Cooperative Learning Principles of CL

18

a. Cooperative Learning

CL refers to a technique which puts students in small groups to solve problems together and to get reward for their achievement and cooperation Slavin, 1980. In addition, Vaughan stated that CL refers to the use of mixed small group works to support and to enhance each other‘s comprehension in learning Vaughan, 2002. The idea of CL is that it helps students to benefit from collaboration with peers in their learning Jacobs and Hannah, 2004. In short, CL is a learning strategy in which students learn through collaboration with their friends to support each other‘s maximum comprehension in their learning.

b. Principles of CL

In applying CL, there are some principles that need to be acknowledged by the teachers before conducting it in their classes. There are six essential elements of CL recommended by the experts in the field Kagan 1994; Slavin 1995; Johnson et al., op. cit. as in Ning, 2011: 61. They are ―positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, equal participation, equal opportunity for success, and group processing‖ Hertz-Lazarowitz, Kirkus, and Miller 1992 as cited in Peterson and Miller, 2004:124 noted, CL is not only as a means of reaching end goals such as enhancing academic achievement and increasing positive interpersonal and intergroup relations, but also as an end product that is valuable in and of itself‖ p. 253. In other words, CL should go beyond only boosting interpersonal relationship. It should assist learners to develop high appreciation of collaborating with others. 19 The principles of CL are in line with four of hypotheses, theories, and perspectives on language pedagogy. The first is the individual differences domain which strongly matches with CL as: Jacobs and Hannah, 2004:103. a. Group activities provide a different mode of learning rather than a steady diet of teacher-fronted instruction b. Within groups, students can develop more fully as they can play a wider range of roles than are normally available via teacher-fronted instruction. c. The CL principle heterogeneous grouping encourages students to interact with peers different from themselves, providing students opportunities to benefit from this diversity and to learn to work with people different from themselves. d. When groups are working on their own, teachers have more time to spend with students who may need individual attention. It is implied that collaborative learning supports the students‘ active involvement and their being respectful toward differences with their friends. Teachers as a result are able to manage their time more productively to focus on students‘ learning activities and to assist the ones who need special attention. Beside the perspective on individual differences, CL also fits with affective factors in language learning. Affective factors like motivation and attitudes are crucial for the success of learning beside the cognitive factors. The following are examples of how CL increases the affective factors Jacobs and Hannah, 2004:104. a. When working in supportive CL groups, students may feel less anxious and more willing to take risks. b. When students feel that group mates are relying in them, they may feel more motivated to make the effort needed to maximize learning Dornyei, 1997. It can be interpreted from the above examples that affective factors play important roles in the success of learning. Through cooperative learning, students‘ affective needs are fulfilled in which they feel more comfortable and more 20 appreciated with the learning activities and they become more encouraged to make progress since every student in the group has the same opportunity to make progress in their learning. CL therefore is selected as the learning strategy to help learners not only to practice authentic communication but also to respect differences and to boost the learners‘ affective domain to accomplish progress in learning. The third relates with the input hypothesis. The interaction using English through cooperative learning activities supports the participants‘ English acquisition because they are able to use the target language without really learning the language patterns. The input hypothesis relates only with acquisition in which it refers to subconscious process and is reflected in natural setting. The following are claims about the input hypothesis Krashen 1985, 1994 as in Ellis, 2008: 246: 1. Learners progress along the natural order by understanding input that contains structures a little bit beyond their current level of competence i+I. 2. Although comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition to take place, it is not sufficient, as learners also need to be effectively disposed to ‗let in‘ the input they comprehend. 3. Input becomes comprehensible as a result of simplification and with the help of contextual and extra linguistic clues; ‗fine-tuning‘ i.e. ensuring that learners receive input rich in the specific linguistic property they are due to acquire next is not necessary. 4. Speaking is the result of acquisition, not its cause; learner production does not contribute directly to acquisition. However, Krashen 1989 did allow for speaking to have an indirect effect by assisting the learner‘s conversational partner to make input comprehensible. The forth relates with the interaction hypothesis. Hatch 1978b: 404 as in Ellis, 2008: 252 claimed ―One learns how to do conversations, one learns how to interact verbally, and out of this interaction syntactic structures are developed‖. The interactions in which the participants do the conversations using the target 21 language with their peers using cooperative learning activities support the hypothesis. Through communicative activities, they are able to interact and build their English competence. Hatch 1978b: 407 as in Ellis, 2008: 252 provided an example in an interaction involving Paul, Huang‘s 1970 subject: PAUL Oh-oh J What? PAUL This Points at an ant J It‘s an ant. PAUL ant In his initial formulation of the IH, however, Long 1983a emphasized the role played by interaction in making input comprehensible Ellis, 2008: 252. Through interaction, it is believed that acquisition takes place. The general claim of both early and late versions of the IH is that engaging in interpersonal oral interaction in which communication problems arise and are negotiated facilitates incidental language acquisition Ellis, 2008: 253.

3. Non-Classroom Learning Environment