See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321709384

Cooperative Language Learning in the Tertiary ESL Writing

Classroom: Students' Views in Diverse Settings

Chapter · December 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 1,731

2 authors:

Nalini Arumugam Faiz Sathi Abdullah

Universiti Teknologi MARA Al Zahra College for Women
28 PUBLICATIONS   69 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   149 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

bu Mustafa View project

PhD Supervision View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Faiz Sathi Abdullah on 09 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 7
Cooperative Language Learning
in the Tertiary ESL Writing Classroom:
Students’ Views in Diverse Settings
Nalini Arumugam and 2Faiz Sathi Abdullah
1

1
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
2
Universiti Putra Malaysia

ABSTRACT
Cooperative language learning (CLL) groups are structured to encourage
members to learn from their peers and also to assist the less proficient
learners. Learners in CLL-based groups are trained to be aware of
their responsibility to maximise their individual as well as their peers’
learning potential in social contexts. This paper reports on students’
perceptions about CLL that were procured from two diverse institutional
settings in a larger study which investigated the use of the CLL approach
in ESL writing classrooms. The data came from questionnaires that
were administered to elicit information from the tertiary institutions in
question. The results indicated a generally favourable view of CLL as
an instructional/ learning approach. Both sets of ESL learners viewed
the approach as effective as it engendered a risk-free environment that
promoted language learning, particularly ESL writing. The paper
concludes that CLL has much potential in the Malaysian educational
setting provided its use as a pedagogical approach is based on principles
of adequate training for learners and instructors alike and associate
strategies to make for meaningful language learning in ESL classrooms
of higher learning.

INTRODUCTION
Cooperative learning is acknowledged as a set of pedagogical practices
in which groups of students are encouraged to work together to facilitate
active participation in discussing different perspectives on a common topic
(Chapman, Meuter, Toy & Wright, 2006; Hirst & Slavik, 2005; Johnson
& Johnson, 1999). Small group activities in cooperative learning provide
 Cooperative Language Learning in the Tertiary ESL Writing Classroom 175

more opportunities for students to participate in hands-on activities

(Kreie, Headrick, & Steiner, 2007; Lee, 2003; Wentzel & Watkins, 2002).
Furthermore, assisting peers to learn through explaining subject content
to one another has been positively correlated with academic achievement
(Depaz & Moni, 2008).
Based on similar theorising on group learning, many researchers
(see e.g. Brown, 2008 and Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002) also claim
that the Cooperative Language Learning (henceforth CLL) approach,
when adopted to drive small group activities, provide students with the
opportunities to practise the target language more naturally compared to
a traditional teacher-fronted form of instruction (TFI) in the classroom. It
has therefore been argued (Brown, 2008; Chandrika, 2001; Azizah, 2001)
that CLL is an effective instructional approach for use in the ESL writing
classroom which potentially engages a powerful group-oriented learning
paradigm in maximising opportunities for multiple channelling of skills
in language learning (Hirst & Slavik 2005; Lim, 2002) besides enabling
students to solve their learning problems more effectively (Sweeney,
Weaven, & Herington, 2008; Ingleton, 2000). Many studies (e.g. Mason,
2006; Adams, 2000; Lancaster & Strand, 2001) have also shown that the
use of a CLL approach promotes confidence, self-esteem, social skills in
language use and enhances academic achievement among limited English
proficiency students who derive positive social benefits in the spirit of
cooperation with their peers in the classroom.
The use of a CLL-based approach in the ESL writing classroom is
premised on the argument that writing instruction in an ESL classroom is
more than merely getting students to put pen to paper, that is, it involves
facilitating several other learner-centred processes such as giving personal
reactions rather than “text responsible” responses whereby learners have
to put in writing what they have grasped (Atkinson, 2003). When students
learn to write in this way, they are expected to generate and organise
their ideas besides considering issues related to purpose, target audience,
appropriate vocabulary, and spelling as well as mechanics (Kim & Kim,
2005; Atkinson, 2003), all of which appear to drive home the point that
engaging in a writing task, at least in the classroom context, requires more
than personal cognitive competence in the ability to write effectively.
Not surprisingly, then, of the four basic language skills, writing has
often been regarded by teachers and learners alike as the most difficult
176 Recent Research Topics in Malaysian English Language Studies

and tedious skill to teach and learn or acquire, respectively, whether it is

in the case of the non-native (Azizah, 2002) or the native learner (Abu
Rass, 2001). ESL learners, in particular, struggle with many substantive
issues including generating and developing ideas that are pertinent to a
given topic and selecting appropriate words as well as language structures
to express those ideas effectively (Lee, 2007; Kim & Kim, 2005). Perhaps
it is for these reasons that learners with language learning problems are
not too motivated, if at all, to engage with writing activity (Gleason &
Isaacson, 2001) in the ESL class room and beyond.
To tune into the problem within the local context, Mariam (2004) has
pointed out that many learners in Malaysia cannot write well even after
eleven years of learning English and that the Ministry of Education has
identified three main weaknesses in learners’ ESL writing, namely, the
inability to develop interesting and thoughtful ideas, difficulty in presenting
ideas clearly and coherently, and problems in planning paragraphs or
essays cohesively. Such basic deficiencies are often not detected until the
learners enter an institution of higher learning and are required to write
independently for academic and/or professional purposes. It has therefore
been argued that the group-writing approach based on CLL principles
would be able to address this situation to a significant extent.
Studies on CLL and the process writing approach both internationally
(Mason, 2006; Chen, 2004; Atkinson, 2003) and locally (Mariam, 2004;
Chandrika, 2001) have highlighted the positive effects of using CLL in
ESL writing classrooms. Emphasising the significance and virtues, as it
were, of employing the CLL approach, these studies have been mostly
confined to writing in the secondary school setting. Further, while the
above-mentioned studies have reported on the benefits that are claimed to
accrue to students from CLL-based experiences, it appears imperative to
take heed of the caveat tendered by McGafferty, Jacobs & DaSilva Iddings
(2006) who note that “the key point is that not all group work constitutes
cooperative learning” (p. 4) and that the “introduction of student-student
interaction initially may make teaching more difficult” if the two key
factors of positive interdependence and individual accountability are not
taken into account in organising group work that purports to facilitate the
acquisition of language skills (pp. 4-5; Emphases added). Add to these
concerns several other CLL needs that Wang (2010) draws from the
 Cooperative Language Learning in the Tertiary ESL Writing Classroom 177

literature: instituting heterogeneous grouping, promoting collaborative

skills, ensuring equal learner participation, facilitating simultaneous
interaction, giving the group autonomy, and emphasising cooperation as
a value.
Hence, although there has been a concerted effort to inculcate the CLL
and process writing approaches within the tertiary ESL writing classrooms,
more insights are needed to show to what extent this approach works in
specific institutional culture settings with respect to the concerns raised
in the foregoing paragraph. In other words, while empirical evidence
supports the use of CLL with a variety of subject areas and age groups, less
is known regarding the extent to which this approach is perceived to be
beneficial or otherwise by tertiary level learners who have been introduced
to the approach.
This paper reports on students’ perceptions about CLL that were
observed in two diverse institutional settings, a public university and a
private college of higher learning, respectively, as part of a larger study
which investigated the use of the CLL approach in the ESL writing
classroom. More specifically, then, the research attempted to answer the
following questions:
1. To what extent do the students perceive as advantageous or otherwise
a CLL-based approach to ESL writing?

2. What aspects of working in groups are socially beneficial to students,

if at all, in relation to their learning needs?

METHODOLOGY
Student Samples and Locations
The student samples for the study comprised two groups of ESL students
from separate locations, referred to here as ‘Institution A’ (IA), and
‘Institution B’ (IB), respectively. These student respondent groups had
earlier participated as treatment groups in a quasi-experimental training
programme that used the CLL-based approach to ESL writing. Both
groups of respondents were diploma-level students who were pursuing
Diploma in Business (DBS) at IA, a state-owned public university, and
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering at IB. a privately-owned college of
178 Recent Research Topics in Malaysian English Language Studies

higher education. The IA group comprised a class of 38 students, while the

IB group was made up 25 students.
The treatment had been conducted earlier over a period of 10 weeks
(i.e. the major part of a semester of academic study on the part of the
students). Both groups had been taught by the same instructor who was
also a participant observer in the group writing sessions. The groups
participated in two (2) hours of CLL-based writing activity per week.
In each institutional setting, students were randomly assigned to CLL
groups of either four or five members each. Each group was expected to
complete written drafts on three topics of interest with each topic covering
approximately three weeks of group review of individual member drafts,
problem-solving, information exchange, group drafting of answers, and
presentation to the whole class. The instructor observed group activates
and intervened only when necessary to ensure that the earlier outlined
process was followed.
IA was located in a branch campus of a large public university in a
southern state of peninsular Malaysia. As such, it was a self-contained
residential learning environment that was equipped with modern facilities
and staffed with specialist teachers appointed by the parent institution at
the national capital of Kuala Lumpur. Students who matriculated at IA
were normally selected centrally by the Ministry of Education on the
basis of their SPM (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia, Lit. Malaysian Certificate
of Education) examination results, particularly in ‘core’ subject areas
including Malay, English, and Mathematics. It must be noted here that
almost all the students studying at IA are ethnic Malays many of whose
parents hold middle- to high-level posts in the government and the private
sectors and may, therefore, be deemed relatively well-educated themselves.
As mentioned earlier, IB was a private college with basic teaching-
learning facilities/resources that catered to the continuing/higher
education needs of school leavers who had obtained the SPM qualification
but who were unsuccessful at gaining admission into the large public/
private universities or were or unable to gain entry because of other
circumstances. Most students were self-sponsored with supplementary
funding for studies coming from educational loans procured from private
financial institutions. Some students were reportedly working part-time
(many claimed that they came from a working-class background) and as
 Cooperative Language Learning in the Tertiary ESL Writing Classroom 179

a result, attrition in student numbers was a known problem. However,

most students who regularly attended classes appeared to be motivated
given the prospect of being eligible to enter state/private universities on
obtaining the requisite qualifications at the diploma level.
Finally, it may be pertinent to highlight the fact that IB was located in
humble premises in a bustling, major town, while IA was situated close to
a small Malaysian town as a self-contained residential college that may be
termed as conducive to learning if somewhat controlled and sheltered.

The Survey Questions

The questions that were used to elicit student responses about their
experience with the CLL-based writing approach used in their ESL
classroom were part of an exit questionnaire administered at the end of
the quasi-experimental treatment briefly outlined in the foregoing section.
The student respondents were posed 18 questions/statements in a single
listing. Nine statements concerned undertaking the writing tasks and the
other nine on working as a group (see Tables 1a & 2a). Students were
asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with each statement.
The exit questionnaire forms were administered in a single session and
were collected as soon as the students had completed them.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tackling ESL Writing Tasks in Groups
Tables 7.1a and 7.1b present post-treatment responses regarding tackling
ESL writing tasks in English by IA and IB student groups, respectively. It
can be seen that the students at both the institutions generally agreed with
all the statements to indicate positive outcomes of learning experience
with the CLL approach in their ESL writing classroom (Brown, 2008;
Mason, 2006; Chen, 2004).
180 Recent Research Topics in Malaysian English Language Studies

Table 7.1a CLL-based ESL writing: tackling writing tasks in groups, institution
A (N=38)

Writing English in Groups Agree Disagree

1. Students helped the weaker students in the group. 84 16
2. Working together helped us improve our writing 84 16
performance.
3. Assisting each other in learning to write in English 81 19
helped improve our communication skills.
4. Students were able to exchange knowledge, 76 24
information and experiences.
5. I felt that I was responsible for completing my 74 26
writing task and for the work the group was doing
together.
6. Group sessions helped me understand writing 72 28
tasks better.
7. I received useful/helpful feedback to complete my 71 29
writing tasks.
8. It was easier to solve problems with our writing. 65 35
9. Students were actively working on their improving 63 37
their writing in English.

Table 7.1b CLL-based ESL writing: tackling writing tasks in groups, institution
B (N=25)

Writing English in Groups Agree Disagree

1. Working together helped us improve our writing 96 4
performance.
2. Helping each other in learning to write in English 92 4
helped improve our communication skills.
3. I felt that I was responsible for completing my 80 20
writing task and for the work the group was doing
together.
4. Group sessions helped me understand writing tasks 76 24
better.
5. Students were actively working on their writing. 76 24
 Cooperative Language Learning in the Tertiary ESL Writing Classroom 181

Table 7.1b (cont’d)

6. It was easier to solve problems with our writing. 76 24
7. I received useful/helpful feedback to complete my 72 28
writing tasks.
8. Students helped the weaker students in the group. 72 28
9. Students were able to exchange knowledge, 70 30
information and experiences.

Prioritising the students’ respective levels of agreement with the

given statements, we observed the following perceived benefits of their
experience in undertaking their ESL writing tasks, in that order at each
institutional setting:

Institution A (IA) Institution B (IB)

1. Helping weaker students (groups
were heterogeneous i.e. of mixed
ability)
2. Collaborating to solve problems
with writing
3. Improving communication skills
4. Exchanging knowledge,
information and experience better
5. Taking responsibility for own
learning as well that of others
6. Understanding tasks better
7. Receiving useful feedback on task
accomplishment
8. Solving problems more easily
9. Working actively on improving
written English
1. Collaborating to solve
problems with writing
2. Improving communication
skills
3. Taking responsibility for own
learning as well that of others
4. Understanding tasks better
5. Working actively on improving
written English
6. Solving problems more easily
7. Receiving useful feedback on
task accomplishment
8. Helping weaker students
(groups were heterogeneous
i.e. of mixed ability)
9. Exchanging knowledge,
information and experience
better
182 Recent Research Topics in Malaysian English Language Studies

We can see that the two lists of potential benefits of ESL group writing
do overlap considerably, particularly in the first five items, to highlight
working collaboratively to solve problems, improving communication,
and taking responsibility for learning. These are orientations to learning
to acquire the rather arduous skill of undertaking written tasks that most
ESL writing teachers would desire for their learners in their social learning
environment.

Benefits of Working in Groups

The social benefits that students perceived as they worked in groups
to complete their assigned ESL writing tasks are rather evident in their
relatively high levels of agreement recorded (except in the case of
statements [8] and [9]) for the respective institutional settings in Tables
7.2a and 7.2b. Levels of agreement range from 95% to 65% in IA, and
from a high 100% to 76% in IB. Statements (8) and (9) were included in
the list to express negative aspects, as it were, of working in groups in
the education contexts under study; however, the relatively high levels of
disagreement to these statements in both contexts would seem to suggest
that while problems did exist, they were not insurmountable given the
need to accomplish the assigned tasks. Put differently, we do note that
some 40% and 45% of the students in groups IA and IB, respectively,
did agree that there were problems in securing the active participation of
group members to complete the tasks assigned by the instructor although
“explaining things to others” was seen as relatively less problematic in
that only 21% (IA) and 24% (IB) agreed to the statement in question.

Table 7.2a CLL-based ESL writing: aspects of working as a group, institution

A (N=38)

Working as a Group Agree Disagree

1. It was fun working in groups. 95 5

2. The maximum group size must be four members. 90 10
3. Group work should be continued. 89 11
4. The group work helped us build team spirit. 87 13
 Cooperative Language Learning in the Tertiary ESL Writing Classroom 183

Table 7.2a (cont’d)

5. Students worked with each other in a more 76 24
relaxed atmosphere.
6. I made new friends. 68 32
7. Students focused on working together rather than 65 35
on their own.
8. It was difficult getting members to take part 40 60
actively in the tasks given by the instructor.
9. It was a waste of time explaining things to others 21 79
in the group.

Table 7.2b CLL-based ESL writing: aspects of working as a group, institution

B (N=25)

Working as a Group Agree Disagree

The group work helped us build team spirit. 100 -
It was fun working in groups. 96 4
Group work should be continued 96 4
The maximum group size must be four. 96 4
I made new friends. 84 16
Students worked with each other in a more relaxed 76 24
atmosphere.
Students focused on working collectively rather than 76 24
on their own.
It was difficult getting members to participate actively 45 55
in the tasks assigned by the instructor.
It was a waste of time explaining things to others in 24 76
the group.

Depaz and Moni (2008) have claimed that group writing creates
a risk-free environment in which learners are not worried about the
instructor’s presence. Learners try out expressions and negotiate meaning
with a familiar audience of peers without having to worry about getting
everything right. Such an environment makes for a relatively stress-free
learning context (Mason, 2006). The need for “a more relaxed atmosphere”
184 Recent Research Topics in Malaysian English Language Studies

was readily observed among the students in both the institutional settings
as was the sense of esprit de corps that was being fostered and the
concurrent improvement of communication skills (Mariam, 2004; Adams,
2000). However, the students in IA and IB felt that group membership
ought to be limited to four, with very high levels of agreement of 90%
and 96%, respectively. This perception was probably with good reason
too as they rightly saw the need to avoid freeloaders in group work (see
e.g. Brown, 2008) together with the added possibility that the presence
of many members in the group might lead to unnecessary talk and time
wasting.
Again, prioritising students’ perceptions within their respective
institutional settings and placing these perceptions side-by-side, we get the
following perspective on the benefits that may be derived from working in
groups in the ESL writing classroom in quite diverse contexts:

Institution A (IA) Institution B (IB)

1. Fun working in groups
2. Group size restricted to four
members
3. Group work to be continued
4. Group work promotes team spirit
5. Students collaborated in relaxed
atmosphere
6. Made new friends
7. Focus on working
interdependently
8. Active task participation difficult
9. Explaining things to group waste
of time
1. Group work promotes team spirit
2. Fun working in groups
3. Group work to be continued
4. Group size restricted to four
members
5. Made new friends
6. Students collaborated in relaxed
atmosphere
7. Focus on working
interdependently
8. Active task participation difficult
9. Explaining things to group waste
of time.

As we can see, there is much overlap in the first five student perceived
benefits and/or needs: having fun working together, promoting team spirit,
 Cooperative Language Learning in the Tertiary ESL Writing Classroom 185

working in relatively small groups to maximise participation, and perhaps

most importantly, expressing the need to continue to work in groups to
“swim together” (Johnson & Johnson, 1991a; 1991b) as it were, in an
interdependent way (Depaz & Moni, 2008) towards completing their ESL
writing tasks.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
In sum, the outcomes of the research reported in this paper do in a small
but significant way enable us to conclude that the use of the CLL approach
to instruction in the ESL writing class has a positive impact on students’
perceptions about their learning both in terms of positively engaging with
tasks assigned by the instructor as well as interacting in groups in order to
learn in the classroom. Findings such as those tendered in the foregoing
sections not only concur with those of previous studies (e.g. Mason, 2006;
Mariam, 2004) but also extend the latter in that the use of CLL potentially
empowers ESL students in privileged as well as less privileged settings to
control, organise and regulate their own learning in the Malaysian context
and perhaps beyond.
Needless to say, then, while students (and instructors) perceive the
possible benefits that may be derived from a CLL-based approach which
makes working in groups an easier path for students to learn and improve
their writing skills (Sweeney et al., 2008), such an educative process has
to be planned and facilitated effectively. Instructors need to be trained in
the CLL-based pedagogy and the learners themselves given appropriate
instruction/training so that the latter are able to participate effectively in
the ESL group writing sessions. To wit, CLL will not take place in the ESL
classroom without teachers who employ transactional styles of teaching/
learning, and who are not burdened with non-teaching duties. Given the
typical ESL learner’s perceptions about the daunting intricacies of acquiring
English, perhaps herein lies the surrender value of appropriating the CLL-
based approach in an innovative way in the ESL writing classroom so
that the approach is not only felt as being useful but also experienced as
one that is empowering. In the long run, this counts in what is already an
arduous task of learning to write in the language.
186 Recent Research Topics in Malaysian English Language Studies

REFERENCES
Abu Rass, R. (January-March, 2001). Integrating reading and writing for effective
language teaching. Forum, 39 (1), 30-36.
Adams, I. W. (2000). Exploring the efficacy of cooperative/collaborative learning:
The experience of college ESL teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of
New Orleans, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (04), 1271A.
Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of
Second Language Writing 12, 3-15.
Azizah, A. K. (2002). The effectiveness of cooperative learning in guided writing:
A case study of Form Four learners. (Unpublished bachelor‘s dissertation).
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
Brown, F. A. (2008) Collaborative learning in the EAP classroom: Students’
perceptions. English for Specific Purposes World, Online Journal for
Teachers. Issue 1(17), Vol. 7, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.esp-world.
info/Articles_17/PDF/ Collaborative%20learning.pdf
Chandrika, N., (2001). The effectiveness of cooperative learning in a Form
One TESL writing classroom. Unpublished bachelor’s degree dissertation,
Universiti Pendididkan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D. & Wright, L. (2006) Can’t we pick
our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group
dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education 30, 557-569
doi:10.1177/1052562905284872
Chen, M. L. (2004). A study of the effects of cooperative learning strategies on
student achievement in English as a foreign language in a Taiwan college.
New York: ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
Depaz, I. & Moni, R. W. (2008). Using peer teaching to support co-operative
learning in undergraduate pharmacology, School of Biomedical Sciences
Educational Research Unit, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Retrieved from http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk.journal /vol11/beej-
11-8.aspx
Gleason, M. M., & Isaacson, S. (2001). Using the new basal to teach the writing
process: Modifications for students with learning problems. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 17, 75-92.
Hirst, L. A. & Slavik, C. (2005). Effective language education practices and native
language survival. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Native American Language Issues (pp.
133-142). Choctaw, OK: NALI Board of Executors.
 Cooperative Language Learning in the Tertiary ESL Writing Classroom 187

Ingleton, C., Doube, L., Rogers, T. & Nobel, A. (2000). Leap into collaborative
learning. Centre for Learning and Professional Development (CLPD). The
University of Adelaide, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.bioscience.
heacademy.ac.uk.journal/ vol11/beej-11-8.aspx
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Promoting safe educational and
community environments: The three Cs program. Retrieved from http://www.
co-operation.org/pages/promoting.html
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., Oritz, A., & Stanne, M. (1991a). Impact of positive
goal and resource interdependence on achievement, interaction, and attitudes.
Journal of General Psychology, 118(4), 341-347.
Kim, Y. & Kim, J. (2005). Teaching Korean university writing class: Balancing
the process and the genre approach. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 7(2). Retrieved
from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com /June_05_yk&jk.pdf
Kreie,J., Headrick, R.W. & Steiner,R (2007) Using team learning to improve
learner retention, College Teaching, 55(2), 51-57.
Kumpulainen, K. & Wray, D. (2002) Classroom interaction and social learning:
From theory to practice - children’s oral language: A comparison of two
classroom organisational systems. London: Routledge Falmer.
Lancaster, K.A.S. & Strand, C.A. (2001). Using the team-learning model in a
managerial accounting class: An experiment in cooperative learning. Issues in
Accounting Education. November 2001. Vol. 16(4), 549-568. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb
Lim, J., (2002). College ESL writers’ journeys through the process approach to
writing: Eight case studies. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia
University, New York.
Lee, C.C. (2007) Graphic organisers as scaffolding for students’ revision in the
pre-writing stage, Nanyang Technological University. Retrieved from http://
www.ascilite.org.au /conferences/singapore07/procs/lee-cc.pdf. www.ascilite.
org.au/conference/singapore07/procs/lee-cc.pdf. Accessed on 18 December
2008.
Mariam Mohamed Nor, (2004). A qualitive study of group writing during process
writing lessons. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiti Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mason, K. (2006). Cooperative learning and second language acquisition in first-
year composition: Opportunities for authentic communication among English
language learners. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 34(1), 52-58.
 188 Recent Research Topics in Malaysian English Language Studies

Sweeney, A., Weaven, S. & Herington, C. (2008). Multicultural influences

on group learning: A qualitative higher education study. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education. 33(2), 119-122.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wentzel, K.R. & Watkins, D.E. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative
learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31(3),
366-378.
Mendonça, C. O.,& Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision
activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-812.
McGafferty, S. G., Jacobs, G. M., & DaSilva Iddings, A. C. (2006). Introduction.
In S. G. McGafferty, G. M. Jacobs & A. C. DaSilva Iddings (Eds.) Cooperative
Learning and Second Language Teaching (pp. 1-54). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Wang, K. (2010). Using cooperative learning in English classrooms in China.
Retrieved from http://www.elt-china.org/pastversion/lw/pdf /wangkexian.pdf

View publication stats