1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
***

HOÀNG VIỆT HÀ

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS & THEIR PRACTICES
REGARDING COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEACHING
EFL IN LARGE MULTILEVEL CLASSES AT VIETNAM
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS
AND BUSINESS

QUAN ĐIỂM CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VỀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG
PHÁP HỌC HỢP TÁC ĐỂ DẠY TIẾNG ANH TẠI CÁC LỚP
ĐÔNG ĐA TRÌNH ĐỘ VÀ VIỆC THỰC THI TRÊN LỚP TẠI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

M.A. Thesis

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 601410
Supervisor: Đỗ Bá Quý, M.Ed



Hanoi, 2012
6

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Acceptance page i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of content iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Research questions 2
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Significance of the study 3
6. Methods of the study 3
7 An overview of the rest of the study 4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 6
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 6
1.1 Cooperative learning 6
1.1.1 Underpinning theory of cooperative learning 6
1.1.2 Definition of cooperative learning 7
1.1.3 Principles of cooperative learning 8
1.1.4 Cooperative Learning Methods 11
1.1.5 Benefits of cooperative learning 14
1.1.6 Challenges of cooperative learning 15

3.1.7 Teachers‟ reflection on CL 45
3.2 Teachers‟ implementation of Cooperative Learning in classroom 47
3.2.1 Implementation 47
3.2.2 Task construction 48
3.2.3 Group composition 49
3.2.4 Student preparation 51
3.2.5 Assessment 51
3.2.6 Student motivation 52
CHAPTER 4 : DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY 54
4.1 Teachers‟ perceptions of different aspects of cooperative learning 54
4.1.1 Implementation 54
4.1.2 Task construction 57
4.1.3 Group composition 58
4.1.4 Student preparation 59
4.1.5 Assessment 59 8

4.1.6 Student motivation 60
4.1.7 Teachers‟ reflections on CL 60
4.2. Teachers‟ implementation of cooperative learning in their classroom 61
4.2.1 Implementation 62
4.2.2 Task construction 62
4.2.3 Group composition 63
4.3.4 Student preparation 63
4.4.5 Assessment 64
4.1.6 Student motivation 64
4.3 To what extent did their classroom practices reflect their perceptions 65
PART C: CONCLUSION 69

Appendix 1B: The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
Appendix 2A: Interview questions
Appendix 2B: One example of transcription of teacher‟s Interviews


PART A: INTRODUCTION
This initial part states the rationale for the study, the aims, the scope and methods
of the thesis. More importantly, the research questions are identified to work as clear 11

guidelines for the whole research. Lastly, this part concludes with an overview of the rest
of the thesis, serving as a compass to orientate the readers throughout the study.
1. Rationale
It is widely accepted that we are living in a technological-based society where
individuals are required to depend on each other and think with others if we want to obtain
success. The ability to work together cooperatively has become one of the skills which
enable people to survive in the global workforce (Foyle & Shafto,1995). In response,
educators have proposed significant changes in educational setting to create an
environment where students have the opportunities to work together to develop
cooperative skills. As the result, an effective teaching and learning in this global era should
be the one which can create a situation context in which students have opportunities to
work together, then produce new knowledge, is cooperative learning. In a very basic sense,
“CL is the instructional use of small groups so that students share the responsibility of
working together to maximize their own and each other‟s learning” (Johnson, Johnson &
Holubec,2002).
In the context of Viet Nam National University, University of Economics and
Business, English is being taught as a compulsory subject for non-major students. As far as
the situation of English language learning and teaching is concerned, students have
confronted a number of obstacles preventing them from achieving communicative
competence and cooperating with each other. Moreover, because of credit course program,
students can choose English class to learn by themselves. Hence, a class may include a
number of highly achieving students having spent years on English learning at secondary

in their classroom at VNU, UEB?
2. How did they implement cooperative learning in their classroom?
3. To what extent did their classroom practices reflect their perceptions?
4. Scope of the study
The study is restricted to the area of investigating the perceptions of six teachers at
VNU, UEB about different aspects of CL and exploring their actual classroom practices.
After that similarities and differences between their perceptions and practices were
discussed.
The samples of the study are also limited to six teachers at VNU, UEB and only
first year students from main stream classes in one semester of school year at Vietnam
National University, University of Economics and Business. In second term of school
year 2011-2012, the students were learning A2 English Program with course book New
English File, Pre-intermediate.
5. Significance of the study 13

As one of the trail-blazing studies on implementing CL in LMLC at VNU, UEB,
the thesis could be particularly useful for students, teachers, and researchers who develop
an interest in the topic.
Specifically, since the study looked into implementing CL in LMLC and some
suggestions for implementing CL effectively, students can gain more knowledge to use CL
for communicative purposes, learn social and inter-personal skills which are very
important for them in global world now.
As for the teachers, they would get useful information on different types of CL
methods, CL activities, as well as some ways to apply CL effectively in their classroom.
Besides, they would have more ideas of implementing CL in other countries. In addition,
the study also provides teachers with some helpful suggestions so that they could take their
own initiatives to effectively implement CL in their classroom situations.

initial list of the most general concepts that spatially the connection in the data related to
descriptive, lexical meaning or low level inference of text. Then the researcher investigated
various aspects of each main idea to develop sub-categories. Besides, the participants‟
answers to open-ended questions in interviews would be summarized and presented in the
form of quotation and cited if necessary. For the classroom observation, the researchers
watched the videotapes for many times, and emerged main ideas of teachers‟
implementation of CL in classroom and sub-ideas of their CL implementation in LMLC
were also found out.
7 An overview of the rest of the study
The rest of the thesis includes four chapters
Chapter 1 (Literature review) provides the background of the study including definitions
of key concepts, aspects of cooperative learning, multilevel classes and previous findings
of cooperative learning.
Chapter 2 (Methodology) describes the aims, research questions, context, participants and
instruments of the study, as well as the procedures employed to carry out the research.
Chapter 3 (Results of the study) presents all results collected from data from the
interviews and classroom observations
Chapter 4 (Discussion of the study): summarizes main findings, analyzes the findings,
and compares them with previous research to answer three research questions.
Conclusion summarizes the main issues discussed in the thesis, the findings that the
researcher found out from the data collected according to three research questions, the
limitations of the research, several pedagogical recommendations concerning the research
topic as well as some suggestions for further studies. Following this chapter are
bibliography and appendices.

Summary 15



PART B: DEVELOPMENT 16

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides an overview of the literature, specifically the background and
a number of studies related to the research topic, laying the solid foundations for the
subsequent development of the thesis. Not only are key terms like cooperative learning
and large multilevel class defined but background information about the key terms is also
presented to ensure the thorough understanding of the research matters.
1.1 Cooperative learning
1.1.1 Underpinning theory of cooperative learning
The theories related to the rationale of this study came from three researchers,
Vygotsky from Russia, Piaget from France and Albert Bandura from the USA.
The Russian scholar Lev Vygotsky perspective related to cooperative learning was
the Zone of Proximal Development and the ensued affect on Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis.
According to Vygotsky (1978), all good learning was that which was advance of
development and involved the acquisition of skills just beyond the student‟s grasp. Such
learning occurred through interaction within the student‟s zone of proximal development.
Vygotsky defined the zone of proximal development as the discrepancy between the
student‟s actual development level (i.e., independent achievement) and his/her potential level
(achievement with help from a more competent partner).By explaining human language
development and cognitive development, Vygotsky‟s theory served as a strong foundation
for the modern trends in applied linguistics . It lent support to less structured and more
natural, communicative and experiential approaches and pointed to the importance of early
real-world human interaction in foreign language learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
In contrast to Vygosky‟s perspective that learning which resulted from social
interaction leads cognitive development, Piaget‟s theory suggested that cognitive

being taught. Jacobs (Jacobs, 1997:2) gave a definition of cooperative learning “a body of
concepts and techniques for helping to maximize the benefits of cooperation among
students in education”. In other words, cooperative learning provides language teachers
with essential concepts of heterogeneous classes, learner cooperation and mutual help in
learning and it equips teachers with effective instructional techniques to exploit
cooperation in language learning classes.
There is no official definition of cooperative learning. However, cooperative
learning is generally referred to as a variety of teaching methods in which students work in
small groups to help one another learn academic content. In cooperative classrooms,
students are expected to help each other, discuss and debate with each other, assess each
other‟s current knowledge, and fill any gaps in each other‟s understanding.
Cooperative learning is different from what is often called “group work”. In
principle, cooperative learning stuck to five elements, positive interdependence, individual
accountability, quality group processing, face-to-face promotive interaction and social 18

skills. On the other hand, group learning simply put students sit and work in groups
without further assistance or careful structure to make group work become teamwork. In
practice, the differences between cooperative learning and traditional group learning were
illustrated in the following table:
Table 1A: Differences between cooperative learning and group learning
Cooperative Learning
Group learning
Positive interdependence with structured
goals
No positive interdependence
Individual accountability
No individual accountability

accountability, face-to-face promotive interaction, interpersonal and small group skills and
group processing.
1.1.3.1 Positive Interdependence
The first and most important element in structuring cooperative learning is positive
interdependence. Positive interdependence exists when group members are linked together
in such a way that one can not succeed unless others do and all members need to contribute 19

to each other‟s learning. It is the “All for one, one for all” feeling keeps the members learn
the materials and help other members to understand the materials too. Johnson and Johnson
(1999) suggested that teachers may promote Positive Interdependence by establishing the
following:
● A group mutual goal to achieve.
● A warm and friendly environment with group members sitting close together, so that
they can easily see each other‟s work and hear each other without using loud voices. This
may seem trivial, but very important to the success of the CL activities.
● Assigned roles to group members as leader, summarizer, reporter, time reminder, etc.
● Shared resources. They may be one paper for each group, or each member receives
unique resources such as a/some parts of the required information, equipments (paper,
color marketed) teachers tend to use.
● External challenges (e.g.: references, websites) for long-staying groups to improve group
dynamics.
● Joint rewards. If all group members achieve a pre-set goal, they will receive a reward
(e.g.: bonus points, grades, certificates, the choice of future activity, etc).
Positive independence lies at the heart of CL. When positive independence has been
successfully structured, teachers tend to see students put their heads close together over
their work, talking about the work, sharing about the answers and materials and
encouraging each other to learn. However, if teachers do not give careful thought before

- Having students teach what they learned to someone else. When all students do
this, it is called simultaneous explaining.
1.1.3.3 Face-to-face promotive interaction
Positive interdependence results in promotive interaction. Promotive interaction
may be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each other's efforts to achieve,
complete tasks, and produce in order to reach the group's goals. To obtain meaningful face-
to-face interaction, students need to be seated so they face each other if they are to engage
in group discussions and promote each other‟s ideas.
Besides, a positive classroom environment was also associated with the quality of
group interaction. The implementation of an appropriate interaction process constitutes a
major component that helped to improve the student outcome in any academic and
behavioral problems, and helped to establish a greater academic environment in the
classroom.
1.1.3.4 Social skills
CL also requires particular interpersonal and small group skills. Students must
often be taught the social skills for high quality collaboration and be motivated to use these
skills. In order to coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals, students must: 1) get to know
and trust each other, 2) communicate accurately and unambiguously, 3) accept and 21

support each other, and 4) resolve conflict constructively (Johnson, 2001; Johnson & F.
Johnson, 2001).
Studies on the long-term implementation of cooperative learning found that the
highest achievement is promoted by a combination of positive goal interdependence, an
academic contingency for high performance by all group members and a reward
contingency for using social skills. The results indicated that the combination of positive
interdependence, an academic contingency for high performance by all group members,
and a social skills contingency promoted the highest achievement.

Student Team
Achievement
Divisions (STAD)
Slavin &
associates
Late
1970s
All
subjects
● One of the simplest and most widely used of all CL methods.
● Includes four main steps: (1) the teacher presents the lesson;
(2) students work in mixed-ability teams of 4 or 5; (3) students
do individual quizzes; and (4) team scores are made based on
team members‟ improvement scores.
All levels
Team Games
Tournaments
(TGT)

DeVires &
Slavin
Early
1970s
All
subjects
● Have the same dynamics as STAD, but add a dimension of
excitement contributed by the use of games

All levels
Team Assisted

23
Learning together
(LT)
Johnson
&Johnson
1986
All
subjects
● Emphasize face-to-face interaction, positive interdependence,
individual accountability, interpersonal and small-group skills.
All levels
Group
investigation
Sharan &
Sharan
1976
All
subjects
● Its main steps include: conduct investigation, prepare a final
report, present and evaluate.
All levels
Jigsaw and Jigsaw
II
Aronson,
Slavin
1978
Social
subjects
● Students work in small groups. Those who have the same topic
are group in “expert group” then each member in the „expert


24
1.1.5 Benefits of cooperative learning
Hundreds of studies mentioned advantages of CL, compared the effects of CL with
other instructional methods such as the lecture method or individualized instruction. Research
conducted in many different subjects areas and various age groups of students has general
shown positive effects of CL in the following areas: academic achievement, developing of
high order thinking, self-esteem and self-confidence as learners, inter-group relations
including friendships across racial and ethnic boundaries, social acceptance of mainstreamed
students labeled as disabled, development of social skills and the ability to take the perspective
of another person. Johnson and Johnson (1989, 2001), Slavin (1990) and Sharan (1990) all
identify three main categories of advantages of using CL such as achievement, inter-personal
relationships and psychological health and social competence.
1.1.5.1 Achievement
Over 370 studies in the past 100 years (Johnson and Johnson, 1994) have shown how
working together to achieve a common goal procedures higher achievement and greater
productivity than working alone. In 1981, Johnson and his colleagues published a meta-
analysis of 122 studies examining CL and its impact on achievement. This showed that
cooperation promotes higher achievement for all age groups and for a variety of tasks. The
cooperation also improved the more group members were required to produce a group
product. CL also results in process again (i.e.: more high level reasoning), greater transfer of
what is learned within one situation to another and more time on task.
Slavin (1989) reviewed 60 studies of CL and found that gains in academic
achievement were examined if group goals and individual accountability by members of the
group were embedded. Sharan (1980) reviewed five methods of CL including Teams-games-
tournaments, student team learning, learning together and investigation. He found that students
perform more effectively in small groups than traditional whole class settings and the group
investigation produced higher levels of cognitive functioning. This he found due to peer
interaction which clarified misunderstanding and developed problem solving skills.
1.1.5.2 Inter-personal relationships

science-based learning activity in schools where teachers had been trained in how to establish
cooperative learning activities in class. Thus, teachers need to understand how to apply 26
cooperative learning into the classroom curricula to foster open communication and
engagement between teachers and students, promote cooperative investigation, problem-
solving and reasoning, and provide students with an environment where they feel supported
and emotionally secure (Johnson & Johnson,2003; Roseth, Johnson,&Johnson,2008).
Moreover, Blatchford, Kutnick, Baines, and Galton (2003) said that to apply
cooperative learning effectively in classroom, the context in which it is to be used needs to be
prepared, students need to taught the appropriate interactional skills, teachers need to be taught
how to work with groups, and the lessons and tasks need to be well organized. Students need
to be placed in classroom situations where they have many opportunities to reap benefits from
interacting with others.
Likewise, Johnson (2001) emphasizes the importance of preparing the physical space
for learning and teaching, ensuring the learning tasks are challenging and engage students in
high-order thinking, helping teachers to understand that they need to accept their role as
procedures of new classroom curricula and programs, and training students in the social and
academic skills they will need to negotiate their new learning environment.
Besides, both Blactchford et al. and Johnson recognize the complexity and
multidimensionality of small-group learning and the importance of preparing the environment
and individuals if students, in turn, are to reap the benefits widely attributed to this approach to
learning.
1.1.7 Empirical studies related to cooperative learning
Researchers from different countries from the West, Asia and also Vietnam had
numerous studies about different areas of CL.
CL in the West.
Research on CL began in the late 1800s, and over the past hundred years, over 575
experimental and 109 correlational studies have been conducted at a variety of educational

how CL has been adapted in Asian context and how teachers and students perceive this method.
Young-Ihm (2002) conducted research in a large Korean preschool and pointed to a large
discrepancy between what the teachers believe (US/Western models of child-centered
approaches and what they actually practice (remaining traditional). Sachs et al. (2006)
conducted a one-year study to develop innovative modes of cooperative teaching and learning,
investigate the acquisition and development of the students‟ communication strategies and 28
compare the effects of transmissive versus cooperative learning in facilitating the students‟
English language development. Messier‟s (2003), Zakaria and Iksan (2007) studied teachers‟
perceptions toward teaching and learning. They specified that the culture of “do not trust
students in acquiring knowledge by themselves” of Malaysian classrooms” of Malaysia
teachers prevented the implementation of CL into Malaysian classrooms. In conclusion, there
were a number of studies about different topics of CL. There were various mismatches between
CL assumptions and teaching, learning in classrooms,
CL in Vietnam
In Vietnam, the introduction to cooperative learning started at the beginning of the
1990s when the country implemented the Renovation policy (known as Doi Moi) in 1989.
After conducting an examination of the development of education in Vietnam in 2000
UNESCO suggested that Vietnamese students need to be trained with new methods so that they
can be provided with new working skills that are in high demand of global employers such as
activeness, cooperativeness, creativeness and argumentativeness (Tran, 2000). Facing a lot of
pressures, finally at the outset of implementing the student-centeredness, MOET (2004)
emphasized strongly “Learning by rote needs to be eliminated from all school levels and
replaced with student-centered learning. Any teachers found failing to change their teaching
style would be listed and provided with video-tapes showing new teaching techniques. If they
still failed to improve, they would be sent for intensive training (MOET, 2004).”
To respond the pushing of these policies, Vietnamese educators and researchers have,
during the last decade, tried to introduce cooperative learning practices to classrooms through