Tính hiệu quả của việc sử dụng phương pháp học hợp tác trong dạy kỹ năng viết cho sinh viên năm thứ 2 khoa anh, trường đại học tây bắc

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

interaction via working in small groups to maximize their learning and reach their shared
goal. This type of learning approach is believed to decrease competitiveness and
individualism but increase opportunities to actively construct or transform the knowledge
among students. Furthermore, considerable research demonstrated that CL produces
higher achievement and more positive relationships among students. In short, CL is a
powerful educational approach for helping all students attain content standards and

2

develop the interpersonal skills for succeeding. With these reasons, I desire to study
whether the CL method is really a remedy for the teaching and learning English writing
skill at Tay Bac University, where I have been teaching.

2. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY
This study was firstly aimed at examining the effectiveness of CL on improving
the students’ writing skill, changing their attitude towards writing, as well as fostering the
students’s engagement and participation in their writing lessons in the context of Tay Bac
University.
Secondly, it was expected to give some suggestions for improving writing skill of
students at Tay Bac University.
Last but not least, it was an attempt to serve as a useful source of reference for
teachers of English at the college.

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order to find out the fact whether CL improves students’ writing proficiency
and motivates them to learn, this study was designed with the following questions:
How effective is the cooperative learning programme in helping the second year
English major students at Tay Bac University improve
(1) their writing proficiency?
(2) their attitude towards writing?

(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

narrows the scope, presents the research methods and outlines the content of the study.
The development includes three chapters:
Chapter one presents the literature review relevant to the study including
theoretical background of writing and cooperative learning.
Chapter two describes in details the research method used in the study with the
necessary components before supplying information about the procedures of collecting the
data. Then, the statistical results and the analysis of the collected data are shown.
Chapter three discusses the findings from statistical analysis and some
pedagogical implications.
The Conclusion presents a discussion of the major findings from which some
pedagogical implications were derived. It also provides some limitations and suggestions
for further study.


7. SUMMARY
The first part has given an overview of the study including the rationale, the
purposes as well as the research hypothesis and questions of the study. Also, all research
method employed to get data and the designs of the study have been presented. In the next
chapter, a theoretical framework for the study will be discussed.








4

CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW

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

they also are “getting involved in an activity in which questions of social role, power, and
the appropriate use of language cannot be avoided” (Tribble, 1996). In addition, through
mastery of writing, individuals come to be fully effective in interllectual organization, in

5

the management of everyday affairs, in the expression of ideas and arguments. By writing
they can have control of both information and of people as well.
Writing is a complex process that allows writers to explore thoughts and ideas, and
make them visible and concrete. Writing encourages thinking and learning for it motivates
communication and makes thought available for reflection.
1.1.3. Approaches to Teaching Writing
The teaching of writing has had a long history with various approaches employed.
However, there are several approaches to teaching writing that are presented by Raimes
(1983) as follows:
1.1.3.1. The Controlled-to-Free Approach
In the 1950s and early 1960, the audio-lingual method dominated second-language
learning. This method emphasized speech and writing served to achieve mastery of
grammatical and syntactic forms. Hence teachers developed and used techniques to enable
student to achieve this mastery. The controlled-to-free approach in is sequential: students
are first given sentence exercises, then paragraphs to copy or manipulate grammatically by
changing questions to statements, present to past, or plural to singular. They might also
change words to clauses or combine sentences. With these controlled compositions, it is
relatively easy for students to write and yet avoid errors, which makes error correction
easy. Students are allowed to try some free composition after they have reached an
intermediate level of proficiency. As such, this approach stress on grammar, syntax, and
mechanics. It emphasizes accuracy rather than fluency or originality, so it has another
name of form-focused approach
1.1.3.2. The Free-Writing Approach
This approach stresses writing quantity rather than quality. Teachers who use this

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

attention was placed on “model” compositions that students would emulate and on how
well a student’s final product measured up against a list of criteria that included content,
organization, vocabulary use, grammatical use, and mechanical considerations such as
spelling and punctuation. The focus in class will be on copying and imitation, carrying out
sentence expansions from cue words and developing sentences and paragraphs from
models of various sorts. In short, this is a traditional approach, in which learners are
encouraged to mimic a model text, which is usually presented and analyzed at an early
stage
There is nothing wrong with attention to any of the mentioned criteria. They are
still the concern of writing teachers. But learners also should be seen as creators of
language to create meaningful content and message, which means their own individual
intrinsic motives are put at the center of learning.
1.1.3.5. The Process Approach
Recently, the teaching of writing has moved away from a concentration on written
product to an emphasis on the process of writing. In this approach, students are trained to
generate ideas for writing, think of the purpose and audience, and write multiple drafts in

7

order to present written products that communicate their own ideas. Teachers who use this
approach give students time to tray ideas and feedback on the content of what they write in
their drafts. As such, writing becomes a process of discovery for the students as they
discover new ideas and new language forms to express them. Furthermore, learning to
write is seen as a developmental process that helps students to write as professional
authors do, choosing their own topics and genres, and writing from their own experiences
or observations. A writing process approach requires that teachers give students greater
responsibility for, and ownership of, their own learning. Students make decisions about
genre and choice of topics, and collaborate as they write.
During the writing process, students engage in pre-writing, planning, drafting, and
post-writing activities. However, as the writing process is recursive in nature, they do not

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

together in pairs or groups, and they share information. They are a team whose players must work
together in order to achieve goals successful” (Brown, 1994). In addition, Kessler (1992)
proposes the definition of CL particularly in language learning context: “CL is a within –
class grouping of students usually of differing level of foreign/ second language proficiency, who learn
to work together on specific tasks or projects in such a way that all students in the group benefit from
the interactive experience.”
As Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1994) stated “cooperative learning is the
instructional use of small groups through which students work together to maximize their
own and each others learning." In classrooms where collaboration is practiced, students
pursue learning in groups of varying size: negotiating, initiating, planning and evaluating
together. Rather than working as individuals in competition with every other individual in
the classroom, students are given the responsibility of creating a learning community
where all students participate in significant and meaningful ways. Cooperative learning
requires that students work together to achieve goals which they could not achieve
individually.
According to Johnson (2005), cooperation is not assigning a job to a group of
students where one student does all the work and the others put their names on the paper.
It is not having students sit side by side at the sime table to talk with each other as they do
their individual assigment as well. It is not having students do a task individually with
instructions that the ones who finish first are to help the lower students. On the contrary,
CL is a teaching strategy in which small teams, each with students of different levels of
ability, use a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject.
Each member of a team is responsible not only for learning what is taught but also for
helping teammates learn, thus creating an atmosphere of achievement. Students work with
assigment until all group members successfully understanding and complete it.
CL takes many forms and definitions, but most cooperative learning definitions
involve small, heterogeneous teams, usually of four or five members, working together
towards a group task in which each member is individually accountable for part of an
outcome that cannot be completed unless the members work together; in other words, the
group members are positively interdependent.

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.

Furthermore, CL was found to have a positive impact on almost all the variables
critical to language acquisition because small group work enriches the language classroom
with comprehensible, developmentally appropriate, redundant, and accurate input and it
also promotes frequent, communicative, and referential classroom talk in a supportive,
motivating, and feedback-rich environment (Kagan, 1994).
In conclusion, CL activities promote peer interaction, which helps the development
of language and the learning of concepts and content. Therefore, it is important to assign
ELL students to different teams so that they can benefit from English language role
models. Apart from learning to express themselves with greater confidence when working
in small teams, they can pick up vocabulary and benefit from observing how their peers
learn and solve problems.

10

1.2.3. Key Elements of Successful Cooperative Learning
• Interdependence
This element lies at the heart of CL because the essence of cooperative group is the
development and maintenance of positive interdependence among team members. A sense
of interconnectedness can help students transcend the gender, linguistic, and other
differences they may sense among themselves. These differences often are at the root of
prejudice and other interpersonal stress that students experience in school.
Students need access to activities in which they learn to depend on each other as
they ask for and receive help from one another. Individualistic and competitive teaching
methods certainly have their place in the instructional program, but they should be
balanced with cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson, 1994).
When students work in cooperative teams in which "all work for one" and "one
works for all," team members receive the emotional and academic support that helps them
persevere against the many obstacles they face in school. As cooperative norms are
established, students are positively linked to others in the class who will help them and
depend on them for completing shared tasks. By becoming knowers as well as learners in a

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

skills, like other skills, should be taught and reinforced. Teambuilding activities will help
students get to know and trust one another. Other important social skills include accepting
and supporting one another and resolving conflicts constructively. Teachers need to model
positive interpersonal skills, have students practice the skills, and encourage the students
to process how effectively they are performing the skills. Focusing on social skill
development will increase student achievement and enhance the students' employability,
interpersonal relationships, and general psychological health (Johnson and Roger 1990).
Cooperative methods are flexible and can be adapted for students with special
needs. In diverse language settings, differences in students' English language proficiencies
make it necessary for teachers to modify the methods to ensure that English learners can
participate fully with fellow team members. For example, teachers may ask one member
of each team to be a bilingual facilitator who helps students work together. In addition,
activities that focus on social skill development and teambuilding should be used
frequently to facilitate cross-cultural communication and understanding among team
members.
Teachers will also want to consider which language-English or the native language
or both should be used by team members to accomplish language, content, and cross-
cultural goals. Frequent use of group processing activities will help teachers and team
members identify and solve problems on the team that may be rooted in cultural or
linguistic differences.

• Achievement
Cooperative learning represents a valuable strategy for helping students attain high
academic standards (Kagan, 1993; Cohen, 1994). After nearly fifty years of research and
scores of studies, there is strong agreement among researchers that cooperative methods
can and usually do have positive effects on student achievement. However, achievement

12

effects are not seen for all forms of cooperative learning; the effects depend on the

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

learning and dedicated to regarding diversity as a resource, cooperative approaches can
create supportive environments that enable students to succeed academically, enhance
their employability, and improve their interpersonal relationships.


13

1.2.4. Cooperative Learning Activities
There are so many types of cooperative learning structures due to the division of
different authors. Here are a few examples from Kagan's (1994) book on CL:
• Think-Pair-Share - The teacher poses a question to the class. The students think
about their response, and then students pair up with a partner to talk over their ideas.
Finally, students share their ideas with the class.
• Numbered Heads Together - A team of four is established. Each member is given
numbers of 1, 2, 3, and 4. The teacher poses a question and the students put their heads
together to answer the question so that all can verbally answer the question. The teacher
randomly calls a number and from each team the student with that number is asked to give
the answer.
• Rallytable - Students are working in pairs, within their teams. Students will take
turns writing on one piece of paper or completing a task.
• Showdown - Each student writes his answer on his individual response board.
When everyone in the group is ready, the leader says "Showdown" and team members
compare and discuss their answers.
• 4S Brainstorming - Students in the group have roles: Speed Captain (prompts
more ideas), Super Supporter (encourages/recognizes all ideas), Synergy Guru
(encourages members to build upon one another's ideas), and Secretary (writes ideas).
Members carry out their respective roles while the team generates a variety of possible
responses.
• RoundRobin Brainstorming - Class is divided into small groups (4 to 6) with one
person appointed as the recorder. A question is posed with many answers and students are

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

students teach each other.
• Teammates Consult - Students all have their own copy of the same worksheet or
assignment questions. A large cup is placed in the center of each team, and students begin
by placing their pencils in the cup. With pencils still in the cup, they discuss their answers
to the first question. When all team members are ready, they remove their pencils from the
cup and write their answers without talking.
• Circle the Sage – First the teacher polls the class to see which students have a
special knowledge to share. For example, the teacher may ask who in the class is able to
cook a traditional food, who visited Hanoi and Hochiminh cities, ect. Those students (the
sages) stand and spread out in the room. The teacher then has the rest of the classmates
interview the sages for information.
1.2.5. Cooperative Learning vs. Group Learning
Cooperative Groups are more than just letting student work together; they are
structured learning environments. Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1991) warn us that only
under certain conditions can we expect cooperative efforts to be productive. The follow
table is provided to help distinguish between traditional and cooperative learning groups.

15

Table 1. Comparison of Traditional Learning groups and CL groups
Traditional Learning Groups Cooperative Learning Groups
• Focus is on individual performance.
• Group members compete with each other
and withhold information - "If you
succeed, I loose."
• Only individual accomplishments are
rewarded.
• Focus is on group performance.
•
Each group member believes that they

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.

•
Students have time and are given a
procedure to analyze how well their groups
are functioning, how well they are using the
appropriate social skills, and how to improve
the quality of their work together.
• Little or no attention to group formation
(students often select members).
• Groups typically large (5-10 members).
• Teacher ignores groups.
•
Teacher assigns students to heterogeneous
groups.
• Groups are small (3 - 5 members).
•
Teacher observes and intervenes when
necessary.


1.2.6. Limitations of Cooperative Learning
Although cooperative learning had been widely accepted and recommended for
language teaching and learning, it also had, like all other teaching methods, limitations.
According to Kagan (1995) most of the limitations of cooperative learning came from not
being able to implement the cooperative structure carefully: “If the teachers just put the students
into groups to learn and didn’t structure the positive interdependence and individual
accountability, then there would be groups where one person did most (or all) of the work and the

16

others signed off. Or it might be easy to have a dominated student who didn’t allow the others to

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

communicative/ social process that involves discussion, interaction with teachers, group work,
pair work, and peer evaluation. Through these cooperative learning activities, students come to
recognize their unique strengths while cultivating their critical-thinking skills and becoming
more effective writers. In other words, cooperative learning should be regarded as a potential
solution for teaching writing skill since it can create supportive environments that enable
students to succeed academically, enhance their employability, and improve their
interpersonal relationships.

17

CHAPTER 2. THE STUDY



2.1. THE SETTING OF THE STUDY

2.1.1. The Context

The study was conducted at Department of Foreign Languages, Tay Bac university,
which is located in Son La - a mountainous province in the north west of Viet Nam. The
department is newly founded though it has already been educating and training five
courses majoring in English.
Most students of the unversity come from the rural or mountainous areas,
especially, a number of these students belong to the ethnic minorities. In the same way,
students at English classes here are mainly from places where the living standard and the
condition to study English are so poor.
At present, the Department of Foreign Languages has 3 English classes of the 2nd
year students, and the number of students in each class reaches nearly 40. Although the
students have been learning English for at least four years (three years at their high schools
and one year as the first year students majoring in English at Tay Bac university), a lot of

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

part in this study came from different areas in Vietnam. They were mainly from villages in
the countryside; even one third of them came from mountainous provinces like Yen Bai,
Lao Cai, Lai Chau, etc. Therefore, it was not difficult to realize that most students were
not so good at English in general and at language skills in particular. Apart from the
limitation of background knowledge, English grammar or vocabulary, they also
encountered with challenges in new learning experiences at tertiary as they complained. In
fact, they did not use to learn such English language skills as speaking, listening, reading
and writing.
In terms of learning English experience, some students have been learning English
for 4 years, whereas the others started learning Engish since they were at junior secondary
school. Such difference in learning time created dissimilarity in students’ English level. In
other words, these two groups were mixed – ability classes in which only a few students
had rather fair English standard meanwhile a great number of them had limited proficiency
in English. As a result, merely some students were self-confident and active in learning
English, the others had low self-confidence.
In addition, the overall English proficiency of the students was roughly at the
beginning of intermediate, judging from their results of the first semester of the second
years students’ academic year for the four language skills. However, it was a fact that lots
of students did not achieve this level.
The sample involved two groups: the control group and the experiment one. All in
all, these two groups had a lot of common features in terms of number, gender, age of
students, English level as well as motivation to learn. Moreover, these students’
characteristics were typical of the 2
nd
year English major students at Tay Bac University.



19

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

1. Unforgetable memories
2. Important decicions

Comparison and Contrast
1. Two means of transportation/ Two places
2. Attitude of two generations towards career/ love

Cause and Effect
1. Trial marriage
2. Overpopulation in Vietnam



20

2.2.2. Activities
A variety of activities employed in writing lessons of the experimental group
included think-pair-share, 4S brainstorming, roundrobin brainstorming, team-pair-solo,
peer response. Those activities were found to make sense in the stages of writing. 4S
brainstorming or roundrobin, for example, were best for brainstorming, whereas think-
pair-share, rallytable or team-pair-solo were beneficial to making outline, and peer
response to revising. As a matter of fact, the students would be offered so many chances of
practising language skills and communicative competence through the above activities.
2.2.3. Role of the teacher and the students
In the experimental programme, the teacher acted as an instructor who organized
groups, stated the rules as well as made all the students certain of what to do. Then, she
played a role of facilitator to ask open-ended questions during in-class group work, praise
and encourage all group members so that they could extend their participation and
involvement in activities. As such, she observed and intervened during in-class group
work when necessary.

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.

After the programme, the students were asked to complete a post- questionnaire
(see Appendix 5). The first parts of the post-questionnaire were the same as the second and
third ones on the pre-questionnaire. Another part was added to the questionnaire to
evaluate the students’ opinions of the cooperative learning. The post-questionnaire was
administered in the same way as the pre-questionnaire.
2.3.1.3. Observation
Observation was carried out during the teaching time because the reseacher also
played the role of teacher in the two groups. This method of studying gave the reseacher
information about the motivation and participation in in-class activities of the students in
those two different groups.
2.3.2. Data Collection Procedures
The data collection was taken place in the second semester of the 2007-2008 school
year at Tay Bac university. Following are the procedures.
• Before the experimental treatment
Students in both groups had learned about features of English paragraphs for 6
weeks. Then, in week 7, they were asked to write a paragraph on the given topic (as
described in Appendix 1) in 30 minutes in their classroom. These writings could serve as
document for pretest because after this test each group would be taught with different
methods. The pre-tests were scored by the teacher – researcher, basing on the criteria
shown in the Appendix 3. Besides, a pre-questionnaire was also administered in the
experimental group.
• During the experimental treatment
The teacher applied different teaching methods in writing lessons for the two
groups. She did not organize cooperative activities in the control group, wherereas she
implemented a two-month cooperative learning programme designed by her in the other

22

one. During the teaching, the researcher always took into consideration such factors as the
students’ participation and interest in activities in both groups. In a few lessons, not only

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

12
14
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Control Group
Experimental
Group


Score
Number of students

23

Figure 1 shows the distribution of the students’ pre-test scores in both control and
experimental groups, from which we can infer information about their writing proficiency
before the experiment. It is possible to report the necessary measures according to the
presented results as follows:

Table 3. Pre-test descriptive statistics

Control group Experimental group
Mean ( X ) 5.63 5.58
Mode 6 6
Median 6 6
Min 3 3
Max 8 9
Range 5 6
Variance 1.47 1.54
S.D. 1.21 1.24
Df 78

 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

10
12
14
16
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Control Group
Experimental
Group

Figure 2 reveals the distribution of the post-test scores achieved by two groups
after the experimental treatment. Here are the essential statistics:

Table 4. Post-test descriptive statistics

Control group Experimental group
Mean ( X ) 6.08 6.65
Mode 6 7
Median 6 7
Min 4 5
Max 9 9
Range 5 4
Variance 1.25 1.1
S.D. 1.12 1.05
df 78
 0.05
T 2.33
tcrit

2

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

10
12
14
16
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Pre-test
Post-test


The following table shows the desciptive statistics gained by the experimental
group before and after the programme.

Table 5. Pre- and -post tests descriptive statistics of the experimental group
Experimental group

Pre-test Post-test
Mean ( X ) 5.58 6.65
Mode 6 7
Median 6 7
Min 3 5
Max 9 9
Range 6 4
Variance 1.54 1.1
S.D. 1.24 1.05
Number of students
Score