Cooperative Learning, Collaborative

Learning, and Interaction: Three

Communicative Strands in the
Language Classroom
REBECCA L. OXFORD
Education Dean’s Office
University of Alabama
Carmichael Hall, Box 870231
Tuscaloosa, AL 3548 7-023 1
Email: [email protected]

This article describes important distinctions among three strands of communication in the
foreign or second language (L2) classroom: cooperative learning, collabmative learning, and in-
teraction. These three strands have different connotations, which, when understood, can help
us better comprehend language learning and teaching. Cooperative learning refers to a par-
ticular set of classroom techniques that foster learner interdependence as a route to cognitive
and social development. Collaborative learning has a “social constructivist” philosophical
base, which views learning as construction of knowledge within a social context and which
therefore encourages acculturation of individuals into a learning community. Interaction is
the broadest of the three terms and refers to personal communication, which is facilitated by
an understanding of four elements: language tasks, willingness to communicate, style differ-
ences, and group dynamics.

THE CONCEPTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARN- era1 field of education and as applied to L2 learn-
ing, collaborative learning, and interaction1 are ing and teaching. Table 1 provides a comparative
widely used in the teaching of mathematics, sci- overview of the main aspects of these three strands.
ence, social studies, languages, and many other Cooperative 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-
atnong 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 LanguageJournal,81, iv, (1997) in groups and in which each learner is held ac-
0026-7902/97/443-456 $1.50/0 countable for his or her own learning and is mo-
01997 The Modern LanguageJournal
tivated to increase the learning of others” (Olsen
444 “he Modern LanguageJournal 81 (1 997)

TABLE 1
Conceptual Comparisons among Cooperative Lea ling, Collaborative Learnir :,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 1 High Variable Variable

Relationships Individual is accountable Learner engages with Learners, teachers, and

to the group and vice “more capable others” others engage with each
versa; teacher facilitates, (teachers, advanced other in meaningful ways
but group is primary peers, etc.), who provide
assistance and guidance

Prescriptiveness of
Activities 1 High Low Variable

Key Terms Positive Zone of proximal Interaction-producing

interdependence, development, cognitive tasks, willingness to
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 learning Neu, 1990; Oxford, 1995). In educational set-
has taken on the connotation of a set of highly tings, interaction involves teachers, learners, and
structured,psychologically and sociologicallybased others acting upon each other and consciously o r
techniques that help students work together to unconsciously interpreting (i.e., giving meaning
reach learning goals. Both the goals and the tech- to) those 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.
In contrast, the concept of collaborative learning This article uses a variety of sources to com-
derives from different intellectual roots, that is, pare cooperative learning, collaborative learn-
“theoretical, political, and philosophical issues ing, and interaction. Many of the sources come
such as the nature of knowledge as a social con- from the field of L2 learning and teaching. How-
struction and the role of authority in the class- ever, the research on at least two of these three
room” (Matthews et al., p. 40). More specifically, strands-cooperative learning and collaborative
“collaborative learning is a reacculturative proc- learning-is more abundant outside of the L2
ess that helps students become members of the field. Therefore, references are frequently made
knowledge communities whose common prop- here to investigations beyond the L2 arena, on
erty is different from the common property of the assumption that it is possible and important
knowledge communities they already belong to,” to learn from research across disciplines.
according to Bruffee (1993, p. 3). Qualley and We turn first to the most highly structured
Chiseri-Strater (1995) describe collaborative learn- strand, cooperative learning. This strand is com-
ing as a “reflexive dialogue, a knowing ‘deeper monly found in many L2 classrooms.
than reason”’ (p. 11 1). 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 a
Interaction refers to the situation in which peo- rather complicated set of activities and options in
ple act upon each other. This article focuses the last 10 or 15 years. This section demystifies
mostly on verbal interaction as opposed to non- cooperative learning and demonstrates that it is
verbal interaction (for nonverbal behaviors, see much more than just small-group work. Cooper-
Rebecca L. Oxford 445
ative learning is based on the principles shown in Advantages of Cooperative Learning Might Not Ap-
Table 2, summarized from a variety of L2 and 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
Research on Frequency of Use of Cooperative Learning. this multistudy analysis, students (and student
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 tional expository learning. Students (and stu-
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 the (Huber 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, c o o p
Research on Advantages of CooptrativeLearning. 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, 1!)93; 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 Hol- outside the L2 field shows that positive interde-
ubec (1990) assert that “what we know about ef- pendence 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 more ef- effect 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 learning enhanced 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, and a given reading for the group to share) (Slavin,
lowering anxiety and prejudice. 1991). Positive interdependence is enhanced by

TABLE 2
Principles of Cooperative Learning
I . Positive interdependence: Gains for one person are associated with gains for others; can be attained
through structuring the goals, rewards, roles, materials, or rules
2. Accountability: Every person is accountable through individual grading and testing; the group is account-
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 using spe-
cific criteria (heterogeneously,representing different characteristics such as aptitude or gender; or homo-
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
446 The Modern Language Journal #I (1997)

having clearly defined rules and clear criteria for systematic, explicit practice with these skills
grading both individual and group performance; (Hertz-Lazarowitz& Miller, 1992).
methods that use only a group grade without
making each person accountable do not consis- Approaches to Cooperative Learning
tently produce achievement gains (Slavin, 1991).
“Improvement scoring” for the individual and Three primary approaches are mentioned fre-
for the group gives everyone a chance to improve quently in the research on cooperative learning.
and provides a sense of accountability (Olsen & The first approach consists of a multistep lesson-
Kagan, 1992). However, such scoring might be planning process, the second approach is com-
perceived negatively by initially high achievers prised of organized, repeatable classroom “learn-
who have less room to improve than do initially ing structures,”and the third approach involves
low achievers. Perhaps this is one reason that the packaging of entire curricula.
many gifted students (see Li & Adamson, 1992) The lesson-planning approach, called Learn-
preferred individualistic learning over coopera- ing Together, organizes cooperative learning for
I ive learning. use in any grade or age level with any subject
(Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1990, 1994).
hkseurch MZ EffectiveFormation of Cooperative (h-oups.
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 on the part of the
into this structure. What defines this 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-
neous grouping (according to language profi- The second approach, sometimes called the
ciency or other factors) can ease classroom man- Structural Approach, is based on the use of se-
quences of organized, content-free, repeatable
agement but can create group labeling problems
classroom behaviors, known as “structures” (Ka-
and inhibit learner-to-learner tutoring opportu-
nities (Olsen & Kagan, 1992). gan, 1989; Oken & Kagan, 1992; Sharan, 1990;
Sharan & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1980; Slavin, 1990;
&search on Ihelo$ing Social and Communicative Wade, Abrami, Poulsen, & Chambers, 1995).
Skills. Non-U2 research indicates that develop- These are different from “activities,”which are
ment of specific social and communicative skills defined as content-bound and cannot be re-
is possible through cooperative learning (Slavin, peated meaningfully many times. Multiple struc-
1991). Such skills include asking for clarification, tures can sometimes be used within a given class
checking the understanding of others, explain- period, depending on the learning objectives.
ing, paraphrasing, acknowledging contributions, There is little or no systematic L2 research on
asking others to contribute, praising others, veri- these particular structures with regard to effec-
fying consensus, and mediating conflicts. tiveness with students of different L2 proficiency
In the L2 classroom, many of these skills are levels. However, one might speculate that class- or
viewed as socioaffective learning strategies (O’Mal- team-building structures (Similarity Grouping,
ley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990, 1996a), and Line-Up, Roundtable, Round Robin), division-of-
some are included as memorized 1.2 routines or labor structures (Partners,Jigsaw), communica-
“gambits”(Coelho, 1992).These behaviors are es- tion-creating 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-
Kybcca L. Oxjbrd 447
Games-Tournaments) might be useful with learn- COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
ers of varying L2 proficiencies. Some concept-
development structures (Group Discussion, This section describes the second communica-
Three-Step Interview, Pair Interview, Think-Pair- tive strand, collaborative learning. In its current
Share, Solve-Pair-Share) and project structures meaning, collaborative learning is related to so-
(Co-op/Co-op and Group Investigation) might cial constructivist philosophy. Not all users of the
require students to have greater L2 proficiency. term collaborative learning refer to social con-
The third approach consists of using existing, structivism, but increasing numbers of people in
published cooperative learning packages that ad- academia have begun to use this term to imply a
dress one or more aspects of the curriculum. For constructivist epistemology. Epistemology is the
instance, Finding Out/Discubrim,iento (De Avila et field of study that deals with what is known and
al., 1987) is a Spanish and English package de- how it is known.
signed for elementary math and science in Eng-
lish a5 a second language (ESL),/bilingual settings. Dewey j. Pragmatic Form of Social Constructivism
In this package, teams are assigned to learning
centers; each team member must complete the John Dewey, an American philosopher and ed-
assignment before the team can move on, with ucator who is often viewed as a social construc-
rapid completers helping slower completers. Com- tivist (although the term constructivism was not
prehensive Integrated Reading and Composition (based yet in vogue during his lifetime), developed a
on work by Slavin, 1990; Stevens et al., 1987) ~ ~ ~ a t i c / i n s t r u m e n t a l approach
ist to epistemol-
combines cooperative learning structures with ogy (for details, see Oxford, 1997). In Dewey’s
reading and process writing. Team Accelerated In- view, learners do not learn in isolation; the indi-
struction (Slavin et al., 1986) applies cooperative vidual learns by being part of the surrounding
learning structures to mathematics. Olsen’s B o b community and the world as a whole. Dewey pro-
la Solving Approach for language learning asks posed a triangular relationship for the social
students to identify differences between picture construction of ideas among the individual, the
pairs (see Kessler, 1992). Listening and Describing community, and the world.
’Ibchniques (Palmer et al., 1988) applies discrete Dewey believed that ideas are meaningful only
data in four kinds of pairwork tasks for language if they are (a) part of an acceptable theory, (b) in-
learning: describing pictures, listening to de- strumentally useful for creating positive action,
scriptions of pictures, listening for a word, and lis- (c) constructed by participants in society, and
tening for cues to a scripted dialogue. The pack- (d) related to the guideposts or reference points
age called All Sides ofthe Issue (Coelho, Winer, & provided by society. In Dewey’s view, disciplined,
Olsen, 1989) asks each group of language learn- reflective inquiry promoted by a community of
ers to deal with four sides of a controversial issue, learners (i.e., the knowledge community) helps
from which debates and discussions emerge. create meaning among seemingly unstable events.
In many modern publications about L2 teaching
Comparison. As can be seen from the descrip- and learning, references are made to Dewey-
tion of these three approaches, cooperative based ideas such as reflective learning, reflective
learning is indeed highly organized and has spe- teaching, and communities of scholars or learn-
cific aims. All of these approaches are usable ers. (For an excellent example of some of these
within the L2 setting, but more research is usages, see Richards & Lockhart, 1994.)
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 avery 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-
448 The Modern LanguageJournal 81 ( 1 997)
ing and proficiency-based instruction (Nyikos, they participate. In a community of learners,
personal communication, March 15, 1997). both children and adults are active in structuring
the inquiry conversationally, although usually
Vygotsky’s Social Constructivist Ideas with asymmetric roles.
For social constructivists, the emphasis is on
Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, contrib- the learning process, rather than just the com-
uted significantly to social constructivist episte- pletion of projects, in activity-based situations
mology. Like Dewey, Vygotsky recognized that with meaningful purposes. The student becomes
ideas have social origins; they are constructed acculturated, enculturated, or reacculturated (i.e.,
through communication with others. An individ- apprenticed into a particular learning culture or
ual’s cognitive system is a result of communica- environment [ Bruffee, 19931) through classroom
tion in social groups and cannot be separated activities and through the modeling and coach-
from social life (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Vygotsky ing of the teacher and many others. Rather than
(with Dewey) focused on the individual power- just the teacher/learner dyad, there exists a field
fully rooted in the group context (Donato, 1994; of many actors and many different kinds of rela-
John-Steiner, 1985; Lantolf, 1993). tionships. Many people can provide the scaffold-
For Vygotsky, the teacher acts as a facilitator or ing that the student needs.
guide and the provider of assistance. Teachers
perform a great service to students by providing Applications of Social 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, Vygotsky’s idea of as- The L2 learning process is situated in a partic-
sistance might include a hint or clue, a word of ular social context. It involves becoming part of
praise, a suggestion, a learning strategy, a gram- the culture of the learning community. For the L2
mar reminder, or an intensive review-anything learner, the immediate, close-at-hand learning
that the particular L2 student needs at a given community is the classroom. For instance, an
time. When the learner needs the greatest assis- Australian or North American or British learner
tance, the teacher gives “scaffolding” to ensure of Spanish finds a learning community in the
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 the However, the L2 learning community can and
no longer needed scaffolding that props up the should 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 of some extent) identifying with another culture in
proximal deuelopment (ZPD), that is, the realm of which people use a different language, possibly
potential learning that each learner could reach in a completely different part of the world. In
within a given developmental span under opti- fact, the proficiency standards of the American
nial circumstances and with the best possible s u p Council 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 is aspects 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 (ie., 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
Rebecca L. Oxfmd 449
L2 learning community, these people provide Contrast this with some real-life L2 communica-
scaffolding, consisting of multiple forms of assis- tion situations. For a person who is not a native
tance that can be removed bit by bit as the learner speaker of Japanese, participating in an actual
becomes more proficient in the language and the (nonsimulated) Japanese-language business ne-
culture (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). gotiation in Japan involves 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 communicativestrand, 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: teachers and learners emphasize simulations, role
(a) types of language tasks, (b) learners’ willing- plays, drama, and games.3
ness to communicate with each other, (c) learn- Electronic media also encourage interaction.
ing style dimensions affecting interaction, and Relevant 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 interac- ing one’s own learning strategies interactively via
tion: simulations, games, role plays, drama, and computer (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 as ingness to communicate, which is defined as a stu-
a mock international relations summit repre- dent’s intention to interactwith others in the target
sents some real-world system. At the same time, a language, given the chance to do so. Research
simulation is an actual, current reality in and of has 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,
450 The Modern LanguageJournal 81 ( 1 997)

high anxiety, and perceived incompetence (Mc- tackle a new problem. Some of these approaches
Chskey, 1984). According to L2 research (Mac- involve a high degree of interaction whereas some
Intyre, 1994;MacIntyre & Charos, 1996),students, emphasize less interaction. Individual learners
especially novices, who are willing to communi- have a composite of at least 20 style dimensions
cate with others in the target language are likely (Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Oxford, Hollaway, &
to possess a strong tolerance for ambiguity, low Horton-Murillo, 1992), including the following,
anxiety, and a desire to take moderate but intelli- among others: global versus analytic, concrete-
gent risks, such as guessing word meanings based sequential versus intuitive-random, closure-ori-
on background knowledge and speaking up de- ented versus open, extroverted versus introverted,
spite the possibility of making occasional mis- and visual versus auditory versus hands-on (see
takes (see discussion of learning style below). Stu- Table 3). The most relevant style dimension for
dents who take no risks at all, or those who take language classroom interaction is extroversion
extreme, uninformed risks, are less likely to have versus introversion, although Table 3 shows that
positive experiences and more prone to lan- many dimensions can affect such interaction.
guage anxiety. Unwillingness to communicate Every time a student interacts with any other
can arise if the L2 student does not feel any link student in the L2 classroom, multiple dimensions
with the target language group or feels threat- of the first student’s style interact with multiple
ened by the loss of his or her native-language aspects of the second student’s style. Imagine this
identity. Willingness to communicate might be a single-student-to-single-student situation expo-
key variable in describing differences among L2 nentiated by the number of students in the class,
learners when they go out into the real world. It is resulting in hundreds of possible style interac-
certainly related to communicative confidence tions just among the students themselves. Then
and to the degree of anxiety a person experiences imagine the L2 teacher-who brings a set of per-
about interacting with others in a communicative sonally valuable learning style dimensions as well
setting (Clement, 1986; Clement & Kruidenier, as a set of teaching style elements that might not
1985; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Horwitz & match his or her own learning style-interacting
Young, 1991; Labrie & Clement, 1986; MacIntyre with each of the students, with small clusters of
& Gardner, 1989, 1991). students, and with the whole class. Sometimes
Willingness to communicate in the L2 is proba- these interactions result in style harmonies, in
bly also associated with what Seliger (1983) calls which the styles are the same or at least compati-
“input generation,” although this relationship ble; however, at other times, these interactions re-
has not yet been explored empirically. High in- sult in style conflicts, in which the styles clash
put generators initiate L2 conversations with the subtly or dramatically. Wallace and Oxford (1992)
teacher or with peers, using any number of means discovered that teacher-student style harmony,
to take an active role. Low input generators take compared with style conflict, resulted in signifi-
a more passive role in the L2 classroom, interact- cantly better grades for writing, reading, and
ing almost exclusively with the teacher. Seliger grammar.
found that, compared with low input generators, Teachers and learners are in the best position
high input generators spoke more often in the L2, to understand style conflicts (as well as style har-
caused others to direct more 1.2 speech toward monies) if they have taken the time to identify
them, and made fewer cross-language errors. and discuss their own preferred styles. A style
Cooperative and collaborative learning proba- survey (see instruments contained in Reid’s
bly encourage involvement by students who are [1995] book on learning styles in the L2 class-
inclined to be high input generators and allow room) is a quick, useful way to identify learning
reticent students to feel more willing to commu- styles. Student-written learning narratives and
nicate. The social-psychological aspects of inter- group discussions about learning uncover stu-
action are no doubt related to the kind of L2 dents’ learning styles and experiences with teach-
tasks employed and to the nature of the L2 learn- ers. Understanding the style preferences of indi-
ing environment. vidual language learners and of any L2 class in
general helps the teacher design lessons that pro-
Learning Styles Potentially Influencing L2 vide a range of activities suitable for all the peo-
I.‘lassroom Interaction ple in the class, neither slighting nor favoring a
particular set of individuals (Oxford, Hollaway, &
A third interactional aspect involves learning Horton-Murillo, 1992; Oxford, 1996b).
styles, which can be defined as the general a p
proaches students use to learn a new subject or
fibecca L. Oxfwd 45 1
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-makerand 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 ClaJsroom laws, rewards, and punishments to control mem-
bers, with the desired end being compliance to
A final aspect of classroom interaction is group authority. The compromise/supportive culture
dynamics. The group, which is richer in resources uses interpersonal or group commitment, discus-
than any single individual, affects members’ atti- sion, and 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 greatly
teacher), but it can also be smaller clusters or sub- affects the interactions taking place within it. Al-
groups of students working on specific tasks. Se- though little research on physical environments
nior (1997) argues that L2 classes need to be has been conducted in L2 instruction settings,
transformed into bonded groups. For a class to common sense suggests that this environmental
become bonded, the typical stages in group life principle applies to the L2 classroom just as it
often occur. Frank and Brownell (1989) identify does to other kinds of classrooms. The arrange-
four stages of group life. The first stage is group ment of the traditional classroom, with its rows of
formation, whereas the last three (conflict, cohe- desks and the teacher at the front, is teacher-cen-
sion, and problem-solving) are sometimes known tered. Research (Patterson et al., 1979; Loughlin,
collectively as group development. 1992) indicates that such an arrangement hin-
Harris (1993), an organizational behavior spe- ders communication, except between the teacher
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-
452 The Modern LanguageJournal 81 ( I 997)
ceive the teacher’s negative criticism in front of learning, and interaction in language classrooms
the whole class. A circular or semicircular ar- in different parts of the world? Would every cul-
rangement (with concentric double or triple cir- ture embrace cooperative learning, which pro-
cles, or semicircles if the group is large) is adapt- motes not only achievement but also Western-
able for many L2 tasks and helps achieve optimal style social skills, in-class communication, and
eye contact (which might be culturally accept- such values as tolerance and altruism? Would the
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 n e g e
cludes at least four aspects: language tasks, the tiating the ZPD in a social context-be equally
social-psychological concept of willingness to accepted 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 are three municate? For some ideas about these issues, see
strands in the communicative L2 classroom. Co- Hofstede (1986), Oxford (1995), and Sullivan
operative learning refers primarily to an array of (1996).
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 acculturating stu- laborative 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 and these 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, as dis- bridges between cooperative learning and col-
cussed above. laborative learning, although these authors do
The articles in this special issue reflect, to one not specifically include interaction as another
degree or another, the use of these three terms, possible candidate for bridge-building. What de-
although not alwdys in the ways described in the gree of 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 is a held values in the process?s
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 in in- cussion continues, we can develop these three
teractive listening. In Dornyei’s article, the pri- strands 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 Barcelos
language teachers becoming part of a culture or (1997) and Mark Putnam (1996), and to colleague
Zolt5n Dornyei (1994) for stimulating my thinking and
community of teachers. Warschauer explores
providing resources. I appreciate the helpful reviews by
computer-mediated collaborative learning. Elaine Horwitz and Martha Nyikos, whose criticism is
Although beyond the scope of the present arti- always warmly welcomed. For their contributions, my
cle, other important questions call for further re- sincere thanks go to Sally Magnan, editor of this jour-
search: What differences exist in the cultural ac- nal, and her excellent editorial assistants;my husband,
ceptability of cooperative learning, collaborative Maury Breecher; and my father, George Oxford.
Rebecca L. Oxford 453

NOTES REFERENCES

I Dictionary definitions are a starting place for un- American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan-
derstanding the concepts of cooperative learning, col- guages. (1995). Standards for language and culture
laborative learning, and interaction. To cooperate is de- learning. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.
fined as Yo work (operate) togetherjointly with others Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1996). Voicesfi-om the
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 collaborate is de- versity Press.
fined as “to work together, especially on work of a n in- Baily, C. 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 a situa- termine the effectiveness of strategy instruction.
tion of working together with others to some end, pos- In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies
sibly an intellectual one. To interact means “to act upon around the world: Crosscultural perspectives (pp. 141-
each other,” according to the same dictionary (Lexi- 150). 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.
Diirnyei (1994), Fathman and Kessler (1993), Gunder- Barcelos, A. M. F. (1997, February). Cultural aspects of
son and Johnson (1980). McGroarty (1993), and Szo- Brazilian and American culture related to classroom
strk (1994). For non-L2 evidence, see Davidson and learning and teaching. Paper presented at the In-
Worsham (1992),Jacques (1991),Johnson and Johnson ternational Conference on Language, Litera-
(1989, 1994), Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1990, ture, and Culture, Gadsden State Community
1994), Slavin 1:1990,1991), Qin (1092), and Thousand, College, Gadsden, AL.
Villa, and Nevin (1994). Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher edu-
A few of these books include: Methods that Work: cation, interdependence, and the authm‘ty of knowl-
Ideas for Literacy and Language Teachers (Oller, 1993), edge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Making It Happen: Interaction in the Second Language Chapelle, C., & Mizuno, S. (1989). Students’ strategies
Classroom (Richard-Amato, 1988). Interartiue Techniques with learner-controlled CALL. CALICO Journal,
/?JT the E X Classroom (Shoemaker & Shoemaker, 1991), 7, 25-47.
Develqbing Communication Skills: A Practical Handbook for CICment, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and
I’anguage Teachers, with Examples in English, French and acculturation: An investigation of the effects of
( > m a n (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-
niquesfm 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-
Voires)om the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in guage and Social Psychology, 4, 2 1-37.
Seond 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/Discubnmiento. Northvale, N J : Santil-
lana.
454 The Modern LanguageJournal 81 ( 1 997)
I)een, J. Y. (1991).Comparing interaction in a coopera- Horwitz, E., &Young, D. (1991). Language anxiety:From
tive learning and teacher centered foreign lan- theury and research to classroom implications. Engle-
guage classroom. 17% h i m of Applied 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 LanguageJournal, 81, operative learning: Individual differences within
457-469. and across cultures. Learning and Individual Ihf-
Ilonato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second lan- fermces, 4(1), 1-24.
guage learning. InJ. P. Iantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Jacques, D. (1991). Learning in groups (2nd ed.). Lon-
(pp. 31-56). Vygotskian perspectives on second lan- don: Kogan Page.
p a g t research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. John-Steiner, V. (1985). The road to competence in an
DOrnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the alien land: AVygotskian perspective on bilingual-
foreign language classroom. Modern Language ism. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication,
journal, 78, 273-284. and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 348-
t)iirnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in coopera- 372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
tive language learning: Group dynamics and mo- Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperationand
tivation. Modern Language Journal, 81,482-493. competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Inter-
kithman, A. K., & Kessler, C. (1993). Cooperative lan- action Book.
guage learning in school contexts. Annual h i m Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. T. (1994). Ixarningtogether
ofA@lied I,inguistirs, 13, 127-140. and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualis-
Frank, A,, & Brownell, J. (1989). Organizational commu- tic learning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
nication und behavior: Communicating to improveper- Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1990).
fiYrmunce (2 + 2 = 5). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom.
Winston. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
(iardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993).O n the mea- Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994).
surement of affective variables in second Ian- The new circles of learning: Cooperation i n the dass-
girage learning. 1,anguage Learning, 4?, 157-194. room and school. Alexandria, VA: Association for
(hodlad, J . (1984). A place called school: Prosppcts for the Supervision and Curriculum Development.
jiIture. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kagan, S. (1985). Co-op co-op: A flexible cooperative
(;onaales-Edfeldt, N. (1990). Oral instruction and col- learning technique. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S.
laboration at the computer: 1,earning English as Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R.
a second language with the help of your peers. Schmuck (Eds.), (pp. 67-96) Learning to cooperate,
(;omputers in the School, 7(1-2). 53-89. cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum.
(;underson, B., &Johnson, D. (1980). Building positive Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning resourcesfor 1eachrr.c.
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 teacher5
Iiansen, E. (1990). The role of interactive video tech- resource book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
nology in higher education: Case study and a .abrie, 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
I Iarris, ’C E. (1993). Applied organzzational cornmunica- and Multicultural Development, 7, 269-282.
tiwn: Perspectives, principles, and pragmatirs. Hills- .antolf, J. (1993). Sociocultural theory and the second
tlale, NJ: Erlbaum. language classroom: The lesson of Strategic In-
Hertz-I.azarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (Eds.). (1992). Inter- teraction. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Strategic interaction
action in coo@ratinegroups: A theoretical anatomy o] and language acquisition: Theory, practice, and re-
group leurning. New York: Cambridge University search (pp. 220-233). Washington, DC: George-
Press. town University Press.
1 Iofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching Lave,J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
and learning. InternationalJournal of Intercultural peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
&lation.s, 10, 301-320. University Press.
I-tolland, V. M., Kaplan, J. D., & Sams, M. R. (Eds.). Li, A. K. F., & 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, 1). D. (Ed.). (1993). Cooperative learning: A response ucation of the Gfted, 16(1),46-54.
to linguistic and cultural diversity. Washington, DC: Loughlin, C. E. (1992). Classroom physical environ-
Center for Applied Ihguistics. ment. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educa-
Horwitz, E., Bresslau, B., Dryden, M., McLendon, M. tional &.search (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 161-164). New
E., & Yn, J.-F. (1997). Helping teachers prepare York: Macmillan.
for collaboration with language learners: A grad- MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). variables underlying willing-
uate mime about the second language learner. ness to communicate: A causal analysis. Commu-
Modern LanguagP,lournal, 81,518-526. nication Research Rpports, 11, 135-142.
Rebecca L. Oxford 455
MacIntyre, P. I)., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, atti- Oxford, R. L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting,
tudes, and affect as predictors of second lan- substance, and teacher education applications.
guage communication. Journal of Language and PeabodyJrmrnal oJEducation, 72, 35-66.
Social Psychology, 15, 3-26. Oxford, R. L., &Anderson, N.J. (1995).A crosscultural
MacIntyre, P. I)., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and view of language learning styles. Language Teach-
second language learning: Toward a theoretical ing, 28, 201-215.
clarification. Language Learning, 39,251-275. Oxford, R. L., Hollaway, M. E., & Horton-Murillo, D.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Language (1992). Language learning styles: Research and
anxiety: Its relation to other anxieties and to proc- practical considerations for teaching in the mul-
essing in native and second languages. Language ticultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom. System,
Learning, 41,513-534. 20(4), 439-456.
Maley, A., & Duff, A. (1992). Drama techniques in lan- Palmer, A. S., Rodgers, T. S., & Olsen, J. W-B. (1988).
guage learning: A resource book of communication ac- Back and forth: Pair activities for language h e l o p
tivities for language teachers. Cambridge: Cam- ment. Hayward, CA: Alemany.
bridge University Press. Patterson, M. L., Kelly, C. E., Kondracki, B. A., & Wulf,
Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N., & Hawkes, I.. J. (1979). Effects of seating arrangement on
P. (1995). Building bridges between cooperative small-group behavior. Social I’sychologzcal Quar-
and cokiborative learning. Change, 27, 35-40. terly, 42, 180-185.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication appre- Pattison, P. (1987). Dmeloping communication skill$: A
hension perspective. In J. A. Daly & J. C. Mc- practical handbook for language teachers, with exam-
Croskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, ples in English, French and German. Cambridge:
reticence, and communication aflrehension (pp. 13- Cambridge University Press.
38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Putnam, M. (1996). Collaboration and cognition. Unpub-
McGroarty, M. (1993). Cooperative learning and sec- lished manuscript, University of Alabama at
ond language acquisition. In D. D. Holt (Ed.), Cu- Tuscaloosa.
operative learning (pp. 19-46). Washington, DC: Qin, Z. (1992). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of
Center for Applied Linguistics. achieving higher-order learning tasks in cooper-
Neu, J. (1990).Assessing the role of nonverbal commu- ative learning compared with competitive learn-
nication in the acqu on of communicative ing. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minne-
competence in L2. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Ander- sota, 1992.) University Microfilms International
son, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Dmeloping rommunica- Dissertation Information Service No. 9236971.
live rompetenre i n a second language (pp. 121-138). Qualley, D. J., & Chiseri-Strater, E. (1995). Collabora-
New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row. tion as reflexive dialogue: A knowing “deeper
The n m lexicon: Webster’s dictionary r,fthe Knglish language than reason.” Journal of Advanced Composition, 14
(enqclopedic edition). (1987). New York: Lexicon. ( I ) , 1 1 1-130.
Nyikos, M., & Hashimoto, R. (1997). Constructivist the- Reid, J. (Ed.). (1995). Learningstyles in theESZJFJL class-
ory applied to collaborative learning in teaching room. Boston: Heinle.
education: In search of ZPD. Modern Language Richard-Amato, P. A. (1988).Making it happen: Interaction
Journal, 81,506-517. i n the second language classroom. New York: Long-
Oller, J. W., Jr. (1993). Methods that work: ldeus for literacy man.
and language teaching (2nd etl.). Boston: Heinle. Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching
Olsen, R. E. W.-B., & Kagan, S. (1992). About coopera- i n second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cam-
tive learning. In C;. Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative law bridge University Press.
p a g e learning: A teachrr’s resource book (pp. 1-30), Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
O’Malley,J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Z,earningstrate- Scarcella, R., & Crookall, D. (1990). Simulation/gam-
gies in serond language acquisition. Cambridge: ing and language acquisition. In D. Crookall &
Cambridge University Press. R. L. Oxford (Eds.), Simulation, gaming and lan-
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategzes: What guage learning (pp. 223-230). Boston: Heinle.
mery teacher should know. Boston: Heinle. Scarcella, R., & Oxford, R. (1992). The tapestry of lan-
Oxford, R. L. (1995). Patterns of cultural identity. Boston: guage learning: The individual in the communicative
Heinle. classroom. Boston: Heinle.
Oxford, R. I,. (Ed.). (1996a). Language learning strategies Seliger, H. W. (1983). Learner interaction in the class
around the world: Crosscultural perspectives. Manoa: room and its effect o n language acquisition. In
University of Hawaii Press. H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-
Oxford, R. I,. (1996b). Personality type in the foreign oriented research i n second language acquisition
or second language classroom: Theoretical and (pp. 246-266). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
empirical perspectives. In A. Homing & R. Sudol Senior, R. (1997). Transforming language classes into
(Eds.), Understanding literacy: Personality plefrrences bonded groups. ELTJournal, 51(1), 3-1 1.
in rhetorical and psycholinguistic contexts (pp. 125- Sharan, S. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative learning: Thewy and
145). Creskill, NJ: Hamden. research. New York: Praeger.
456 The Modern Language Journal X I ( I 997)
Sharan, S.,& Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). A group-in- Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A,, & Nevin, A. I. (1994). Crt-
vestigation method of cooperative learning in ativity and collaborative learning: A practical guidt to
the classroom. In S. Sharan, P. Hare, C. D. Webb, empowering students and tearhers. Baltimore: Paul
& R. Hertz-Luarowitz (Eds.), Cooperation in educa- Brookes.
tion. Provo, U T Brigham Young University Press. Vandergrift, L. (1997).The Cinderella of communica-
Shoemaker, C. I.., & Shoemaker, E. F. (1991). Interactive tion strategies: Reception strategies in interac-
ttchniques for the ESL classroom. NY Newbury tive listening. Modern Language Journal, 81, 494-
House/HarperCollins. 505.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperutive learning: Theory, research, Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The deuelopment of
and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. higherpsychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Har-
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on coopera- vard University Press.
tive learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71- Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and 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.
lkam 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 learning Wallace, B., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). Disparity in learn-
trams on student achievement and race relations: ing styles and teaching styles in the ESL class-
Treatment by race interactions. S o c i o l o ~ofEduca- room: Does this mean war? AMTESOI. Journal,
tion, 54, 174-180. 1(1), 45-68.
Smith, W. F. (Ed.). (1988). Modern media inforeign lun- Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collabora-
p a g e eduration: Theory and implementation. Lin- tive learning: Theory and practice. Modern Lan-
colnwood, I L 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 Langua@,/our-
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. TESOL Journal, 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 LanguageJournal

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 Comprehension
and Input Processing”

Ronald P. Leow. “The Effects of Amount and Type of Exposure on Adult Learners’ L2 Development in
SLN

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 8c Wagner

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