Developing cooperative learning in efl contents. Introduction

Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) (Steven, Slavin, and Associates, 1987)
This approach consists of three principal elements: using core reading books and related activities, direct instruction in reading comprehension, and integrated arts/writing. In all of these pupils work in heterogeneous teams, and activities following a cycle of: teacher presentation, team practice, including paired work, peer-reassessment, additional practice and testing. Studies by Stevens et al (1987) and Madden et al (1983) showed overall positive results on reading comprehension.
This method is incorporated within the Success for All programme (Slavin, 1996) and where there is clear guidance to teachers, can be followed successfully. It is, like other methods, dependent on teacher understanding of CL and pupil skills in implementing it.
Such a wide array of types of cooperative learning has led to comparative research on the benefits of it. This is the subject of the next section.
Another study (Okebukola, 1985) compared TGT, STAD, Jigsaw and the learning together model (Johnson and Johnson, 1975). This found on a test of science achievement, that whilst all methods achieved better results than individual or whole class work, the Learning Together model produced the least favourable results and the STAD produced the most favourable. This would seem to show that the inclusion of extrinsic rewards does produce gains in achievement. However Complex Instruction (Cohen, 1994b) does not include rewards and when compared to STAD in promoting achievement including higher order thinking, complex instruction was found to produce significant gains. Cohen (1994b) comments that Slavin's reward interdependence is necessary in collaborative seatwork. Where the task involves challenging and interesting group tasks, this motivation does not appear necessary. It might therefore be summarised from this that the nature of the task makes a significant difference. One of the arguments against offering rewards on a competitive basis, has been the negative effects on relationships between groups. Miller, Brewer and Edwards (1985) examined varied reward structures as did Johnson, Johnson and Maruyama, (1983), and they concluded that class relationships could be damaged by competition between groups. There is also evidence to show that introducing competition is particularly disadvantageous for certain categories of students, e.g. minority ethnic groups (Widaman and Kagan, 1987). In addition, the effect of participating in a less successful team using STAD procedures was negative for those students who were characterized as exhibiting 'learned helpless' manifestations and had no effect on those students characterized as 'mastery-orientated'. In spite of these studies, Slavin claims the evidence linking STAD to gains in cross-racial friendships is strong.

3.