of L2 learning and teaching. The L2 teacher
often acts as an envoy or representative of the tar-
Recent Social Constructivist Contributions get culture, notjust as a participant in the culture
of the classroom. Particularly in unilingual con-
Other social constructivist concepts include texts where the target language is viewed as a for-
context and situated cognition. The context (i.e., set- eign language, the teacher might be the main or
ting and activity) in which knowledge is devel- only direct contact that the language learner has
oped cannot be separated from learning, nor is it with the target culture.
neutral (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff & Lave, In a community of L2 learners, cultural and lin-
1984). Learning is fully situated or located within guistic ideas are best shaped through reflective
a given context. Learning occurs while people inquiry with other people (teachers, peers, native
participate in the sociocultural activities of their speakers, etc.), who help the learner negotiate his
learning community, transforming (i.e., construct- or her own ZPD, that is, the student's degree of
ing) their understanding and responsibilities as potential under the best conditions. In a strong

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Rebecca L. Oxford 449

L2 learning Contrast this with some real-life L2 communica-

community, th
scaffolding, tion situations. For a person who is of
consisting not a native
mu
tance that can be
speaker removed
of Japanese, participating in an actualbit
becomes more proficient
(nonsimulated) Japanese-language business ne- in
culture (Scarcella
gotiation in Japan &
involvesOxford,
very high social and
Thus, social constructivism is the foundation financial stakes.
for collaborative learning in the L2 classroom. In Role play in the L2 classroom is a form of sim-
contrast with cooperative L2 learning, collabora- ulation. Role play is a social activity in which par-
tive L2 learning as described here appears much ticipants act out specified roles, often within a
more grounded in an epistemological base. Col- more or less prescribed social setting or scenario.
laborative L2 learning, when compared with co- The role play participant represents and experi-
operative L2 learning, seems less technique-ori- ences some character type identifiable in every-
ented, less prescriptive, and more concerned day life. In L2 role play, students are asked to
with acculturation into the learning community. memorize, paraphrase, or even create the words
Compared with cooperative L2 learning, collab- said by a particular character. Drama in the L2
orative L2 learning is more explicitly oriented to classroom is similar to role play but might be
negotiating and fulfilling the potential (travers- more formalized and more literary. L2 games
ing the ZPD) of each L2 learner, although coop- might or might not involve taking clear social
erative learning proponents might debate this. roles and usually have no permanently serious
We turn now to the third communicative strand, error cost, although they often produce tempo-
interaction. The following explanation views in- rary winners and losers.
teraction from several theoretical and practical L2 research (Scarcella & Crookall, 1990) indi-
angles that might be applicable to both coopera- cates that such tasks generate vast amounts of au-
tive learning and collaborative learning. thentic language, cause active student involve-
ment, engage students' motivation and interest,
INTERACTION help students think about and live the target cul-
ture to some degree, and enable learners to prac-
Interaction involves interpersonal communica- tice L2 communication skills. Many books for L2
tion. In the L2 classroom, interaction relates to: and learners emphasize simulations, role
teachers
(a) types of language tasks, (b) learners' plays, drama, and games.3
willing-
ness to communicate with each other, (c) learn- media also encourage interaction.
Electronic
ing style dimensions affecting interaction, Relevantand tasks include networking between stu-
(d) group dynamics. dents at home and abroad, networking between
students and teachers, communicating in inter-
Language Tasks Promoting Interaction active-videodisc simulations, talking in a small
group gathered around the computer, and track-
Certain kinds of L2 tasks encourage ing interac-
one's own learning strategies interactively via
tion: simulations, games, role plays, drama, computerand(Baltra, 1990; Baily, 1996; Chapelle &
the use of electronic media. These can be used as Mizuno, 1989; Crookall & Oxford, 1990; Gonza-
part of either cooperative learning or collabora-les-Edfelt, 1990; Hansen, 1990; Holland, Kaplan,
tive learning, provided that they are employed & Sams, 1995; Smith, 1988).
using the principles mentioned above.
Simulation is the general, overarching term de-
Willingness to Communicate in the
scribing a broad field that includes a variety of
Language Classroom
activities frequently found in the L2 classroom
such as games, role plays, and drama activities A second aspect of classroom interaction is will-
(Crookall & Oxford, 1990). A simulation such asingness to communicate, which is defined as a stu-
a mock international relations summit repre- dent's intention to interact with others in the target
sents some real-world system. At the same time, alanguage, given the chance to do so. Research
simulation is an actual, current reality in and ofhas shown that willingness to communicate in
itself. Other features of L2 simulations include one's own native language is related to a feeling
their relative safety and the low cost of making an of comfort, high self-esteem, extroversion, low
error. In an L2 classroom in which the teacher is anxiety, and perceived competence, whereas un-
supportive, physical and emotional safety are willingness to communicate (i.e., communica-
guaranteed and participants can make linguistic tion apprehension) is associated with the oppo-
mistakes without serious real-world consequences. sites: discomfort, low self-esteem, introversion,

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
450 The Modern Language Journal 81 (1997)

high anxiety, and perceived tackle aincompetence

new problem. Some of these (Mc- approaches
Croskey, 1984). According to a L2
involve research
high degree (Mac-
of interaction whereas some
emphasize less1996),
Intyre, 1994; MacIntyre & Charos, interaction. Individual learners
students,
especially novices, who are have a composite to
willing of at communi-
least 20 style dimensions
cate with others in the target(Oxford language
& Anderson, 1995; areOxford,
likelyHollaway, &
to possess a strong toleranceHorton-Murillo,
for ambiguity, 1992), including the low following,
anxiety, and a desire to takeamong others: global but
moderate versus intelli-
analytic, concrete-
gent risks, such as guessing sequential
word versus intuitive-random,
meanings based closure-ori-
on background knowledge and
ented versusspeaking
open, extrovertedup de-
versus introverted,
and visual versus
spite the possibility of making auditory versus
occasional hands-on (see
mis-
Table 3). The
takes (see discussion of learning most relevant
style below). style Stu-
dimension for
dents who take no risks at language
all, or those
classroom who take
interaction is extroversion
extreme, uninformed risks, versus
are introversion,
less likely althoughto Table 3 shows that
have
positive experiences and manymore
dimensions prone
can affectto such lan-
interaction.
guage anxiety. Unwillingness Every time
to acommunicate
student interacts with any other
can arise if the L2 studentstudent
does in the
not L2 classroom,
feel any multiple
linkdimensions
of the first or
with the target language group student's
feelsstyle interact
threat- with multiple
ened by the loss of his or her
aspects native-language
of the second student's style. Imagine this
single-student-to-single-student
identity. Willingness to communicate mightsituation be a expo-
key variable in describingnentiated by the numberamong
differences of students inL2 the class,
resulting
learners when they go out into thein hundreds
real world.of possible style
It is interac-
tions just among theconfidence
certainly related to communicative students themselves. Then
and to the degree of anxiety imagine the L2 teacher-who
a person experiencesbrings a set of per-
about interacting with otherssonallyinvaluable learning style dimensions as well
a communicative
as a set of teaching
setting (Clement, 1986; Clement style elements that might not
& Kruidenier,
1985; Gardner & MacIntyre,
match his 1993;
or her ownHorwitz &
learning style-interacting
with each of1986;
Young, 1991; Labrie & Clement, the students, with small clusters of
MacIntyre
& Gardner, 1989, 1991). students, and with the whole class. Sometimes
Willingness to communicatethese interactions
in the result L2 is in style harmonies, in
proba-
which the
bly also associated with what styles are the
Seliger same or at calls
(1983) least compati-
ble; however,
"input generation," although thisat other times, these interactions re-
relationship
has not yet been exploredsult in style conflicts, in High
empirically. which thein-styles clash
put generators initiate L2 subtly or dramatically. Wallace
conversations withand Oxford
the(1992)
discovered
teacher or with peers, using that teacher-student
any number style harmony,
of means
to take an active role. Lowcompared
input withgenerators
style conflict, resulted in signifi-
take
a more passive role in the cantly better grades for writing,
L2 classroom, interact-reading, and
ing almost exclusively with the teacher. Seliger
grammar.
found that, compared with Teachers
low input and learners are in the best position
generators,
high input generators spoketo understand
more often style conflicts
in(asthe
well asL2,
style har-
monies) if
caused others to direct more L2 theyspeech
have taken the time to identify
toward
and discuss their own preferred
them, and made fewer cross-language errors. styles. A style
Cooperative and collaborative survey (seelearning
instruments contained
proba- in Reid's
bly encourage involvement [1995]
by book on learning styles
students who in theare
L2 class-
inclined to be high inputroom) is a quick, useful way
generators and to identify
allow learning
reticent students to feel more styles. Student-written
willing to learning
commu- narratives and
nicate. The social-psychological group discussions
aspectsabout learning
of inter- uncover stu-
action are no doubt related to the kind of L2 dents' learning styles and experiences with teach-
ers. Understanding the style preferences of indi-
tasks employed and to the nature of the L2 learn-
ing environment. vidual language learners and of any L2 class in
general helps the teacher design lessons that pro-
vide a range of activities suitable for all the peo-
Learning Styles Potentially Influencing L2
Classroom Interaction ple in the class, neither slighting nor favoring a
particular set of individuals (Oxford, Hollaway, &
A third interactional aspect involves learningHorton-Murillo, 1992; Oxford, 1996b).
styles, which can be defined as the general ap-
proaches students use to learn a new subject or

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Rebecca L. Oxford 451
TABLE 3

Characteristics of Different Learning Styles Influencing L2 Classroom Interaction

GLOBAL ANALYTIC

Asks for the big picture Asks for many details

Not always interested in accuracy Asks for accuracy and precision
Feels comfortable with compensating Avoids compensation strategies that
in speech for lack of knowledge might cause imprecision in speaking
Impulsive Reflective

CONCRETE-SEQUENTIAL INTUITIVE-RANDOM

Needs high structure and order Likes randomness and freedom

Talks about the present task Talks about futuristic possibilities

Asks for explicit directions Prefers to make up own directions
Needs an authority figure Does well without an authority figure

CLOSURE-ORIENTED OPEN

Requests deadlines for task completion Sometimes feels restricted by deadlines

List-maker and list-follower Ignores lists even after making them
Wants to decide rapidly Wants to keep all options open

EXTROVERTED INTROVERTED

Gets energy from other people Feels energy is sapped by others

Enjoys group work Likes to work alone or in familiar group only
Likes many events and activities Prefers to concentrate on fewer things
Often extremely sociable Can be sociable or withdrawn, depending on
situation and who is involved

VISUAL AUDITORY HANDS-ON

Learns best visually Learns best auditorally

Learns best through movement/touch

Group Dynamics in the L2 Classroom laws, rewards, and punishments to control mem-
bers, with the desired end being compliance to
A final aspect of classroom interaction authority. is group The compromise/supportive culture
dynamics. The group, which is richer in uses resources
interpersonal or group commitment, discus-
than any single individual, affects members' sion, and
atti-agreement, with the desired goal of
tudes, such as confidence and satisfaction, and consensus. The performance/innovative culture
these attitudes influence interaction. Groups pro- emphasizes internally controlled, highly individ-
vide guidelines for behavior within the group ualistic ideas, with the goal being self-actualiza-
(which might be very different from behavior tion and individual achievement. Depending on
outside the group), offer standards for self-evalu- the teacher and the group members, the L2 class-
ation, and help learners maintain energy. room can contain any of these types of group cul-
In the L2 classroom, the group can be consid- tures.
ered the whole class of students (and the The classroom's physical environment greatl
teacher), but it can also be smaller clusters or sub-
affects the interactions taking place within it. A
groups of students working on specific tasks. Se- though little research on physical environmen
nior (1997) argues that L2 classes need to be has been conducted in L2 instruction setting
transformed into bonded groups. For a class common to sense suggests that this environmen
become bonded, the typical stages in group life principle applies to the L2 classroom just as i
often occur. Frank and Brownell (1989) identify does to other kinds of classrooms. The arrang
four stages of group life. The first stage is group ment of the traditional classroom, with its rows
formation, whereas the last three (conflict, cohe- desks and the teacher at the front, is teacher-ce
sion, and problem-solving) are sometimes known tered. Research (Patterson et al., 1979; Loughl
collectively as group development. 1992) indicates that such an arrangement hin
Harris (1993), an organizational behavior spe- ders communication, except between the teach
cialist, describes three types of group cultures: and one student at a time. This can be comfort-
(a) authoritarian/bureaucratic, (b) compromise/ ing to students who want to have as little interac-
supportive, and (c) performance/innovative. The tion as possible. Yet this setting also reinforces
authoritarian/bureaucratic culture uses rules, students' fears that, if singled out, they might re-

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 452 The Modern Language Journal 81 (1997)
ceive the teacher's negative learning,
criticismand interaction in languageof
in front classrooms
the whole class. A circular or semicircular ar- in different parts of the world? Would every cul-
rangement (with concentric double or triple ture cir-
embrace cooperative learning, which pro-
cles, or semicircles if the group is large) ismotes adapt- not only achievement but also Western-
able for many L2 tasks and helps achieve style optimal social skills, in-class communication, and
eye contact (which might be culturally such values as tolerance and altruism? Would the
accept-
able for some students but not others). When social constructivist beliefs underlying collabora-
small-group work occurs, the teacher is not typi- tive learning-beliefs such as the need for accul-
cally present in the main interaction networks. 4 turating the student into a learning community,
As discussed here, the interaction strand in- scaffolding and nurturing the learner, and nego-
cludes at least four aspects: language tasks, the tiating the ZPD in a social context-be equally
social-psychological concept of willingness toaccepted by the People's Republic of China, New
communicate, learning styles, and group dynam-Zealand, Zimbabwe, or France? How does reli-
ics. Interaction is thus a heterogeneous but im- gion relate to the acceptability of these social
portant concept for the communicative L2 class-constructivist ideas? Would diverse cultures be
room.
warmly enthusiastic about interaction-related
tasks that might require significant instructional
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE QUESTIONS variety and creativity, involve complex group dy-
namics, allow style conflicts to emerge, or per-
This article argues that cooperative learning,
haps embarrass those who are reluctant to com-
collaborative learning, and interaction municate? For aresome ideas about these issues, see
three
strands in the communicative L2 classroom. Co- Hofstede (1986), Oxford (1995), and Sullivan
operative learning refers primarily to an array (1996).
of
highly structured goals and techniques for learn- Another set of questions includes the follow-
ing. Collaborative learning is more philosophi- ing: To what extent can cooperative learning, col-
cally oriented, with the goal of acculturatinglaborative stu- learning, and interaction be employed
dents into the immediate community of learners in the same L2 classroom? To what degree do
and the wider world of the target language these
and approaches clash? To what degree do they
culture. Interaction is a varied and broad con- overlap? Matthews et al. (1995) call for building
cept related to a number of key themes, bridges as dis- between cooperative learning and col-
cussed above. laborative learning, although these authors do
The articles in this special issue reflect, to notonespecifically include interaction as another
degree or another, the use of these three terms, possible candidate for bridge-building. What de-
although not always in the ways described in greetheof effort would be involved in building these
present discussion. Each article involves various bridges? Would anyone have to forsake deeply
kinds and degrees of interaction. This theme heldis values
a in the process?5
specific focus for Devitt, who describes interac- Further dialogue is needed among L2 teachers
tion between the student and the authentic text. and researchers about cooperative learning, col-
Interaction arises clearly in another article, when laborative learning, and interaction. As this dis-
Vandergrift speaks of receptive strategies incussion in- continues, we can develop these three
teractive listening. In D6rnyei's article, the strands pri- into a larger, more comprehensive, more
mary focus is on one aspect of interaction, group cohesive typology of interpersonal communica-
dynamics. tion in the L2 classroom.

Several articles in this special issue deal explic-

itly or implicitly with collaborative learning,
which embodies the constructivist view of accul- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

turation into a community. Nyikos and Hash-

imoto, Horwitz et al., and Wilhelm all describe-
in multiple and interesting ways-apprentice Thanks to my students, Ana Maria Ferreira Barcel
(1997) and Mark Putnam (1996), and to colleague
language teachers becoming part of a culture or
Zoltain D6rnyei (1994) for stimulating my thinking a
community of teachers. Warschauer explores providing resources. I appreciate the helpful reviews
computer-mediated collaborative learning. Elaine Horwitz and Martha Nyikos, whose criticism
Although beyond the scope of the present arti-always warmly welcomed. For their contributions,
cle, other important questions call for further re-
sincere thanks go to Sally Magnan, editor of this jo
search: What differences exist in the cultural ac- nal, and her excellent editorial assistants; my husba
Maury Breecher; and my father, George Oxford.
ceptability of cooperative learning, collaborative

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Rebecca L. Oxford 453

NOTES REFERENCES

American
1 Dictionary definitions are a starting place for un- Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan
derstanding the concepts of cooperative learning, guages.
col- (1995). Standards for language and culture
laborative learning, and interaction. To cooperatelearning.
is de- Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.
fined as "to work (operate) togetherjointly with others
Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1996). Voices from th
to some end," according to The New Lexicon: Webster's
language classroom: Qualitative research in second
Dictionary of the English Language, Encyclopedic Edition
language education. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
(Lexicon, 1987). In the same volume, to collaborateversity
is de- Press.
fined as "to work together, especially on work of an
Baily, C.in-
A. (1996). Unobtrusive computerized observa
tellectual nature." Therefore, at the most fundamental
tion of compensation strategies for writing to de-
level, cooperative and collaborative both describe atermine
situa- the effectiveness of strategy instruction.
tion of working together with others to some end, In pos-
R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies
sibly an intellectual one. To interact means "to actaround
upon the world: Crosscultural perspectives (pp. 141-
each other," according to the same dictionary 150). (Lexi- Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
con, 1987). Interaction therefore refers to the situation
Baltra, A. (1990). Language learning through com-
in which people (or things) act upon each other.puter adventure games. Simulation and Gaming,
2 For other L2 research evidence, see Deen (1991),
21(4), 445-452.
D6rnyei (1994), Fathman and Kessler (1993), Gunder-
Barcelos, A. M. F (1997, February). Cultural aspects of
son and Johnson (1980), McGroarty (1993), and Szo-and American culture related to classroom
Brazilian
stek (1994). For non-L2 evidence, see Davidson and learning and teaching. Paper presented at the In-
Worsham (1992), Jacques (1991), Johnson andJohnson ternational Conference on Language, Litera-
(1989, 1994), Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1990, ture, and Culture, Gadsden State Community
1994), Slavin (1990, 1991), Qin (1992), and Thousand, College, Gadsden, AL.
Villa, and Nevin (1994). Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher edu-
3 A few of these books include: Methods that Work:
cation, interdependence, and the authority of knowl-
Ideas for Literacy and Language Teachers (Oller, 1993), edge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Making It Happen: Interaction in the Second LanguageChapelle, C., & Mizuno, S. (1989). Students' strategies
Classroom (Richard-Amato, 1988), Interactive Techniques with learner-controlled CALL. CALICO Journal,
for the ESL Classroom (Shoemaker & Shoemaker, 1991), 7, 25-47.
Developing Communication Skills: A Practical Handbook for Clement, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and
Language Teachers, with Examples in English, French and acculturation: An investigation of the effects of
German (Pattison, 1987), Games for Language Learning language status and individual characteristics.
(Wright, Betteridge, & Buckby, 1991), and Drama Tech- Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 271-
niques for Language Learning: A Resource Book of Commu- 290.
nication Activities for Language Teachers (Maley & Duff, Clement, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1985). Aptitude, atti-
1992).
tude, and motivation in second language profi-
4 A new book edited by Bailey and Nunan (1996), ciency: A test of Clement's model. Journal of Lan-
Voices from the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in guage and Social Psychology, 4, 21-37.
Second Language Acquisition, illustrates many aspects of
Coelho, E. (1992). Cooperative learning: Foundation
group dynamics influencing interaction. for a communicative curriculum. In C. Kessler
5 In my own teaching, I employ the three approaches
(Ed.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher's re-
fairly comfortably. I regularly use simple but powerful
source book (pp. 31-50). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
cooperative learning tasks such as Value Line, Brain- Prentice Hall.
storming, Jigsaw, and Think-Pair-Share. I consciously
Coelho, E., Winer, L., & Olsen, J. W-B. (1989). All sides
apply the collaborative learning concepts of accultura-
of the issue. Hayward, CA: Alemany.
tion, situated cognition, ZPD, and scaffolding. I use in-
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Con-
teraction-generating games and simulations, analyze as
ditions for productive small groups. Review ofEd-
best I can the interactive dynamics within groups, and
ucational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
pay close attention to the relationships between learn-
Crookall, D., & Oxford, R. L. (1990). Linking language
ing styles and willingness to interact in the classroom.
learning and simulation/gaming. In D. Crookall
So far I have found many points of concordance in the
& R. L. Oxford (Eds.), Simulation, gaming, and
three approaches or perspectives. However, as noted in
language learning (pp. 2-24). Boston: Heinle.
this article, I perceive some philosophical and practical
Davidson, N., & Worsham, T. (Eds.). (1992). Enhancing
differences in emphasis among these three approaches.
thinking through cooperative learning. New York:
Teachers College Press.
De Avila, E. A., Duncan, S. E., & Navarrete, C. (1987).
Finding out/Discubrimiento. Northvale, NJ: Santil-
lana.

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 454 The Modern Language Journal 81 (1997)
Deen,J. Y (1991). Comparing interaction in a
Horwitz, E., & Young, coopera-
D. (1991). Language anxiety: From
tive learning and teacher centered foreign
theory and lan- implications. Engle-
research to classroom
guage classroom. ITL Review ofApplied Linguistics,
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
93-94, 153-181. Huber, G. L., Sorrentino, R. M., Davidson, M. A., Ep-
Devitt, S. (1997). Interacting with authentic texts: Mul- plier, R. (1992). Uncertainty orientation and co-
tilayered processes. Modern Language Journal, 81, operative learning: Individual differences within
457-469. and across cultures. Learning and Individual Dif-
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second lan-ferences, 4(1), 1-24.
Jacques, D. (1991). Learning in groups (2nd ed.). Lon-
guage learning. InJ. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
(pp. 31-56). Vygotskian perspectives on second lan- don: Kogan Page.
guage research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. John-Steiner, V. (1985). The road to competence in an
D6rnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the alien land: A Vygotskian perspective on bilingual-
foreign language classroom. Modern Language ism. InJ. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication,
Journal, 78, 273-284. and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 348-
D6rnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in coopera- 372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
tive language learning: Group dynamics and Johnson,
mo- D. W, &Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and
tivation. Modern Language Journal, 81, 482-493. competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Inter-
Fathman, A. K., & Kessler, C. (1993). Cooperative lan- action Book.
guage learning in school contexts. Annual Review
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together
of Applied Linguistics, 13, 127-140. and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualis-
Frank, A., & Brownell, J. (1989). Organizational commu- tic learning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
nication and behavior: Communicating to improve Johnson,
per- D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E.J. (1990).
formance (2 + 2 = 5). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom.
Winston. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the mea-
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E.J. (1994).
surement of affective variables in second lan- The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the class-
guage learning. Language Learning, 43, 157-194.room and school. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the
future. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kagan, S. (1985). Co-op co-op: A flexible cooperative
Gonzales-Edfeldt, N. (1990). Oral instruction and col-learning technique. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S.
Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R.
laboration at the computer: Learning English as
a second language with the help of your peers.Schmuck (Eds.), (pp. 67-96) Learning to cooperate,
Computers in the School, 7(1-2), 53-89. cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum.
Gunderson, B., &Johnson, D. (1980). Building positive
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning resourcesfor teachers.
attitudes by using cooperative learning groups.SanJuan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
Foreign Language Annals, 13, 39-43. Kessler, C. (Ed.). (1992). Cooperative learning: A teacher's
Hansen, E. (1990). The role of interactive video tech- resource book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
nology in higher education: Case study and a Labrie, N., & Clement, R. (1986). Ethnolinguistic vital-
proposed framework. Educational Technology, 30 ity, self-confidence, and second language profi-
(9), 13-21. ciency: An investigation. Journal of Multilingual
Harris, T. E. (1993). Applied organizational communica- and Multicultural Development, 7, 269-282.
tion: Perspectives, principles, and pragmatics. Hills- Lantolf, J. (1993). Sociocultural theory and the second
dale, NJ: Erlbaum. language classroom: The lesson of Strategic In-
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (Eds.). (1992). Inter- teraction. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Strategic interaction
action in cooperative groups: A theoretical anatomy of and language acquisition: Theory, practice, and re-
group learning. New York: Cambridge University search (pp. 220-233). Washington, DC: George-
Press. town University Press.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching Lave,J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
and learning. International Journal of Intercultural peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
Relations, 10, 301-320. University Press.
Holland, V. M., Kaplan, J. D., & Sams, M. R. (Eds.). Li, A. K. E, & Adamson, G. (1992). Gifted secondary
(1995). Intelligent language tutors: Theory shaping students' preferred learning style: Cooperative,
technology. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum. competitive, or individualistic? Journal for the Ed-
Holt, D. D. (Ed.). (1993). Cooperative learning: A response ucation of the Gifted, 16(1), 46-54.
to linguistic and cultural diversity. Washington, DC: Loughlin, C. E. (1992). Classroom physical environ-
Center for Applied Linguistics. ment. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofEduca-
Horwitz, E., Bresslau, B., Dryden, M., McLendon, M. tional Research (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 161-164). New
E., & Yu, J.-F. (1997). Helping teachers prepare York: Macmillan.

for collaboration with language learners: A grad- MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying willing-
uate course about the second language learner. ness to communicate: A causal analysis. Commu-
Modern Language Journal, 81, 518-526. nication Research Reports, 11, 135-142.

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Rebecca L. Oxford 455

MacIntyre, P.Oxford,
D., & Constructivism:
R. L. (1997). Charos, Shape-shifting,C
tudes, and affect as
substance, and teacher predic
education applications.
guage
communication.
Peabody Journal ofEducation, 72, 35-66. Jour
Social Psychology, 15,
Oxford, R. L., & Anderson, N.J.3-26.
(1995). A crosscultural
MacIntyre, P. D., & learning
view of language Gardner,
styles. Language Teach-
second language ing, 28, 201-215.learning: T
clarification. Language
Oxford, Learn
R. L., Hollaway, M. E., & Horton-Murillo, D.
MacIntyre, P. (1992).
D., Language& learningGardner
styles: Research and
anxiety: Its relation
practical considerationsto other
for teaching in the mul-
essing in native and
ticultural tertiary second
ESL/EFL classroom. System,
Learning, 41,20(4),513-534.
439-456.
Maley, A., & Palmer,
Duff, A.
A. S., Rodgers, T. S., (1992).
& Olsen, J. W-B. (1988).
guage learning:BackA resource
and forth: book
Pair activities for language develop-
tivities
for language
ment. Hayward, CA: Alemany. teache
bridge University
Patterson, M. L., Kelly, C. Press.
E., Kondracki, B. A., & Wulf,
Matthews, R. S., Cooper,
L. J. (1979). Effects of seating arrangementJ. on L.,
P. (1995). Building bridges
small-group behavior. Social Psychological Quar- b
and collaborative terly, 42, 180-185. learning. C
McCroskey, J. P. (1987).
Pattison, C. (1984).
Developing communication skills: AThe
hension perspective.
practical handbook for language teachers,In
with exam- J.
Croskey (Eds.),
ples in Avoiding com
English, French and German. Cambridge:
reticence, and Cambridge
communication
University Press.
38). BeverlyPutnam,
Hills, CA:
M. (1996). Collaboration and cognition.Sage.
Unpub-
McGroarty, M. (1993).
lished manuscript, Coope
University of Alabama at
ond language Tuscaloosa.
acquisition. In
operative learning
Qin, Z. (1992). A meta-analysis (pp. 19-4
of the effectiveness of
Center for Applied
achieving higher-order Linguisti
learning tasks in cooper-
Neu, J. (1990). ative
Assessing the
learning compared with competitive learn- r
nication in the ing. (Doctoralacquisition
dissertation, University of Minne-
competence in L2.
sota, 1992.) In
University R.International
Microfilms C. S
son, & S. D. Dissertation Information Service
Krashen No. 9236971.
(Eds.), De
tive competence
Qualley, D. J., & in a
Chiseri-Strater, second
E. (1995). Collabora- la
New York: Newbury House/
tion as reflexive dialogue: A knowing "deeper
The new lexicon: than Webster's diction
reason." Journal of Advanced Composition, 14
(encyclopedic (1), edition).
111-130. (1987).
Nyikos, M., &Reid, Hashimoto, R.
J. (Ed.). (1995). Learning styles in theESL/EFL class- (
ory applied room. Boston:
to Heinle.
collaborative
education: In search
Richard-Amato, of
P. A. (1988). Making it happen: ZPD
Interaction
Journal, 81, 506-517.
in the second language classroom. New York: Long-
Oller, J. W., Jr. man.
(1993). Methods
and language teaching
Richards,J. (2nd
C., & Lockhart, C. e
(1994). Reflec
Olsen, R. E. W-B., &
in second language Kagan,
classrooms. Cambrid
tive learning.bridge
InUniversity
C. Kessler
Press. (E
guage learning:
Rogoff, A
B., & teacher's res
Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyda
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Prenti
University Pr
O'Malley, J. M., &R.,
Scarcella, Chamot,
& Crookall, D. (1990).A.
Simul
gies in second ing language acqu
and language acquisition. In D. C
Cambridge University Press.
R. L. Oxford (Eds.), Simulation, gaming
Oxford, R. L. (1990).
guage learningLanguage
(pp. 223-230). Boston: H
every teacher should
Scarcella, know.
R., & Oxford, Bos
R. (1992). The tape
Oxford, R. L. (1995). Patterns
guage learning: of
The individual in the comm
Heinle. classroom. Boston: Heinle.
Seliger, H. W. (1983). Learner interaction in the class-
Oxford, R. L. (Ed.). (1996a). Language learning strategies
around the world: Crosscultural perspectives. Manoa: room and its effect on language acquisition. In
University of Hawaii Press. H. W Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-
Oxford, R. L. (1996b). Personality type in the foreign oriented research in second language acquisition
or second language classroom: Theoretical and (pp. 246-266). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
empirical perspectives. In A. Horning & R. Sudol Senior, R. (1997). Transforming language classes into
(Eds.), Understanding literacy: Personality preferences bonded groups. ELTJournal, 51(1), 3-11.
in rhetorical and psycholinguistic contexts (pp. 125-
Sharan, S. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory and
145). Creskill, NJ: Hamden. research. New York: Praeger.

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 456 The Modern Language Journal 81 (1997)
Sharan, S., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980).
Thousand, J. S., Villa,A group-in-
R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (1994). Cre-
vestigation method of cooperative learning
ativity and collaborative in
learning: A practical guide to
the classroom. In S. Sharan, P. Hare, C.students
empowering D. Webb,
and teachers. Baltimore: Paul
Brookes.
& R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (Eds.), Cooperation in educa-
Vandergrift,
tion. Provo, UT: Brigham Young L. (1997). The
University Cinderella of communica-
Press.
Shoemaker, C. L., & Shoemaker, E. F strategies:
tion (1991). Reception
Interactivestrategies in interac-
techniques for the ESL classroom. NY: Newbury
tive listening. Modern Language Journal, 81, 494-
House/HarperCollins. 505.

Vygotsky, L. Theory,
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: (1978). Mind inresearch,
society: The development of
and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Har-
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of vard
research on coopera-
University Press.
tive learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5),and
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought 71-
language. Cambridge,
82. MA: MIT Press.

Slavin, R. E., Leavy, M. B., & Madden, N. A. (1986). Wade, A., Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B.
Team Accelerated Instruction: Mathematics. Water- (1995). Current resources in cooperative learning.
town, MA: Charlesbridge. New York: University Press of America.
Slavin, R. E. & Oickle, E. (1981). Effects of learningWallace, B., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). Disparity in learn-
teams on student achievement and race relations: ing styles and teaching styles in the ESL class-
Treatment by race interactions. Sociology ofEduca- room: Does this mean war? AMTESOL Journal,
tion, 54, 174-180. 1(1), 45-68.
Smith, W. E (Ed.). (1988). Modern media in foreign Warschauer,
lan- M. (1997). Computer-mediated collabora-
guage education: Theory and implementation. Lin- tive learning: Theory and practice. Modern Lan-
colnwood, IL: National Textbook. guageJournal, 81, 470-481.
Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, Wilhelm, K. H. (1997). Sometimes kicking and scream-
A. M. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading ing: Language teachers-in-training react to a col-
and composition: Two field experiments. Read- laborative learning model. Modern Language jour-
ing Research Quarterly, 22, 433-454. nal, 81, 000.
Sullivan, P. N. (1996). Sociocultural influences on class- Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. (1991). Games
room interactional styles. TESOLJournal, 6, 32- for language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
34. University Press.
Szostek, C. (1994). Assessing the effects of cooperative
learning in an honors foreign language class-
room. Foreign Language Annals, 27, 252-261.

Forthcoming in The Modern Language Journal

Maria Egbert & Hiram Maxim. "Incorporating Critical Thinking and Authenticity into Business Ger-
man Testing"

Eileen W. Glisen & David A. Foltz. 'Assessing Students' Oral Proficiency in an Outcome-Based Cur-
riculum: Student Performance and Teacher Intuitions"

James F Lee. "The Relationship of Verb Morphology to Second Language Reading Comprehe
and Input Processing"

Ronald P. Leow. "The Effects of Amount and Type of Exposure on Adult Learners' L2 Developm
SLA"

Yoshiko Mori. "Effects of First Language and Phonological Accessibility on Kanji Recognition"

Jean-Marie Salien. Editorial: "Quebec French: Attitudes and Pedagogical Perspectives"

Susan Gass. 'Apples and Oranges: Or, Why Apples Are Not Orange and Don't Need to Be." A Response
to Firth & Wagner

Alan Firth & Johannes Wagner. "SLA Property: No Trespassing!"

This content downloaded from 175.159.183.132 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:35:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms