'WE' CAN DO MORE THAN 'I'!: students' perceptions of collaborative learning groups in a third year foreign language classroom
by
Susan Anderson
Japanese Program, Griffith University (Gold Coast campus)
and
Guy Ramsay
Department of Asian Languages and Studies, the University of Queensland
Background
The status of both Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) and Modern Standard Chinese (MSC) in Australian schools and tertiary institutions has changed dramatically over the last two decades. Marriott (1992:21) reported that between 1983 and 1989 there was a five-fold increase in the student population studying JFL, while Smith, et al (1993:x) noted that MSC has also seen significant increases in numbers of students, however this has been from a small base number. Both MSC and Japanese are now nationally recognised in Australia as two of the five priority target foreign languages to be taught in schools and tertiary institutions (Rudd 1994).
Although popular, both JFL and MSC courses worldwide are acknowledged as having extremely high attrition rates. The statistics gathered by Mills, Samuels and Sherwood in 1987, indicated that the attrition rate for students studying JFL was as high as eighty percent (Samimy 1994:29). Australian statistics, taken from 1996 enrollments in Japanese language subjects at Griffith University: Nathan Campus support this notion. In 1996 there were 210 students in first year, 109 in second year and 85 in third year (Fitzgerald 1996:12). This represents an attrition rate of over 60% which is unacceptably high. Although exact figures are not available, MSC follows this trend with Smith et al (1993:26) noting "the particularly low retention rates into the senior levels".
The exact reasons for this high attrition rate are not clear, but Samimy (1994:29), noted that the perceived difficulty of a script using language itself has been identified by American students as producing strong negative affective reactions from students whose first language is English. He states that "unfamiliarity with the orthographic systems in Japanese can create major affective as well as cognitive barriers for learners to overcome" (29).
However, despite the increasing demand, the continuing high attrition rate, and the acknowledged difficulty of a script-using language such as Japanese (see Nicholas 1993; Cavalier 1994; Kirkpatrick 1994; Everson 1994), there seems to have been little pedagogical innovation in the teaching of MSC and JFL. A survey of Australian, American and Canadian universities (Hatasa 1989), showed little variety in textbooks or pedagogy used in the JFL reading classroom. Specific pedagogies aimed at the inherent difficulties of learning to read an orthographic script are long overdue.
Adding further pressure to this discipline-based dilemma are the challenges presently confronting the university sector in Australia. Coaldrake (1995), discusses the problems resulting from government and community demands for more accountability and better performance at the same time as budgetary constraints are enforced. Teachers and learners of foreign languages in the tertiary sector are facing ever-worsening teaching and learning contexts. As Fitzgerald (1996:23) noted,
Asian languages staff must anticipate that things will get worse financially, and plan, and initiate reforms rather than wait passively for the worst to happen..............they must re-arrange their thinking about how to teach languages."
The present study was undertaken with these words in mind.
Purpose and significance of study
In the JFL and MSC classroom, both the affective and cognitive barriers created by unfamiliarity with the orthographic system must be addressed through curricular and pedagogical developments to reduce attrition rates and produce competent non-native readers of JFL and MSC. Research on the affective factors involved in the JFL context is being carried out (eg. Samimy and Tabuse 1992; Oxford, et al 1993; Samimy 1994). However, good educational techniques must perceive cognitive processes as being in partnership with, not removed from motivational processes. They must be considered concurrently.
Although there has been an increase in research into the cognitive barriers referred to by Samimy (eg. Harada 1988; Hatasa 1989; Horiba 1990; Itoh 1991; De Courcy and Birch 1993; Anderson 1994; Everson 1994; Dobson 1995), there has been little indication of either curricular or pedagogical innovation based on this empirical data for students with an alphabet-using first language. This study partially fills this void and makes a contribution to the teaching and learning of JFL and MSC. Moreover, this study implements an alternative pedagogy that meets not only the institutional needs in times of tight fiscal policies, but also the learners' needs, both affective and cognitive in acknowledged difficult subject areas.
A search of the literature found a wealth of information on Collaborative Learning Groups (CLGs) (see Johnson and Johnson 1986; Bossert 1988; Jackson and Prosser 1989; Slavin 1991; Cohen 1994; amongst others). As stated by McKeachie (1986:63) cited in Biggs (1991), "There is a wealth of evidence that peer teaching is extremely effective for a wide range of goals, content, and students of different levels and personalities."
Collaborative learning for this study is defined as heterogeneous groups of students working together in a group that is small enough for all to participate in an assigned collective task. This pedagogy offers the following to the learner: task authenticity (Jackson and Prosser 1989); motivation, both social approval and achievement, and less anxiety (Daniels 1994); higher achievement (Johnson and Johnson 1986; Nichols and Miller 1994); self-directed learning where a favourable climate of collaborating with peers and lecturers is established (Thomson 1995); more advanced cognitive processing or higher order thinking skills through negotiating with peers (Bossert 1988). This pedagogy addresses the previously mentioned cognitive and affective problems facing learners of JFL and MSC.
To the institution, CLGs offer a learner-directed learning context where high staff/student ratios do not affect the learning outcomes for students. This pedagogy, therefore, seems fiscally appropriate to the present institutional context.
Only two studies using CLGs in the foreign language learning context were found. Morimoto (1994) in a JFL classroom, and Szosteck (1994) in a Spanish classroom, both found the CLG pedagogy to be effective in tertiary classrooms. The present study aimed primarily to establish students' perceptions of CLGs in both the JFL and MSC learning contexts. This study adds to the empirical data on learning a foreign language which is both non-cognate and non-alphabet using, that is, JFL or MSC. This study established baseline data for more extensive research into the effectiveness of the CLG pedagogy, and how the pedagogy works in a foreign language classroom. This study answered the following question:
What are the students' perceptions of using collaborative learning groups in a JFL and MSC classroom?
The study
Setting
The study was carried out initially in 1997, using 64 student enrolled in
the Japanese Studies Program at Griffith University: Gold Coast. All students
were enrolled in a third year reading and listening comprehension subject.
The study was extended this year to include in a third year MSC written-stream
subject at the University of Queensland. A total of 26 students are currently
involved. The majority of students in both contexts are from English speaking
backgrounds, although there are a number from script-using backgrounds.
The JFL subject focuses on developing in students the knowledge and skills required to comprehend news and current affairs through print and electronic media. News texts - audio, video and print - are selected for students' analysis for comprehension. There is no JFL production work involved in this subject. Assessment in both subjects includes comprehension and translation activities, although weightings vary.
The MSC written-stream subject focuses on developing students' reading, translation and writing skills. It incorporates a range of text genres, with particular emphasis on mass media text and literary prose. Although there are some differences between the subjects, it was felt they were similar enough to offer valuable comparable data on CLGs.
The implementation of CLGs
Both lecturers chose to explicitly offer training to students in group work.
As Taylor and Collier (1998:42) noted, "the need to manage the expectations
of students during the introduction of any novel practice has to be a central
issue in the design process".
In the JFL subject, during the first semester students were prepared for CLGs through written study guides and direct instruction within practice groups. In lectures and tutorials, the lecturer modeled strategic reading skills and discussed a variety of learning strategies. In week one of semester two, the students voted on how to use their allocated four contact hours with the lecturer. As a combined group they made attendance non-compulsory, and each of the four hours was allocated to CLGs with the lecturer present. Individual students were to self-select classes to attend and group members.
CLGs were introduced in the MSC classroom in first semester this year. In the first four weeks of semester, students were introduced to various methods of structuring their groupwork. Direct instruction in these methods was offered by the lecturer. In the final session, groups were asked to discuss the pros and cons of each method used and negotiate a premium method to be used in the translation task allocated. This directly reflects Kolb's (1984) 'Experiential Learning Cycle' - a model of how a theory is related to practice in learning by doing.
In both contexts, students were allowed to self-select what method and group membership they saw to be appropriate to their needs. There was, in fact, significant resistance to the lecturer allocating students to groups so they were allowed to self-select members.
Limitations of study
This is an ongoing descriptive study aimed at identifying students' perceptions of specific learning contexts. Therefore, it makes no claims to being generalisable to all other learning contexts. It is also limited to the processes involved in the comprehension, production and translation of FL text, and these may vary from the processes used in other contexts. Despite these limitations, the patterns delineated can be considered as hypotheses to be tested in future studies with larger or varied groups. The data can also make an important contribution when instructional decisions about JFL or MSC are being made.
Methodology
The study aimed to establish student perceptions of CLGs in the FL context. It is acknowledged that questionnaires do have some limitations including problems with misinterpretation of questions, vague and neutral responses and interpretation of results (Ramsden and Dodds 1989). However, this is the preliminary study for a project that will attempt to gain further insight into the CLG learning context through interviews with students, analysis of learner journals, and recording and observation of CLGs in action. The questionnaire gives preliminary data on which to base the interview questions and code the data from the journals and recordings of group work. The questionnaire used included both likert type and open response questions, and data was collected from the JFL context. Learner journals and quotes from TEVALs were examined to collect qualitative data in the MSC context. The observations of both a non-participant colleague in each context, and the researchers were collected to corroborate the data collected from students.
Results
Students' Perceptions
The results are presented in two parts: firstly, JFL students' responses
to the likert type questions, and; secondly, JFL responses to the open-ended
questions and MSC comments from learner journals and TEVALS.
Results of the likert type questions
The responses of the students to the 13 likert type questions of the questionnaire
are given in table 1.
Table 1: Responses to Question 1- 13
The students were overwhelmingly positive towards the use of CLGs, with 86.1% liking the methodology and 75% preferring to continue its use in the future. 88.9% responded that discussion and negotiating meaning with other students helped them to learn. 91.7% responded that listening to the opinions of others enabled them to learn, while 83.3% responded that explaining to others enabled them to learn. The lowest affirmative response was 38.9% to question nine which asked whether students felt a sense of ownership of the operation of the group, with 41.7% unsure. 55.6% responded in the affirmative to question seven which asked whether students felt they learnt more from the small group format than from the lecture mode used in first semester. 33.3% were unsure and only 11.1 % responded in the negative. 80.6% of students responded that they felt actively engaged in learning and 97.2% felt responsible for their own learning. Moreover, they all felt that they learnt from the input of others and by teaching or explaining to others. Both of these cognitive strategies were not previously available to students in lecture mode.
Results of the open-ended questions and journal comments
An analysis of the open-ended responses corroborated the data gathered through
the likert type questions. An overall positive response to the pedagogy
was indicated through comments made by both MSC and JFL students. Some examples
are:
I feel motivated to work outside of class time so that I know what is going on and can be involved, voice an opinion.
We use our ability to help each other. I can explained[sic] the Chinese words for them and they can g[i]ve me the words in English! Which is a very cool combinations[sic]!
Being able to share knowledge and discussions are the best things.
Speed of learning is regulated by the group but monitored by the lecturer.
I don't feel intimidated to ask questions.
I've really enjoyed this activity, it's been my favourite so far. I've learnt more efficiently in this group working thing than anything else to date...... My group was great and shared the workload 100%.
The students indicated that they felt comfortable learning in small groups and most felt it enhanced their learning. Responses evidence that Samimy's (1994) affective and cognitive barriers have been addressed. The documented positive aspects of CLGs (see Johnson and Johnson 1986; Bossert 1988; Jackson and Prosser 1989; Slavin 1991; Cohen 1994; amongst others) also are seen to be effective for the JFL and MSC classroom.
All negative comments focused on the organisational level of the learning context rather than the affective or cognitive domains. Some examples of these comments were:
Sometimes chaotic with all talking at once. Very noisy.
Sometimes groups split into pairs.
Not enough chairs.
Irrelevant things coming up in discussion, sidetracking.
These issues, although they are seen to be an irritation to the students, do not detract from the students' active engagement in their learning.
Students recognised that CLGs allowed the pace of learning to be adapted to individual needs which does not happen in lecture mode. As mentioned above, the lecturer controlled the whole semester's learning by stipulating the content to be covered. However, the groups controlled weekly or class sessions. Students also felt that this allowed a more thorough coverage of the subject content. The group could slow down, speed up or review as they saw necessary. It was also seen to be adaptable to learners with different needs as the large group or lecture format was too fast for many.
Students indicated their belief in the importance of self-selection of groups. They felt the need to work with students who they felt comfortable with and had the same attitude to study. They also felt that they understood better than the lecturer how other students tackle problems. Only one student indicated that s/he would prefer the lecturer to regularly rotate group members to allow those of lesser proficiency to study with those of higher proficiency. It was noted that quite a large proportion of students rotated regularly of their own accord to see what other groups were doing.
In summary, the data from the questionnaire, learner journals and TEVAL indicate that in relation to the affective domain, CLGs have significantly achieved social, instrumental and motivational gains. They evidence a cohort of students who are relaxed and confident, and who enjoy their studies. Cognitively and metacognitively, students indicate that they are both coping with the barriers to learning inherent in the subject (Samimy 1994), and are becoming aware of the variety of strategies that they are employing in their learning context.
JFL Colleague Non-participant Observations
The observer was a Japanese native speaker who has previously convened and
co-taught this subject with the author. The following comments were made:
- Questions asked by students were valid and well thought out. More often than not they were just seeking clarification of what they had already worked through.
- On occasion there was a total silencing or invisibility of the researcher. This was seen to be an indicator of student control of learning. In fact, perhaps it is not necessary for the lecturer to be in each and every class if CLGs are adopted as a pedagogy
- Groups appeared to be consistently on task.
- There was a relaxed, friendly atmosphere in the classroom though some more heated debates were observed.
- Impressed to see students of such varied proficiencies able to work so closely together.
- Observed students using a variety of strategies to decode and process the texts.
Overall, the observer described an active, stress-free classroom with motivated students apparently learning difficult content material strategically and confidently. S/he was impressed with what was observed. At this point it must be noted that the students were aware of the observer's presence in the classroom and may have been on their best behaviour.
Negative comments were made about the noise in the room and the fact that sometimes the room was very crowded. These reflected the organisational problems recorded in the student data and are, as previously mentioned, being addressed. S/he observed that some students chose to sit alone in carrels but this was seen to be acceptable as it was their choice to do so and perhaps reflected their preferred learning style.
MSC Colleague Non-participant Observations
The observer was a L1-MSC speaker currently enrolled in a Doctoral Program
in the Graduate School of Education, University of Queensland. The following
comments were made:
- Students appeared to be motivated to participate in group discussions.
- Through discussion students help each other to learn.
- All students actively engaged with learning materials.
- Students selected appropriate methods to use in their allotted tasks.
- The learning context was most relaxed and enjoyable .
Researchers' Observations
This data is necessarily qualitative and subjective but is seen to be valid
in that it is corroborated by the other data collected.
Classes were basically relaxed and informal although very noisy. Some students chose to work alone but when approached said they preferred to do so. Learner control allowed them to make that choice. Some students changed groups regularly to get different perspectives on the subject matter. This also was left to the individual student. The majority however, formed groups that they felt comfortable to work with and stayed most of the time in these groups. Also, groups interacted if the lecturer was working with another group at the time. The proficient students were called on, almost as assistants to the lecturer, by students of lesser proficiency. On the whole, the student body seemed motivated to learn and never hesitated to approach the lecturer with queries about their learning. This all indicates that affectively, CLGs offered the students a favourable learning context.
The lecturer's role was to rotate between the groups answering questions as they arose and settling differences of opinions. A range of cognitive strategies in use were observed such as formulating questions, association, inferencing, translation and skimming and scanning text. Metacognitive strategies such as organising, checking understanding and varying strategy use were also observed. CLGs, and the activities used, allowed the students to use a range of cognitive abilities and expand their strategy inventory through modeling of strategy use by other students.
It must be noted that there were times when the students were not in need of lecturer support which indicates that this pedagogy would be appropriate for fiscally tight times. It is envisaged that the use of this pedagogy will mean that less contact time will need to be allocated to this subject which will free the lecturer up to teach in other areas.
Discussion and implications
The data clearly indicate that students, the researchers and the non-participant observers, all perceive CLGs to be an effective method for teaching and learning both JFL and MSC in the affective, the cognitive and the meta-cognitive domains. Students indicated increased motivation and satisfaction which affectively assisted the students to learn. At the cognitive level, students saw, modeled in the learning behaviour of others, a range of cognitive and metacognitive strategies which a sole lecturer would not be able to perform. This modeling offered students the opportunity to expand or fine-tune their own repertoire of strategies required to comprehend JFL. The pedagogy is therefore seen to be effective - affectively and cognitively. Moreover, it addresses the inherent barriers in teaching JFL and MSC under fiscal restraints.
It raised a number of implications for teaching. Firstly, assessment in this type of teaching/ learning context should be group based. Secondly, although this pedagogy was introduced in third year, the researcher feels confident that this could be introduced at an earlier stage in the learning process. Thirdly, instead of the modeling of strategy use, explicit instruction of strategies may be of more help to students. All of these will need to be investigated for the future delivery of these subjects. Further data collection and trials of explicit instruction of strategies are required to validate these issues.
This ongoing research has revealed important data with implications for further research in the FL classroom. These include the need to observe and record the actual performance of the CLGs to determine what processes are at play. There is also a need to more fully document the effect of CLGs on students' learning performance. Student interviews about questions raised by the data would also allow a deeper understanding of the students' perceptions of the learning groups and the role they play in their learning.
Conclusion
This research project is an ongoing study to identify students' perceptions of CLGs. This study demonstrates that students perceive CLGs to be an effective methodology in both the JFL and MSC classroom. The corroboration of teacher observations by both the students and a non-participant observer gives validity to these observations though they are of necessity, qualitative and subjective.
The results of this study do not suggest that CLGs should be used to replace all other types of teaching and learning. As Wilga Rivers (Rehorick 1990:285) stated, "the best teachers tend to be eclecticists, selecting judiciously what helps to improve student learning", to which could be added - in the ever-changing teaching and learning contexts that we face. However, a pedagogy such as CLGs can be particularly important at a time when tight government fiscal policies dictate decreased funding in higher education.
References
ANDERSON, S.E. (1994) Cognitive strategies and the reading of Japanese as a foreign language: a study in a tertiary level, basic Japanese classroom. unpublished research report, Faculty of Education, Griffith University.
BIGGS, B. (Ed.) (1991) Teaching for effective learning. Research and Development in Higher Education 13, pp.11-26.
BOSSERT, S. T. (1988) Co-operative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education 15, pp.225-252.
CAVALIER, R. (Chair) (1994) Speaking of business- the needs of business and industry for language skills. Sydney, Australian Language and Literacy Council.
COALDRAKE, P. (1995) Implications for higher education of the public sector reform agenda. Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology.
COHEN, E.G. (1994) Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small group work. Review of Educational Research 64, 1, pp.1-35.
DANIELS, R. (1994) Motivational mediators of cooperative learning. Psychological Reports 74, pp.1011-1022.
DECOURCEY, M. and G. BIRCH. (1993) Reading and writing strategies used in a Japanese immersion program. unpublished research report, Faculty of Education, Griffith University.
DOBSON, A. (1995) A comparative study of the reading strategies of tertiary students of Japanese as a second language. unpublished Masters thesis, Faculty of Education, Griffith University.
EVERSON, M.E. (1994) Towards a process view of teaching reading in the second language Chinese curriculum. Theory into Practice 33, 1, pp.4-9.
FITZGERALD, S. (Chair) (1996) Report of the review committee of the Asian languages review, Griffith University. unpublished report, Griffith University.
HARADA, F. (1988) The effect of three different orthographic presentations of text upon the reading behaviours of native and non-native readers of Japanese: an eye-tracking study. unpublished PhD thesis, Ohio State University.
HATASA, K.(1989) A study of learning and teaching of kanji for non-native learners of Japanese. Dissertations Abstracts Internationa, 50, 5.
HORIBA, Y. (1990) Narrative comprehension processes: a study of native and non-native readers of Japanese. Modern Language Journal 74, 2, pp. 188-202.
ITOH, H. (1991) Reading proficiency development: strategy use training for students. Sekai no Nihongo Ky(iku 1, pp.145-160.
JACKSON, M.W. and M.T. PROSSER. (1989) Less lecturing, more learning. Studies in Higher Education 14, 1, pp.55-68.
JOHNSON, D. and R. JOHNSON. (1986) Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies. Exceptional Children 52, pp.553-561.
KIRKPATRICK, A. (1994) Which languages and when? Learning Asian languages in Australia. unpublished conference paper.
KOLB, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
MARRIOTT, H. (1992) The teaching of Japanese in Australia. Vox 6, pp.21-32.
MCKEACHIE, W.J., P. PINTRICH, Y-G. LIN and D. SMITH. (1986) Teaching and learning in the college classroom. University of Michigan,
NCRIPTAL. MILLS, D.O., R.J. SAMUELS and D.L. SHERWOOD. (1987) Technical Japanese for scientists and engineers: curricular options. Washington, DC, National Science Foundation.
MORIMOTO, T. (1994) The effects of a reading strategy and reciprocal peer tutoring on intermediate reading comprehension. Sekai no Nihongo Kyoiku 4, pp.75-83.
NICHOLAS, H. (Chair) (1993) Languages at the crossroads: the report of the national inquiry into the employment and supply of teachers of languages other than English. Melbourne, National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.
NICHOLS, J.D. and R.B. MILLER. (1994) Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology19, pp.167-178.
OXFORD, R., Y. PARK-OH, S. ITO and M. SURNRALL. (1993) Japanese by satellite: effects of motivation, language learning styles and strategies, gender, course level, and previous language learning experience on Japanese language achievement. Foreign Language Annals 26, 3, pp.293-371.
RAMSDEN, P. and A. DODDS. (1989) Improving teaching and courses: a guide to evaluation. Melbourne, Centre for the Study of Higher Education.
REHORICK, S. (1990) A conversation with Wilga Rivers. Canadian Modern Language Review 46, 2, pp.502-512.
RUDD, K. (Chair) (1994) Asian languages and Australia's economic future. Brisbane, Queensland Government Printer.
SAMIMY, K. and M. TABUSE. (1992) Affective variables and a less commonly taught language: a study in beginning Japanese classes. Language Learning 42, pp.377-398.
SAMIMY, K. (1994) Teaching Japanese: consideration of learners' affective variables. Theory into Practice 33, 1, pp.29-33.
SLAVIN, R.E. (1991) Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership 48, 5, pp.71-82.
SMITH, D., N.B. Chin, K. Louie and C. Mackerras. (1993) Unlocking Australia's Language Potential. Vol.2- Chinese. NLLIA.
SZOSTECK, C. (1994) Assessing the effects of cooperative learning in an Honors foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 27, 2, pp.252-260.
TAYLOR, P. AND B. COLLIER. (1998) Group Work For Flexible Learning. Queensland: Griffith Institute for Higher Education.
THOMSON, C.K. (1995) A learner-centred foreign language curriculum for a large diverse group of students? Yes, it is possible. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S 12, pp.119-130.