1

INTRODUCTION

1. RATIONALE

When we learn a foreign language, we learn to communicate with people in other
countries by talking to them or writing to them. However, there is a fact that not all of us
have lots of opportunities to meet foreigners directly so that they can listen to our words,
look at our guestures or facial expressions. As a result, it is common that writing becomes
a social endeavor, a way of communicating with others, informing them, persuading them
and debating with them.
But the fact that people usually have to communicate with each other in writing is
not the only reason to include writing as a part of our syllabus. The more important reason
is that writing can help our students to learn the language better since it gives them
chances to make use of grammatical structures, idioms and vocabulary that they have
learned.
Although writing plays a very important role in a foreign language learning, for
years of teaching writing skill, I have realized that my students have not been encouraged
enough to involve in the writing lessons and their writing skill has also been far from
satisfaction. As a teacher of writing skill, which is considered to be more boring and
challenging than the others, I am always eager for the suitable method of teaching so that I
do not have to force my learners to write; instead I can stimulate them to give out their
thoughts and write with interest.
Actually, what should be taken into consideration now is the way the knowledge is
presented. Although many writing methods have been used in classroom alternatively, not
all of them are effective enough to promote language acquisition. During the last decade, a
new approach called Cooperative Learning (CL) seemed to attract a lot of attention and
become popular.
Cooperative Learning is a pedagogical approach that enhances student – student

(3) their paticipation in in-class activities?.
Finally, the study also aimed at finding
(4) what the student’s opinions about cooperative learning are?

4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The study was carried out on only the second-year students of English at Foreign
Language Department of Tay Bac University. These students were measured their writing
proficiency in correlation to the application of an experimental CL. It means that the study
was not supposed to measure the students’ general language proficiency but merely their
writing skill.

5. RESEARCH METHOD
The first method applied in this study is a quasi-experimental design which
involves the three components of experiments according to Selinger and Shohamy (1989):
the population (the second-year students at Tay Bac university), the treatment (cooperative
learning activities), and the measurement of the treatment (t-test).

3

In addition, pre and post-questionnaires were delivered to students who took part
in the CL class as a supporting tool to obtain their change in attitude towards writing.
What is more, observation was also employed during the teaching time to recognize the
participation of students in the control group and the experimental group. 6. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The study is composed of three main parts: Introduction, Development which
consists of three chapters, and Conclusion.
The Introduction gives an overview of the study with the rationale for the
research, the aims, and the research hypothesis and research questions of the study. It also


1.1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS OF WRITING
1.1.1. Definitions
Language educators have long used the concepts of four basic language skills:
listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Among such four skills, writing is considered as
a productive skill in the written mode. Writing often seems to be the hardest of the skills,
even for native speakers of a language, since “it involves not just a graphic representation
of speech, but the development and presentation of thoughts in a structured way”
(Hampton, 1989). In his book, Hampton aslo stated more ideas about writing; that is
“writing skills are specific abilities which help writers put their thoughts into words in a
meaningful form and to mentally interact with the message.”
There are more thoughts expressed about writing by lots of different
methodologists. For example, according to Kellogg (2000), writing is “a major cognitive
challenge, because it is at once a test of memory, language, and thinking ability. It
demands rapid retrieval of domain-specific knowledge about the topic from long-term
memory.” From another view of writing, Murray and Perl (1979) defined writing as “a
creative discovery procedure characterized by the dynamic interplay of content and
language: the use of language to explore beyond the known content.” Moreover, in Byrne
(1988)’s opinion, “writing is much more than the production of graphic symbols, just as
speech is more than the production of sounds” because “the symbols have to be arranged,
according to certain conventions, to form words, and words have to be arranged to form
sentences, then the sentences have been put in order and linked together to form a coherent
whole.”
The above definitions reflect unlike attitudes towards writing of the authors who
are under the control of different theories. However, in general, writing is a daunting task
for students because it requires the correctness of not only form but also meaning to get
the best communicative goals.

1.1.2. Role of Writing Skill in Foreign Language Learning
When people learn the way to write, not only are they developing a new skill, but

approach assign vast amounts of free writing on given topics with only minimal
correction. The emphasis in this approach is on content and fluency rather than on
accuracy and form. Once ideas are down on the page, grammatical accuracy and
organization follow. Thus, teachers may begin their classes by asking students to write
freely on any topic without worrying about grammar and spelling for five or ten minutes.
The teachers do not correct these pieces of free writing. They simply read them and may
comment on the ideas the writer expressed. Alternatively, some students may volunteer to
read their own writing aloud to the class. Concern for “audience” and “content” are seen as
important in this approach.

6

1.1.3.3. The Paragraph-Pattern Approach
Instead of accuracy of grammar or fluency of content, the Paragraph-Pattern-
Approach stresses on organization. Students copy paragraphs and imitate model passages.
They put scrambled sentences into paragraph order. They identify general and specific
statements and choose to invent an appropriate topic sentence or insert or delete sentences.
This approach is based on the principle that in different cultures people construct and
organize communication with each other in different ways.

1.1.3.4. The Grammar-Syntax-Organization Approach
This approach stresses on simultaneous work on more than one composition
feature. Teachers who follow this approach maintain that writing can not be seen as
composed of separate skills which are learned sequentially. Therefore, student should be
trained to pay attention to organization while they also work on the necessary grammar
and syntax. This approach links the purpose of writing to the forms that are needed to
convey message.
All the above approaches, to some extent, emphasize the final product of writing:
the essay, the report, the story and what that product should look like. According to Brown
(1994), those approaches belong to the product approach. Therefore, a great deal of

necessarily engage in these activities in that order.
1.1.3.6. The Communicative Approach
This approach stresses the purpose of writing and the audience for it. Student
writers are encouraged to behave like writers in real life and ask themselves the crucial
questions about purpose and audience: Why am I writing this? / Who will read it? Helping
students comprehend that a successful piece of writing must attain its communicative
purposes is the advantage of the communicative approach.
Traditionally, the teacher alone has been the audience for student writing. But some
feel that writers do their best when writing is truly a communicative act, for a real reader.
As such, the readership may be extended to classmates and pen pals.
However, there are still possible limitations to consider with this approach, so some
other authors have developed a new approach called the process gender approach which
characterizes not only the learner’s creative thinking and the act of how writers form a
text, but also the knowledge of linguistic features as well as specific discourse community
where a particular genre performs. “The concept not only draws on ideas from genre approaches,
such as knowledge of context, the purpose of writing, certain text features, but retains part of process
philosophy such as writing skill development and learner response” (Badger & White, 2000) 1.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING
1.2.1. Definitions
During the past decade, a new approach called “Cooperative Learning” seemed to
attract a lot of attention and became popular. So many researchers have been interested in
doing research to investigate CL that there has been a great deal of definitions of CL. In
general, CL is one strategy for group instruction which is under the learner – centered

8

approach. In detail, Slavin (1995) considered “CL is an instructional program in which students
work in small groups to help one another master academic content.” “CL involves students working

1.2.2. Cooperative Learning and Language Acquisition
In general, CL has been proven to be effective for all types of students, including
academically gifted, mainstream students because it promotes learning and fosters respect

9

and friendships among diverse groups of students. Students that are involved in CL
achieve many social and academic benefits. Cooperative classrooms are classes where
students group together to accomplish significant cooperative tasks as Slavin (1987)
stated: “They are classrooms where students are likely to attain higher levels of achievement, to
increase time on task, to build cross-ethnic friendships, to experience enhanced self-esteem, to build
life-long interaction and communication skills, and to master the habits of mind (critical, creative and
self-regulated) needed to function as productive members of society.”
CL is particularly beneficial for any students learning a second/ foreign language.
Language teachers frequently hear that CL is an effective strategy for classrooms with
English language learning (ELL) students. CL strategies have been shown to improve
academic performance (Slavin, 1987), lead to great motivation toward learning (Garibaldi,
1979), to increase time on task (Cohen & Benton, 1988), to improve self-esteem (Johnson
& Johnson, 1989), and to lead to more positive social behaviors (Lloyd, 1988). For ELL
students especially, CL promotes language acquistition by providing comprehensible input
in developmentally appropriate ways and in a supportive and motivating environment
(Kagan, 1995).
Olsen and Kagan (1992) also report some research on CL with respect to some of
its benefits for language learning. According to them, in traditional classrooms, teachers
do most of the talking leaving students very little time to speak and to do language
production, and low-achieving students are given fewer opportunities to participate. In
contrast, in cooperative classes, up to 80 percent of cooperative class time may be devoted
to activities. Half of the students may do language production while the others are engaged
in language comprehension. This results in increased active and complex communication
for students.

supportive atmosphere, English learners can establish more equal-status relationships with
their peers.
When the environment becomes more equitable, students are better able to
participate based on their actual, rather than their perceived knowledge and abilities.
Teamwork, fostered by positive interdependence among the members, helps students learn
valuable interpersonal skills that will benefit them socially and vocationally.

• Interaction
Academic and language learning requires that students have opportunities to
comprehend what they hear and read as well as express themselves in meaningful tasks
(McGroarty, 1993). Cooperative learning creates natural, interactive contexts in which
students have authentic reasons for listening to one another, asking questions, clarifying
issues, and re-stating points of view. Therefore, the second element of CL is interaction
among members of groups.
Cooperative groups increase opportunities for students to produce and comprehend
language and to obtain modeling and feedback from their peers. Much of the value of
cooperative learning lies in the way that teamwork encourages students to engage in such
high-level thinking skills as analyzing, explaining, synthesizing, and elaborating.

11

Interactive tasks also naturally stimulate and develop the students' cognitive,
linguistic, and social abilities. Cooperative activities integrate the acquisition of these
skills and create powerful learning opportunities. Such interactive experiences are
particularly valuable for students who are learning English as a second language, who face
simultaneously the challenges of language acquisition, academic learning, and social
adaptation. By stimulating language input and output, cooperative strategies provide
English learners with natural settings in which they can derive and express meaning from
academic content (McGroarty, 1993, and Swain, 1985).
Students do not know instinctively how to interact effectively with others. Social

implementation of cooperative learning methods that are characterized by at least two
essential elements: positive interdependence and individual accountability (Slavin, 1990).
In areas other than achievement, there is even broader consensus about the effects
of cooperative learning. For example, when students of different racial or ethnic
backgrounds work together toward a common goal, they gain in liking and respect for one
another. Cooperative learning also improves social acceptance of mainstreamed students
with learning disabilities (Slavin, 1990).

• Professional Development
Because groupwork dramatically changes the teacher's role, professional
development is vital to the implementation of cooperative learning (Cohen, 1994). To
learn and employ cooperative strategies, teachers need access to extensive professional
development that includes (1) the theory and philosophy of cooperative learning; (2)
demonstrations of cooperative methods; and (3) ongoing coaching and collegial support at
the classroom level. Implementing cooperative approaches is greatly enhanced when
teachers' have opportunities to work together and learn from one other. As teachers
observe and coach each other, they provide essential support to ensure that they continue
to acquire the methods and develop new strategies tailored to their own situations.
Although cooperative learning is widely endorsed as a pedagogical practice that
promotes learning and socialization among students, teachers still struggle with how to
introduce it into their classrooms (Gillies, 2007). Teachers must use strategies that
challenge student thinking and scaffold their learning. Within the context of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 and a climate of high stakes testing, cooperative learning can
enhance student outcomes when teachers promote student engagement and learning across
various levels and for students of diverse abilities.
In conclusion, CL methods hold great promise for accelerating students' attainment
of high academic standards and the development of the knowledge and abilities necessary
for thriving in a multicultural world. However, like other innovations, cooperative learning
approaches need to be tailored to the cultural and linguistic context in which they are used.
Designed and implemented by teachers who are loyal to the key elements of cooperative

given time to think about answers. After the "think time," members of the team share
responses with one another round robin style. The recorder writes down the answers of the
group members. The person next to the recorder starts and each person in the group in
order gives an answer until time is called.
• Team Pair Solo - Students do problems first as a team, then with a partner, and
finally on their own. It is designed to motivate students to tackle and succeed at problems
which initially are beyond their ability. It is based on a simple notion of mediated learning.
Students can do more things with help (mediation) than they can do alone. By allowing
them to work on problems they could not do alone, first as a team and then with a partner,
they progress to a point they can do alone that which at first they could do only with help.

14

• Partners - The class is divided into teams of four. Partners move to one side of the
room. Half of each team is given an assignment to master to be able to teach the other half.
Partners work to learn and can consult with other partners working on the same material.
Teams go back together with each set of partners teaching the other set. Partners quiz and
tutor teammates. Team reviews how well they learned and taught and how they might
improve the process.
• Three-minute review - Teachers stop at any time during a lecture or discussion
and give teams three minutes to review what has been said, ask clarifying questions or
answer questions.
• Three-Step Interview - Each member of a team chooses another member to be a
partner. During the first step individuals interview their partners by asking clarifying
questions. During the second step partners reverse the roles. For the final step, members
share their partner's response with the team.
• Jigsaw - Groups with five students are set up. Each group member is assigned
some unique material to learn and then to teach to his group members. All the students
across the class working on the same sub-section get together to decide what is important
and how to teach it. After practice in these "expert" groups the original groups reform and

cannot succeed unles
s the other members of
the group succeed (and visa versa) -
If you
win, I win!"
• Group and individual accomplishments are
rewarded.
• Assignments are discussed with little
commitment to each other's learning.
•
Group members help, assist, encourage, and
support each other's efforts to learn.
• Individual accountability only - I don't
care if the other members in the group
learn.
• Both group and individual accountability.
•
Members hold self and others accountable
for high quality work.
• Social skills are assumed or ignored.
• One person often "takes charge" and does
all the work.
• Teamwork skills are emphasized -
members
are taught and expected to use collaborative
skills.
• Leadership shared by all members.
•
No processing of how well the group is
functioning or the quality of its work.

take part. It was also considered time-consuming to teach materials in a cooperative way, though
more students might have learned and retained better of the material, as suggested in the Learning
Pyramid”. This might be true, especially in the beginning when cooperative learning was new
to the teacher and to the students. Another concern, “there was an inherent danger for low-
achievers to be belittled by high-achievers if they had nothing or little to contribute.” Besides,
"some of the cooperative learning strategies, like student team achievement divisions (STAD)
and Jigsaw, seemed to ignore the importance of individual education and the group
contingencies might cause peer pressures that could be either facilitative or detrimental"
(Slavin, 1985).
Another limitation of cooperative learning lies in the differences of opinion regarding
encouraging conflict or achieving consensus among group members (Tsai, 1998). There was
an underlying establishment in cooperative learning to encourage consensus and thereby
arousing unnecessary peer pressure to suppress individual differences and comply with the
decisions of the group (Dipardo & Freeman, 1988). Some teachers might experience
frustration and open hostility from their students. For example, bright students complained
about being held back by their slower teammates; weaker or less assertive students
complained about being discounted or ignored in group sessions, and resentments build when
some team members failed to pull their weight. Instructors with sufficient patience generally
found ways to deal with these problems, but others became discouraged and reverted to the
traditional teacher-centered instructional paradigm, which was a loss both for them and for
their students (Kagan, 1991, Sapon-Shevin, 1991). The above-mentioned limitations of
cooperative learning can be reduced to a great extent or even avoided completely if the
teachers are well awared such drawbacks before the implementation of cooperative learning.

1.3. SUMMARY
The chapter has been provided the relevant literature including the theoritical
background of writing and cooperative learning. On the whole, eventhough the writing
product is an expression of one’s individuality and personality, it is important to remember
that writing is also a way of communicating with others. Students themselves have a voice and
what they write will elicit a reaction from others. Therefore, writing is an active

students donot get the intermediate level of English as they are supposed. Students mainly
use English as a foreign language to communicate with the teachers and classmates in
English classes, in any other cases, they almost use Vietnamese.
Obviously, in order to help students learn English well in such unfavourable
environment, there is no way exept that the teachers themselves have to make their
teaching methodology flexible and helpful.

2.1.2. The Writing Program of the Second Year
Writing program for the second year English classes at Tay Bac University mainly
supplies students with knowledge and skill of writing English paragraphs. This study was
carried out in the second semester of the second year, when “English Academic Writing”
(1998) by Oshima and Hogue was used as the course book. However, because of focusing
on learning how to write English paragraphs, only the first part of the book (writing a
paragraph) was employed. Apart from this book, the teachers may use other resourses with
the same content as the reference for teaching material. Each unit focuses on one major
matter like overview of paragraph, unity and coherence in paragraph, etc with some

18

exercises to help learners practise after each part. Especially, the book seems not to
provide any cooperative learning activities so that students can share their thoughts.

2.1.3. The Participants

The subjects in this study were 80 second year English major students in two
groups at Tay Bac University. They were selected firstly on the basis of cluster sampling.
Each group consisted 40 students aged from 19 – 22. Besides, the number of male and
female students was not equal in both groups. Female students took up the majority (90%)
of the student population.
Another factor that should be taken into consideration was that the students taking

2.2. THE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
The programme was aimed at helping the students develop writing proficiency so
that they could produce a good English paragraph at the end. In addition, it was also
supposed to promote the participation of the students in learning activities as well as
motivate them to learn.
The experiment lasted for 8 weeks, during which the students learned how to write
different types of paragraph. In both groups, the students were led through the writing
stages of the process approach: brainstorming, organizing ideas, drafting, revising and
editing but in different ways. The students in the experimental group were involved in a
variety of cooperative activities in each writing stage while the traditional teacher-centred
approach was employed in the control group. A detailed description of the material and
tasks used for the experimental programme is presented below.

2.2.1. Materials
Based on the main course book “English Academic Writing” (1998) by Oshima
and Hogue, different categories of paragraph namely comparison and contrast, cause and
effect, classification, process and narration were discussed and practised during the
experiment. Additionally, some consultive sources such as Writing Ahead by Linda
Robinson Fellag, Writing Tasks by David Jolly or the Internet were also wisely exploited.
Each type of paragraph was presented in a number of topics shown in the following table
and made clear owing to the process of exploiting such topics.

Table 2. Types of paragraphs and topics
Types of paragraph Topics

Process
1. Process of writing
2. Process of a circle life

Narration

The students, on the contrary, were much more active in learning. They became
peer experts and acted as peer instructors, responsible for each other and the group. Group
roles may be assigned, rotated, or shared, so students might be in the role of team leader or
coordinator (organize and present), secretary (note down the group members’ ideas),
encourager and supporter (support all members to fair contributions), ect.

2.3. DATA COLLECTION
[2.3.1. Data Collection Instruments
2.3.1.1. Pre-test and Post-test
The pre-test was designed to assess the writing ability of the students in both
groups. A task sheet with the same topic of “Career” was provided for the students in two
groups. The students were asked to write a paragraph on the topic. The pre-test was
conducted during 30 minutes after the students in these two groups had learned about
general English paragraph. No guidance or help was given during the test.
The post-test was conducted after the programme in the same way as the pre-test to
find out how the students in two groups had made improvements in their writing. The
topic of the two tests was identical so that the later test was not easier or more difficult
than the former one.

21

A marking scheme was designed to evaluate the results of the pre-test and the post-
test. Students’ performance in content, organization and language were examined.
2.3.1.2. Pre- and - Post Questionnaires
Pre- and -post questionnaires were delivered to only the experimental group in
order to investigate the students’ change in attitude towards writing.
The pre-questionnaire (see Appendix 4) contained 20 items which related to
students’ background information, their opinions towards English writing and their
participation in writing activities in class. The questionnaire was divided into 3 parts.
Students were required to spend about twenty minutes to complete it.

did she observe but she also made a note of the interaction taking place between or among
the members in both classes.
• After the experimental treatment
At the end of the term, after 8 weeks of learning with different methods, all
students in the study were given a test called post-test. This test was the same topic as the
pre-test (Appendix 2), and it was also scored by the teacher-reseacher.
Results of the pre-test and -post test were compared to investigate whether
improvement was made by the students in their writing in general and in terms of the
content, organization and language in particular after the programme.
In addition, the post-questionnaire was distributed to the experimental group. Then,
a comparison of the pre- and –post questionnaire results were made to see how the
students’ attitude towards writing changed, and what the students’ opinions about
cooperative learning were.

2.4. DATA ANALYSIS
2.4.1. Data Analysis of Pre- and –Post Tests
The test scores were analyzed and interpreted using the independent t-test and the
dependent t-test. While the independent t-test was employed to make a comparison of
writing performance between the two independent samples before and after the
experiment, the dependent t-test was used for pre-test and post-test comparisons when
these tests were taken on the same group of subjects.

2.4.1.1. The two groups’ writing performance before the experiment
Figure 1. Pretest results of both groups
0
2
4
6
8
10

 0.05
T 0.18
Tcrit

2

Regarding central tendency of the pretest scores, the control group, in one side, is
similar to the experimental one with respect to the mode and the median. In the other side,
despite the difference, the means are quite close to one another. The central tendency of
both groups is, therefore, considered in high level.
Because of having the identical min scores, 1 point higher in the range is the result
of difference in the max ones, which are 8 and 9 in the control and experimental groups
respectively. Besides, there is a small disparity of 0.03 in the standard deviation. Then, it
can be infered that the two groups had nearly the same spread of pretest scores.
Although the means suggested the control group’s writing performance is better,
the results of t-test does not confirm this as t obtained < tcrit. It means that we fail to reject
the null hypothesis (X1 = X2, ie. no significant difference). In short, the difference
between the means for the two groups has no meaning, which leads to a conclusion that all
the samples’ writing proficiency was not significantly different at the beginning of the
experiment.

24

2.4.1.2. The two groups’ writing performance after the experiment
Figure 2. Post-test results of both groups
0
2
4
6
8

In general, more high scores were gained by the experimental group than the
control one. Specifcally, three measures of central tendency including mean, mode and
median of the experimental samples are all higher than those of the other group, showing a
better level of cetral tendency of the experimental group’s scores. Furthermore, the gains
made by this group seemed to be more hetegeneous than those of the control group since
its range is smaller (4 compared to 5), and its standard deviation value is shown in the
table to be lower (1.05 compared to 1.25).
Score
Number of students

25

Especially, the results shown in the above table indicate that the mean of the
experimental group is higher than that of the control group. Then, the result from the
independent t-test proved that the difference between the mean gains made by the two
groups was significant (t > tcrit). Since our calculated value of t (2.33) is greater than tcrit
(2), we reject the null hypothesis (X1 = X2) and accept the alternative hypothesis (X1 
X2). There is a significant difference in writing proficiency between the two groups of
students after the experiment.

2.4.1.3. The experimental group’s improvement in writing proficiency
In order to get more information about the improvement in writing performance of
the students under the experiment, we made a comparison of their pre-test scores and post-
test scores.
Figure 3. Pre- and -post tests results of the Experimental Group
0
2
4
6
8