European Journal of Education Studies
ISSN: 2501 - 1111 (on-line)
ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111 (print)
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3175618
Volume 1│Issue 2│2016
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE
PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
Fatemeh Zarrabi
PhD researcher, Monash University, Australia
fatemeh.zarrabi@monash.edu
Abstract:
The current research investigated the impact of cooperative language learning (CLL)
approach on English language proficiency of English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
learners. The participants were 150 intermediate female EFL learners who were
randomly selected from various private English language institutes of Tehran, Iran.
First, FCE (First Certificate in English) test was administered to all 150 participants as a
means of homogenization which brought down the number of the students to 135.
Then, the homogenized participants were taught English through CLL approach for 20
sessions, each for 90 minutes. A pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental design was
employed to investigate the impact of CLL approach on English language proficiency of
the EFL learners. The results were analysed through a one-way ANOVA and pairedsamples t-test statistics. The outcomes revealed that CLL has a significant positive effect
on English language proficiency of EFL learners.
Keywords: Cooperative Language Learning (CLL), English language proficiency
1.
Introduction
Cooperative Learning (in contrast with traditional method where students work
individually or competitively) is a technique by which students assist each other in the
learning process, acting as partners with the instructors and with each other in order to
learn the course material (Johnson & Johnson, 1988; Nunan, 1999). According to Castillo
(2007), it is clear that by cooperative learning (CL), most of the students will be actively
involved in the use of the language, especially in oral activities. Richards and Rodgers
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved
Published by Open Access Publishing Group ©2015.
119
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
(2014) propose that cooperative learning provides opportunities for learners to enhance
their participation in the classroom.
Cooperative learning and group work activities have been in ELT since mid1970s, but it still is the topic and concern of recent research studies. In addition, the
growing number of English language learners around the world demonstrates that
more and more people are interested in English language learning. Consequently, the
teachers are in need of some remedies in their English language teaching to help their
students be proficient English speakers. Many research have been done on how CLL
can help the learners enhance EFL writing skills (Mahmoud, 2014; Zamani, 2016),
improve their reading comprehension skill (Farzaneh & Nejadansari, 2014; Jalilifar,
2010; Zhang, 2012), improve their social skills (Ghaith, 2002; Ning, 2013), and decrease
language learning barriers (Davoudi & Mahinpo, 2012; Han, 2014; Wichadee &
Orawiwatnakul, 2012). However, there is dearth of research on the effect of CLL on
English language proficiency of EFL learners. Thus, this study is set out to investigate
the following research question:
Does cooperative language leaning have any impact on English language
proficiency of EFL learners?
2.
Literature Review
2.1.
Previous studies on Cooperative Language Learning
Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) refers to an English language teaching and
learning approach in which students work together in groups to reach common goals
and maximize their own and each other’s learning Johnson, Johnson & Smith,
. In
addition, it is operationally defined as having several groups in a class in which there is
no force on any single learner to talk; rather, learners interact with each other and
whenever they feel ready, they will express their ideas through group work (Slavin,
1995).
As Richards and Schmidt (2010) state, students can work cooperatively in class
so that they reduce the teacher’s dominance in the classroom, increase student
participation in class, reduce the need for competitiveness, and make it less threatening
for many students. Stahl (1994) quotes, CLL and cooperative learning group are means
to an end rather than an end themselves. Brown (2001) states that cooperative – and
therefore not competitive – usually connotes a team
with common goals and its
players must work hard together to achieve those shared aims successfully through
sharing information and coming to one another’s aid.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
120
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
Kessler (1992) states that in CLL, groups are formed and each member is
assigned a duty to complete their tasks through the process of group discussion and
peer interactions. Group members seek to accomplish the assigned goal. According to
Johnson et al. (2000), CLL is a generic term which refers to numerous methods that
might be applied to organize and conduct classroom instructions. Many different CLL
methods have been developed and used in different contexts and settings since 1970s
(Brody, et al, 2004; DeVries & Edwards, 1973; Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Kagan, 1992;
Sharan & Sharan, 1992).
CLL approach which principally aims to improve students’ learning by having
learners cooperate in small groups or pairs has been part of the language learning
domain for at least two decades (Fitzgibbon, 2001). Research studies have shown many
advantages for Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) approach (as opposed to
individual learning) on factors such as: lowering anxiety and prejudice, promoting
intrinsic motivation, creating altruistic relationships, and heightening self-esteem. It
also increases learning since it is a mode of learning which (Christison, 1994; Jacobs &
Hall, 1994; Richards & Schmidt, 2010):
1) emphasizes mutual helpfulness and active participation from all students in
solving an issue,
2) is strategic and help learners use their cognitive resources to master a particular
language skill as efficiently as possible.
3) is less threatening for many students,
4) increases the amount of student participation in the classroom,
5) reduces competitiveness,
6) decreases the teacher’s dominance in the classroom,
7) benefit the students from sharing ideas, and
8) promotes active interaction of individuals from various abilities and
backgrounds.
CLL goals Figure
and elements Figure
demonstrated that students’ active
participation instead of passive learning in class distinguished cooperative learning
from traditional lecturing. As Johnson and Johnson (1994) point out, CLL does not
mean to simply put students in groups and tell them to interact. The structure of these
groups and how they are formed will widely affect the effectiveness of CLL in
comparison to the competitive or individualistic groupings. Thus, there are different
types of cooperative learning groups based on researchers (Johnson, et al., 1994; Kagan,
1994; Kessler, 1992) which teachers should be aware of so that they would be able to use
them in wide range of ways. For example, Johnson et al. (1994) has categorized
cooperative learning groups into three types (Figure 3).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
121
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
In addition, Johnson and Johnson (1990) also state that these CLL skills must be taught
to the students and the teachers should encourage their students to apply them
effectively. If students lack the interpersonal and small-group skills, they would not be
able to cooperate effectively and CLL would not be fruitful and productive anymore.
Many research studies have also been conducted in other contexts than English
language teaching (ELT) and proved that cooperative learning is an effective method
for greater achievement of the students in mathematics (Gokkurt et al., 2012) and
nursing proficiency (Baghcheghi, et al., 2011; Lin, 2013).
2.2.
Previous studies on English Language Proficiency
English language proficiency means how well a person can speak, read, write, or
understand English language. Generally, language proficiency is the skill with which a
person can use a language. English language proficiency can be measured through the
use of an English language proficiency test (Richards & Schmidt, 2010).
Although English is not a second language in most parts of the world, it has
become an inseparable part of many people’s lives and is becoming more and more
widespread (Flowerdew, 2007). English is an International language which is learned
by so many people for different purposes such as: living abroad, pursuing education
abroad, communicating with other people around the world (either native English
speakers or non-native), travelling to different countries, doing business in other
countries, and working with techno-gadgets (Elder & Davies, 2006). In sum, English is
the only language which can be medium of communication with people around the
world (Sharifian, 2009). Therefore, English language proficiency for every single English
as a Foreign/Second Language (EFL/ESL) learner is something necessary and many
research studies showed that one of the English language teachers’ concerns is how to
improve English language proficiency of EFL/ESL learners (Al-Mahrooqi & Tabakow,
2013; Huang, 2012; Nair, et al., 2012). The review of literature demonstrates that ELT
researchers and teachers are still seeking ways to improve English language proficiency
of EFL/ESL learners.
3.
Materials and Methods
3.1
Participants
The participants were all level four (intermediate) Iranian students in 15 classes of
different private English Language Institutes in Tehran, Iran. The participant selection
was done through non-random convenient method. Each class had approximately the
same number of students (9-11 students per class), one hundred and fifty students in
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
122
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
total. They were all female learners with Persian as their first language and aged from
18 to 40 years.
3.2
Design
A pre-test/post-test design was selected for this quasi-experimental study, and the
participants were chosen through non-random selection. There were one dependent
variable and one independent variable. The dependent variable was English language
proficiency of the learners and the independent variable was Cooperative Language
Learning (CLL) as a medium of teaching. Gender was control variable of the study as
the participants were all female.
The researcher reached all CLL goals by applying various elements of it such as
positive
interdependence,
promotive
interaction,
individual
accountability,
interpersonal skills, and group processing throughout all parts of English language
teaching (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). Different types of grouping –
formal CLL group, informal CLL group, and cooperative-base group were also
employed to increase CLL and group working in classroom.
3.3
Instrumentation
In order to conduct this study, three sets of materials were applied: two for the purpose
of measuring the participants’ English language proficiency and one for the purpose of
instruction. Initially, the researcher administered Cambridge First Certificate of English
(FCE) test as a language proficiency pre-test. The participants were instructed on how
to work in groups and English was taught to them through cooperative tasks. The
instructional materials were intermediate English result series including book,
intermediate story book, CDs, and workbook. The tasks and activities used in the class
for English language teaching were think/Pair/Share, jigsaw, roundtable/round robin,
numbered heads together, and group investigation. After twenty sessions, the
researcher administered FCE post-test.
3.4
Procedure
The very focus of this study was to foster CLL in the English classrooms to see if it has
any significant impact on the English language proficiency of intermediate EFL
learners. Firstly, the researcher included all the available one hundred and fifty
participants in the first phase of the study, which was homogenization of the
participants to come up with nearly the same language proficiency before the onset of
the treatment. Students who scored one standard deviation above and below the mean
score were selected as the main participants of this research study. Therefore, according
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
123
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
to the result obtained, the number of the participants decreased to one hundred and
thirty five.
In the first session, the researcher explained the importance of the study to the
participants and asked them to attend the tests and classes as a part of their language
learning program. Then, the researcher administered an FCE pre-test to all the
homogenized participants. The subjects were taught English through CLL tasks for
twenty sessions (90 minutes per session). After twenty sessions, a Cambridge FCE posttest was administered to the participants to measure their English language proficiency
improvement after the intervention. Eventually, the obtained data was statistically
analysed to investigate the answer to the research question of the study.
4.
Results and Discussion
This study was designed to examine how CLL affects English language proficiency of
Iranian intermediate EFL learners. In order to test the hypothesis of the research on
whether or not CLL has any statistically significant impact on the English language
proficiency of Iranian intermediate EFL learners, the researcher needed to run a pairedsamples t-test to compare the students’ mean scores on the pre-test and post-test of
English language. The results of the paired-samples t-test represents (t (134) = 61.42, P =
0.000 < 0.05, R = 0.98) which demonstrates a large effect size (Table 1). It indicates that
there is a significant difference between the mean scores of the students on the pre-test
and post-test of English language proficiency. The students after receiving instruction
through cooperative tasks showed a higher mean score on the post-test (M = 23.90) than
pre-test (M = 11.62) (Table 2, Figure 4). As the teaching process took only 6 weeks, the
effect of maturation on the post test result is negligible. Thus, CLL has statistically
significant impact on English language proficiency improvement of Iranian EFL
learners. It is important to mention that the total score on either the pre-test or the posttest is the sum of individual sub-scores (on reading, writing, speaking, and listening).
Many research studies focused on the effect of CLL on different skills and
components of English (e.g. vocabulary, reading, and writing) and probed the positive
impact of CLL on the improvement of those skills (Al-Mahrooqi & Tabakow, 2013;
Farzaneh & Nejadansari, 2014; Ghaith, 2002; Jalilifar, 2010; Mahmoud, 2014; Ning,
2013). For example, Farzaneh and Nejadansari (2014) have conducted a quantitative
study on the Iranian students’ attitudes towards CLL for teaching reading
comprehension and based on the data analysis, it was shown that the majority of
Iranian students have positive view towards it. In another research study by Jalilifar
(2010) which employed Student Team Achievement Divisions (STAD) and Group
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
124
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
Investigation (GI) as CLL techniques, the results revealed that STAD improved the
reading comprehension of the students much more significantly than GI. Mahmoud
(2014) also investigated the effect of CLL on writing skill in Saudi Arabia and concluded
that the students outperformed in the post-test of writing. Therefore, CLL instruction of
writing skill was effective in the improvement of the students’ writing skill and they all
had positive attitude towards teaching of writhing through CLL approach.
5.
Recommendations
The current study sought to examine how cooperative language learning impact
English language proficiency of high-intermediate EFL learners. As this research had
some limitations and delimitations, the following suggestions are recommended for
further studies:
(1) The participants of the current study were all female EFL learners; a study can be
conducted with male or mixed-gender participants and compare the results.
(2) As the development of English language proficiency lend itself to time allocation,
it is recommended to replicate the same study with an extended length of
treatment from one semester to more. This may offer adequate time for teaching
and evaluating subjects on their English language proficiency.
(3) In the study at hand, a quantitative approach has been taken. However, a similar
study can be designed with a qualitative approach to hear the learners’
narratives and perspectives on CLL.
(4) In the present study, only high-intermediate EFL learners were chosen as the
participants. However, a similar study can be conducted with other levels than
high-intermediate.
(5) The context of the current study was Iran which has a great number of EFL
learners. The same study can be replicated in another country which has English
as a Foreign/Second language.
6.
Conclusion
Based on the result and data analysis of the study, it can be concluded that the use of
CLL in English language classrooms has significant effect on the improvement of
English language proficiency of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. This result is also in
consistent with the previous research on CLL in other parts of the world such as
Lebanon, Vietnam, and Thailand (Ghaith, 2002; McCafferty, et al, 2006; Wichadee &
Orawiwatnakul, 2012; Yazdanimoghaddam & Faruji, 2013; Zamani, 2016). Thus, almost
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
125
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
any English language teacher in any EFL/ESL context and at any classroom level could
find CLL helpful in English language proficiency improvement of his/her students. To
conclude, it is quite a great change from teacher dependence to learner
interdependence, from classes with teacher lecturing to classes with cooperative
learning, and from learning by collecting to learning by sharing; therefore, learners and
teachers need to be patient and persistent as they use and practice cooperative learning
(Richards & Rodgers, 2014). The researcher also concluded that Cooperative Language
Learning activities, according to Johnson et al. (1994), should be structured layer after
layer just like peeling an onion, until its heart is reached.
About the Author
Fatemeh Zarrabi graduated in MA degree in Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in 2013. She started her PhD at
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia in education (TESOL) in 2015.
She has more than seven years English language teaching experience to
EFL/ESL learners. Her expertise is in the areas of English Language
Teaching (ELT), TESOL, language teacher education, Language
Learning Strategies (LLS), methodology in language teaching, and language testing.
References
1. Al-Mahrooqi, R. & Tabakow,M. (2013). Drama in Oman to improve English
proficiency among English-major college students. International Journal of Arts &
Sciences, 6.4, 303-319.
2. Baghcheghi, N., Koohestani, H.R., & Rezaei, K. (2011). A comparison of the
cooperative learning and traditional learning methods in theory classes on
nursing students’ communication skill with patients at clinical settings. Nurse
Education Today, 31, 877-882. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.01.006.
3. Brody, C.M., Cohen, E.G., & Mara, S.S. (2004). Teaching cooperative learning: the
challenge for teacher education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
4. Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy (2nd ed). New York: Pearson education.
5. Castillo, C.Y.P. (2007). Improving Eleventh Graders’ Oral Production in English
Class through Cooperative Learning Strategies . ISSN 1657-0790. Bogota,
Colombia.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
126
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
6. Christison, M.A. (1994). Cooperative learning in ESL classroom. In Teacher
Development: Making the right moves. Ed. T. Kral, 38-49. Washington DC: United
States Information Agency.
7. Davoudi, A.H.M., & Mahinpo, B. (2012). Kagan cooperative learning model: The
bridge to foreign language learning in the third millennium. Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, 2.6, 1134-1140. doi: 10.4304/tpls.2.6.1134-1140.
8. DeVries, D.L., & Edwards, K.J. (1973). Learning games and student teams: Their
effects on classroom process. American Educational Research Journal, 10.4, 307-318.
9. Elder, C; Davies, A. (2006). Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 26, 282–304.
10. Farzaneh, N., & Nejadansari, D.
4 . Students’ attitudes towards using
cooperative learning for teaching reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 4.2, 287-292. doi: 10.4304/tpls.4.2.287-292.
11. Fitzgibbon, L. (2001). Cooperative learning in the EFL context. The English
Connection, 5.5, 6-8.
12. Flowerdew, J. (2007). The non-Anglophone scholar on the periphery of scholarly
publication. AILA Review, 20.1, 14–27.
13. Ghaith, G.M. (2002). The relationship between cooperative learning, perception
of social support, and academic achievement. System, Elsevier, 30, 263-273.
14. Gokkurt, B., Dundar, S., Soylu, Y., & Akgun, L. (2012). The effect of leaning
together technique which is based on cooperative learning on students’
achievement in mathematics class. Procedia- Social and Behavioural Sciences, 46,
3431-3434. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06079.
15. Han, H. (2014). Transforming EFL classes from lecturing to cooperative learning.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5.4, 948-952. doi: 10.4304/jltr.5.4.948-952.
16. Huang, K.S.
. Taiwanese university freshman students’ behaviour and
belief factors in using on-line practice exams to improve their English
proficiency. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 8.2, 129-138.
17. Jacobs, G., & Hall, S. (1994). Implementing cooperative learning. English Teaching
Forum, 32.4, 2-13.
18. Jalilifar, A. (2010). The effect of cooperative learning techniques on college
students’
reading
comprehension.
System,
Elsevier,
38,
96-108.
doi:
10.1016/j.system.2009.12.009.
19. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1988). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
127
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
20. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1990). Advanced cooperative learning. Edina, MN:
Interactive Book Co.
21. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Professional development in cooperative
learning: Short-term popularity vs. Long-term effectiveness. Cooperative learning,
14.2, 52-54.
22. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E. (1994b). The new circles of learning:
Cooperative in the classroom and school. Virginia: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
23. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperative
learning in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
24. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Stanne, M. (2000). Cooperative learning
methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from http://www.clcrc.com/pages/clmethods.html. (access date 20/01/2013).
25. Kagan, J. (1994). Reflection-impulsivity: the generality and dynamics of
conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17-24.
26. Kessler, C. (1992). Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27. Lin, Z.C. (2013). Comparison of technology-based cooperative learning with
technology-based individual learning in enhancing fundamental nursing
proficiency. Nurse Education Today, 33, 546-551. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.12.006.
28. Mahmoud, M.M.A. (2014). The effectiveness of using the cooperative language
learning approach to enhance EFL writing skills among Saudi University
students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5.3, 616-625. doi:
10.430.4/jltr.5.3.616-625.
29. McCafferty, S.G., Jacobs, G.M., & Iddings, A.C.D. (2006). Cooperative learning
and second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Nair, G.K.S., Setia, R., Ghazali, S.N., Sabapathy, E., & Mohammad, R. (2012). Can
literature improve English proficiency: The students’ perspectives? Asian Social
Sciences, 8.12, 21-27.
31. Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & learning. Heinle & Heinle
Publishers, Boston.
32. Ning, H. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on English as a foreign
language tertiary learners’ social skills. Social Behaviour and Personality, 41.4, 557568.
Retrieved
from
http://dxdoi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.557.
(accessed
22/01/2015).
33. Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
128
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
34. Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Dictionary of Language Teaching and
Applied Linguistics. 4th ed. London: Pearson.
35. Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group
investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.
36. Sharifian, F. (Ed.). (2009). English as an international language: Perspectives and
pedagogical issues. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
37. Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice, 2 nd ed.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
38. Stahl, R.J. (1994). The essential elements of cooperative learning in the classroom.
ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/elements.htm
(accessed 13/10/2014).
39. Wichadee, S., & Orawiwatnakul, W. (2012). Cooperative language learning:
Increasing opportunities for learning in teams. Journal of College Teaching &
Learning, 9.2, 93-100.
40. Yazdanimoghaddam, M., & Faruji, L.F. (2013). Cooperative tasks and lexical
development of EFL learners. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second
Language, TESL-EJ, 17.2, 1-10.
41. Zamani, M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Homogeneous and heterogeneous
grouping of Iranian EFL learners in a writing context. Cogent education. doi:
10.1080/2331186X.2016.1149959. Retrieved from http://cogentoa.tandfonline.com
(accessed 22/02/2016).
42. Zhang, Y. (2012). A study on CLL method in reading course. Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, 2.8, 1678-1683. doi: 10.4304/tpls.2.8.1678-1683.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
129
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
Figures and Tables
Figure 1: CLL goals based on Richards and Rodgers, 2014.
S/TTT= Students’/Teachers’ Talking Time.
Figure 2: CLL Elements based on Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
130
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
Figure 3: Three types of CLL groups, based on Johnson et al., 1994
Figure 4: Pre-test and Post-test of English Language Proficiency
Table 1: Paired-Samples t-test Pre-test and Post-test of English language proficiency
Paired Differences
Mean
Std.
Deviation
12.281
2.323
t
df
tailed)
Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
0.200
Sig. (2-
the Difference
Lower
Upper
11.886
12.677
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
61.420
134
0.000
131
Fatemeh Zarrabi –
A STUDY ON COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE IMPACT OF CLL APPROACH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF EFL LEARNERS
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics Pre-test and Post-test of English language proficiency
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Post-test
23.90
135
2.687
0.231
Pre-test
11.62
135
2.130
0.183
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 1 │ Issue 2 │ 2016
132