European Journal of Engineering Education

ISSN: 0304-3797 (Print) 1469-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw II)

method in teaching English as a foreign language
to engineering students (Case of Firat University,
Turkey)

M. N. Gömleksi˙z

To cite this article: M. N. Gömleksi˙z (2007) Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw

II) method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (Case of
Firat University, Turkey), European Journal of Engineering Education, 32:5, 613-625, DOI:
10.1080/03043790701433343

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790701433343

Published online: 03 Oct 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 649

View related articles

Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceee20
European Journal of Engineering Education
Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2007, 613–625

Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw II) method in

teaching English as a foreign language to engineering
students (Case of Firat University, Turkey)
M. N. GÖMLEKSİZ*
University of Firat, Faculty of Education, 23119, Elazig, Turkey

(Received 3 December 2006; in final form 5 March 2007)

The present study compares the effects of the cooperative jigsaw II method and traditional
teacher-centred teaching method on improving vocabulary knowledge and active–passive voice in
English as a foreign language for engineering students and the students’ attitudes towards learning
English. Jigsaw is a cooperative learning model that involves small groups of 5–6 students teaching each
other subject matter with success dependent upon student cooperation. Sixty-six engineering students
participated in the study and a pre-test–post-test control group experimental design was employed.
The students were randomly assigned into two groups: an experimental group and a control group.
The experimental group used cooperative Jigsaw II as an instruction method while the control group
used traditional teacher-centred instruction. The groups were administered an achievement test, as a
pre-, post- and delayed post-test. The results revealed statistically significant differences in favour of
the experimental group on the dependent variables of improving vocabulary knowledge and learning
active–passive voice in English. The attitude scale results showed that the cooperative learning expe-
rience had a significant positive effect on engineering students’ attitudes towards learning English and
promoted better interactions among students as well.

Keywords: Engineering education; Cooperative learning; English language teaching; European

competitiveness

1. Introduction

The world is going through a fast process of change, attributed by many scholars to recent
technological revolution and engineering education could not remain untouched by this pro-
cess. Furthermore, engineering education is also affected by the changing nature of engineering
practice (Ribeiro and Mizukami 2005). One of the features characterizing higher engineering
education in this new millennium is a focus on globalization and worldwide mobility of indi-
viduals. Engineering profession, being one of the most crucial to a nation’s economic and
industrial success, has witnessed an exceptional transformation owing to advancements in
technology and changes in the world. There has been a significant increase in mobility among
engineers, with many engineering courses becoming international and engineers seeking

*Email: nurigomleksiz@yahoo.com

European Journal of Engineering Education

ISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online © 2007 SEFI
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/03043790701433343
614 M. N. Gömleksiz

employment or cooperation with international firms, be it in their own country or abroad

(Cholewka 1997). The process of globalization does not only affect the educational aspect,
but also the political, cultural, economic and environmental aspects of a country (Nguyen and
Pudlowski 2005). Learners of today’s knowledge and information society need to become
problem solvers and creative thinkers in all subjects and areas (Birenbaum et al. 2006). This
is necessary because we live in an interconnected world where one nation is closely tied in
with other nations.
Globalization is a reality (Kuhnke 2000) and today the composition of the work force is
changing rapidly (Ramos 2000). The roles of engineers have also changed and a shift in
the paradigm of engineering is becoming more appropriate in today’s environment (Nguyen
1998). In today’s global workforce, an engineer must be able to complement his technical
skill with some other critical skills such as analysing the needs of other cultures, and design
products and services to fit those needs, understanding and accepting other cultures’ attitudes,
behaviours and beliefs without compromising his own, knowing about other countries’ com-
mercial, technical and cultural developments, understanding the business environment of the
countries where the products and services of his country are made, bought or sold and being
aware of customs, laws and ways of thinking in other countries. International experience helps
engineers broaden their perspective, increase their global understanding and make them more
interesting persons and more valuable employees (Malkinson 2003). Within the context of
globalization, the role and responsibilities of engineers have both changed and will continue
to change faster than ever before. They need to be equipped with new knowledge, attitudes
and skills that will enable them to adopt rapidly changing conditions of global world in gen-
eral. From the engineering profession viewpoint, the skills that should be taken into account
by providing an effective English language teaching (ELT) are: reading and writing manu-
als and instructions on technical issues, commercial letters, faxes and e-mails about technical
issues; presenting technical oral presentations and making comments, preparing reports of lab-
oratory experiments and projects about occupational issues, making telephone conversations
about technical and commercial issues in the context of international communication network.
All these factors make learning a foreign language important and necessary for engineering
students.

2. The importance of ELT in higher engineering education in Turkey: a European

perspective

In this global world, knowledge of a foreign language has always been of value in the field of
engineering. As Riemer (2002) stressed, language and communication skills are recognized
as important elements in the education of the modern engineer, including English as a foreign
language as it has become an international language, being the most widespread. The impor-
tance of effective ELT to train qualified engineering students can be taken into account from
four perspectives:
1. From the European perspective: There is a need to create a European space for higher
engineering education in order to enhance the employability and mobility of engineers
and to increase the international competitiveness of European higher education in the
field of engineering. There is also a need to develop standards and procedures that would
ensure quality of engineering education and thus help to attract European Union students
under the Socrates/Erasmus Programme, where student exchange is based on qualified and
efficient cooperation among institutions and effective use of a foreign language. To do
that, clear scientific and technical references to the engineering programmes in the Higher
 Cooperative learning method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students 615

Education European Space should be taken into account.Yeargan and Hernaut (2001) point
out that European cooperation in quality assurance with a view to develop comparable
criteria and methodologies should be promoted. The European dimensions in higher engi-
neering education, particularly with regards to curricular development, inter-institutional
cooperation, mobility schemes and integrated programmes of study, training and research
should also be promoted. A European dimension should be included by the adoption of a
common framework through the implementation of the Diploma Supplement and ECTS-
compatible credit systems. Providing an appropriate European label by having accredited
educational programmes in the European system will improve the quality of educational
programmes in engineering, as defined in the Bologna process (Augusti 2006). In parallel
with the development of the Bologna process, the employability and competitiveness of
Turkish engineers on a global scale requires the development of engineering curricula for
Europe-wide accreditation of degrees.
2. From the national perspective: Engineering faculties remain anchored in the Turkish
national educational system as well as taking challenges of globalization seriously. So
there is a need to establish quality as one of the priorities identified in the strategic doc-
uments of the Turkish Ministry of National Education and Higher Education Council of
Turkey with internal quality systems to serve as a major factor in external quality assess-
ment. Engineering is a profession that accepts itself both as an integral part of the global
society and a part of its local environment. So the engineering education at national level
should be compatible with the international standards as well as the EU standards. From
this viewpoint, the slogan of think global, act local gains importance.
3. From the university perspective: The development of engineering education at Turkish
universities has undoubtedly had in many cases a positive outcome both at national and
international level. Science, technology and engineering education at engineering depart-
ments of Turkish universities is developing much faster than ever before and is primarily
attributable to rapid industrialization and integration efforts with the EU. Turkish uni-
versities are increasingly and rapidly integrated into the norms and standards of the EU.
Engineering curricula at university level should meet international standards and prove
this by accreditation. So there is a need both to ensure and be able to prove the high qual-
ity of engineering educational services and efficient use of available resources in view of
the growing competition in the European educational market. Providing effective foreign
language education to engineering students will greatly contribute to this process.
4. From the personal perspective: Each year large numbers of engineering students are fac-
ing employment problems. So there is a need to prepare them to work outside their home
countries. To achieve this, engineering curricula should meet the requirements and chal-
lenges of the globalized world with internationally oriented studies. The courses should
be enriched with interdisciplinary and cross-cultural contents. Teaching at least an effec-
tive and efficient foreign language will help engineering students make valuable contacts,
experience real and virtual mobility and work across cultures and thus overcome that
difficulty.

A high level of engineering competence is getting important in a global society and highly
qualified engineering graduates are needed more than ever before and as a result of this the
exponential importance of ELT in engineering education in Turkey has raised many concerns
regarding its quality. It has been observed that, the engineers, after finishing their undergraduate
degree programmes, face several problems at the time of recruitment such as the lack of insuf-
ficient written and oral communication skills in terms of technical and commercial English.
Lack of effective and efficient foreign language instruction is thought to be an important
616 M. N. Gömleksiz

problem in the framework of changing environment of globalization and internationalization

of engineering education.
Although developments in ELT over the past two decades are largely perceived to have
succeeded in enabling learners to achieve in their chosen language, there is still a growing
concern among language specialists at the tertiary level that university students are increas-
ingly inaccurate in their use of the foreign language. In a survey by Roldán-Riejos (1998)
amongst civil engineering students and within the civil engineering profession in Spain, it
was determined that they preferred a top-down approach in the linguistic skills of reading and
listening both in English and Spanish when they were faced with a speciality text (Roldán
Riejos and Úbeda-Mansilla 2006). There are several reasons for that. Lack of efficient and
effective ELT at university level is one of the most important reasons of this process.
Teaching methods and techniques used in classes have an important place to achieve success
in ELT. Cooperative learning offers a practical way of working towards the widely accepted
goal (Edge 1992) and is among the methods that can be utilized in ELT classes to achieve the
objectives.

2.1 Cooperative learning in ELT

One of the fundamental aims within higher engineering education in Turkey, as it is in all
other European countries, is to provide an effective and efficient foreign language learning
environment where students learn effectively as a result of changes in the direction of glob-
alization of engineering education. The traditional teaching methods have always focused on
the lecture-based methods in which the students are passive recipients of knowledge. But in
recent years there has been a noticeable shift towards more student-centred activities (Davis
and Wilcock 2005) Cooperative learning is among the modern methods to be used in language
classes effectively.
Cooperative learning is one of the most remarkable and fertile areas of theory, research,
and practice in education (Johnson et al. 2000) and it generally refers to students working
together to achieve the objectives and the instructional procedures that structure the students’
collaborative efforts. Cooperative learning is based on student-centred learning and has been
implemented widely and successfully in ELT (Deen 1991, McGuire 1992, Gömleksiz and Onur
2005). In traditional ELT classrooms, students having limited English proficiency receive less
teacher and peer communication, and communication at a lower linguistic and cognitive level
(Long 1980, Schineke-Llano 1983). The enhancement of the flexibility and effectiveness of the
educational process in cooperative learning environment requires new educational approaches
and applications to be used in a classroom setting. Research findings suggest that coopera-
tive learning has benefits for English language learners (Long and Porter 1985, McManus
and Gettinger 1996). These studies indicate that cooperative learning is more supportive and
effective than competitive or individualistic learning experiences.
Cooperative learning also requires strategies for student collaboration and attention to how
strictly the teacher should structure activities to help encourage effective cooperation (Sapon-
Shevin and Schniedewind 1991) and many cooperative learning activities combine components
in which the teacher demonstrates and students work alone (Slavin 1995). Students will benefit
more from cooperative learning if they understand that communicating and sharing with peers
is a language learning strategy that they can apply outside a class setting (Oxford 1990) and
learners must engage in active roles in the classroom to reinforce learning (Littlewood 1992).
Cooperative learning exists when students work together to accomplish shared learning
goals (Johnson and Johnson 1999) and the teachers can use it to help their students who are
working below their potential. By using cooperative learning method, the whole class actively
 Cooperative learning method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students 617

participates in a task at the same time and students can then compare their findings (Yang
and Cheung 2003). The success of cooperative groups depends on positive independence and
supportive interaction. It is important that the learning environment be designed in a learner-
centred style to ensure that all students have an opportunity to contribute to their team. Jigsaw
is a cooperative learning model that involves small groups of 5–6 students teaching each other
subject matter with success dependent upon student cooperation. In this study, a variation of
Jigsaw called Jigsaw II was used to see if it would have superior results in learning English
when compared with a conventional teacher-centred instruction.

3. Research method

In this section, the aim of the research, research method, information about the design and
participants, instrumentation and treatment used in the study are presented.
The aim of this experimental study was to compare the effects of Cooperative Jigsaw II
method and traditional teacher-centred instruction on engineering students’ achievement in
learning vocabulary and active–passive voice in English as a foreign language and to explore
their attitudes towards learning English. The study was designed in such a way as to compare
the students’ performance and attitudes towards learning English before and after experiment.
Quasi-experimental design was used in this research (Cohen et al. 2000) and a pre-test-
posttest control group experimental design was employed. The population of the study included
sophomore civil engineering students enrolled in the Faculty of Engineering, at Firat Univer-
sity, Elazig, Turkey. Engineering education offered at Turkish universities is nominally 4
years in duration and these programmes consider that their graduates compare with those of
an honour graduate from a bachelor level programme in Europe. The sample comprised 66
sophomore engineering students. The age levels of the students ranged from 19 to 26. The
average age for students was 21.47 years old. Two classes were included in the study; the
students of daytime classes and evening classes. One of the classes was randomly assigned as
experimental group (n : 34), and the other was randomly assigned as control group (n : 32).
Two types of data collection tool were designed and used by the researcher; an achievement
test and an attitude scale. Achievement test consisted of 30 questions, 10 of which were related
to vocabulary knowledge and 20 of which were related to measuring students’ achievement
in active-passive voice. The test was used as pre-, post- and delayed test. The validity and
reliability of the achievement test was measured. For that aim, the test was piloted on 75 stu-
dents. Analysis of item difficulties of the achievement test was calculated. The mean difficulty
of the test was measured to be 0.53 and reliability coefficient was calculated to be 0.91. The
attitude scale was composed of 20 items and was used to assess students’ attitudes towards
learning English before and after the experiment. The scale was first piloted on 70 students for
factor analysis process. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was calculated to be 0.92.
KMO value of the scale was calculated to be 0.83 and the Bartlett’s test was measured to be
1 282 414 (p < 0.05). Independent groups t-test was used in order to asses the effects of two
different instruction methods on students’ achievement and to measure their attitudes towards
learning English.
This experimental study was implemented at English classes of civil engineering department
of engineering faculty. English is a required course for sophomore civil engineering students.
It is a two credit-hour course, which means that there are two hours of classes per week, for
14 weeks. All the students at the faculty have to take English as a compulsory course. All
participants involved in the experiment went through a process which comprised ELT based
on learning vocabulary and active-passive voice in English. The groups attended two different
618 M. N. Gömleksiz

classes of two hours per week for about four weeks in the Spring term of 2004. The achievement
test was given as pre-test to measure the entry level of all the participants before the experiment.
The groups were also given an attitude scale to measure their attitudes towards learning English
before the experiment. Both groups were taught by the instructor, working as an English
teaching instructor in the faculty of engineering at Firat University. The experimental students
were exposed to teaching process based on the principles of cooperative learning (Jigsaw
II) method where as the controlled students were taught the same materials using traditional
teacher-centred instruction. ‘Jigsaw is a cooperative learning model that involves small groups
of 5–6 students teaching each other subject matter about which they have become experts with
success dependent upon student cooperation. (Mattingly and VanSickle 1991). Face-to-face
interaction, individual accountability, cooperative social skills, positive interaction and group
processing are the basic elements of this application. Experimental students were assigned to
six-member teams to work on materials related to active-passive voice in English. Each team
member read an assigned section, and then members from different teams who have studied
the same sections met in ‘expert groups’ to discuss their sections. Then students returned to
their own teams and took turns teaching their team-mates about their section. All the materials
used during the experimental study stressed vocabulary knowledge and active-passive voice
based on English for specific purposes for engineering students.
At the end of the experiment, the students were given the achievement test again as post-test
and over the four week delay interval after the experiment as delayed test to measure the
differences. The groups were also given attitude scale to determine the differences between
their attitudes towards learning English after the experiment.

4. Findings

In this section, the results acquired as a result of the research have been analysed in the
directions of the aim of the study. Table 1 presents the results of the independent groups’
t-test by comparing the pre-test and pre-attitude mean scores of both experimental and control
groups.
As it is seen in table 1, no statistically significant differences were found in pre-test
[t(64) = 0.353, p > 0.05] and attitudes scores before experiment [t(64) = 0.218, p > 0.05].
These results proved that the groups showed similar features in terms of their pre-test and
attitude scores before experiment. The independent groups’ t-test results indicating the statis-
tically significant difference of post-test mean scores of experimental and control groups in
vocabulary section of the achievement test are presented in table 2.
As is shown in table 2, a statistically significant difference was found between the post-test
scores of the groups in vocabulary section of the achievement test [t(64) = 4860, p < 0.05].
A comparison of post-test scores of the groups indicated that cooperative Jigsaw II method
enhanced and promoted engineering students’ performance in learning English vocabulary.

Table 1. t-test results for pre-test and attitude scores towards learning English before
experiment.

Groups n X̄ sd df t p

Pre-test Experimental 34 10.97 1.78 64 0.353 0.725

Control 32 10.81 1.86
Attitudes before Experimental 34 3.16 0.59 64 0.218 0.828
experiment
Control 32 3.13 0.66
 Cooperative learning method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students 619

Table 2. t-test results for posttest scores of vocabulary section of the

achievement test.

Groups N X̄ sd df t p

Experimental 34 5.50 1.16 64 4.860∗ 0.000

Control 32 4.34 0.70
∗
Significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 3. t-test results for posttest scores of the groups.

Groups n X̄ sd df t p

Experimental 34 23.18 2.42 64 9.952∗ 0.000

Control 32 17.44 2.26
∗
Significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 3 presents the independent groups t-test results of post-test mean scores of experimental
and control groups.
The t-test results for post-test scores in table 3 showed that the engineering students in
experimental group who were taught English using cooperative Jigsaw II method performed
better than the controlled students who used traditional teacher-centred teaching method
[t(64) = 9.952, p < 0.05]. Statistically significant difference revealed the effectiveness of the
classroom environment that utilized a cooperative-learning model and showed that the students
in the experimental group performed better with respect to active-passive voice in English.
Table 4 presents the results of the independent groups’t-test by comparing the delayed post-test
mean scores of experimental and control groups.
As is seen in table 3, statistically significant difference was found in delayed post-test
scores of the achievement test in favour of experimental group [t(64) = 9.585, p < 0.05]. In
the delayed post-test, the experimental group continued to make progress and differed from
the control group. This finding reveals that cooperative Jigsaw II method is more resistant to
forgetting while teacher-centred instruction showed significant decreases in the performance
of the students over the four week delay interval. The t-test results indicating the statistically
significant difference between post-attitude mean scores of experimental and control groups
are presented in table 5.

Table 4. t-test results for delayed posttest scores of the groups.

Groups n X̄ sd df t p

Experimental 34 17.97 177 64 9585 0.000

Control 32 13.91 167
∗
Significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5. t-test results for post-attitude scores of the groups after experiment.

Groups n X̄ sd df t p

Experimental 34 4.30 0.435 64 5.540∗ 0.000

Control 32 3.47 0.746
∗
Significant at the 0.05 level.
620 M. N. Gömleksiz

The findings presented in table 5 show a statistically significant difference among

engineering students’ post-attitude mean scores [t(64) = 5.540, p < 0.05]. The experimen-
tal students’ attitude scores were found higher than the controlled students. The higher mean
rating of experimental group suggested that the attitudes of engineering students towards
learning English changed positively as cooperative learning environment provided students
better learning conditions and supported them with the most benefit.

5. Results and discussion

The speed of technological and societal changes and the growing availability of information
and knowledge force today’s engineers to follow up new developments, adapt new conditions
of work-life and strategic importance of information and communication technology (Brandt
and Henning 1991). Globalization of economy, society, industry and education force higher
engineering education to make changes in their curricula and take a leading role in pushing
towards a global society. Irandoust and Sjöberg (2001) stress that in today’s world the graduates
should be able to earn the ability to adapt technology to different needs, entrepreneurship,
creativity, the desire for achievements, a global perspective and capacity for lifelong learning.
Learning at least one foreign language gains importance to enable the students to achieve the
established goals mentioned above.
The current experimental study provides important data on the use of cooperative learning
(Jigsaw II) method on ELT for civil engineering students in Turkish higher engineering context.
Using sophomore students at the department of civil engineering as a case, the effects of two
different methods on students’ achievement and attitudes were compared. In this framework
two groups of students, experimental and control, were involved in the study.
Enlarging the learner’s vocabulary has always been one of the aims of English classes
(Fengning 1994). Data analysis carried out in this present study revealed that the experimental
students made more progress to improve their vocabulary in English. A significantly greater
increase of experiment students’ vocabulary knowledge from pre-test to post-test proves that
they performed with greater accuracy than the control group. Cooperative learning requires
teachers to provide language support in terms of useful vocabulary so that students are able to
succeed in the task (Richards 1995). Because an immense knowledge of vocabulary helps
engineering students learn and use a foreign language effectively and this will lead them to
improve the skill of using technical and commercial English.
The achievement scores of the post- and delayed tests of the students show a significant
relation between cooperative learning method and achievement of engineering students in ELT.
The results show that the cooperative learning (Jigsaw II) method helped students learn English
more effectively. Many researchers have shown the effectiveness and flexibility of cooperative
learning method in enhancing students’ performance in learning (Açıkgöz 1993, Erdem 1993,
Gömleksiz and Özyürek 1994, Pala 1995, Gömleksiz 1994). Creating a productive atmosphere
in language classes is essential for students to use the target language communicatively (Mirici
2005). Cooperative method emphasizes students’ active participation to teaching-learning
process.
The implementation of cooperative Jigsaw II implies some or the total restructuring of
engineering curricula and promoting changes in the ELT process and in the roles of engineering
students and teachers. As cooperative learning takes place in a supportive and collaborative
environment, the students are expected to take their responsibilities for their learning by
working in teams. This is important for engineering students as they will carry out a profession
 Cooperative learning method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students 621

that necessitates team-working and it is thought that cooperative and collaborative methods
used in the classrooms will effectively prepare them for work-life
As learning occurs at the result of mental activities of the learner rather than the result of a
direct transmission of learning material (Brown 1987, Shuell 1988, Wang et al. 1993), learning
can be conceived of as part of learning activities by the learners (Berkelmans et al. 2000).
The results of this study suggest that teachers who want to realize a more productive ELT
should create a learning environment where their students feel safe, study in a team process
by supporting and relying on each other and constructing the knowledge on their own.
In addition to considering student success in ELT that resulted as a consequence of
participating cooperative learning environment, the attitudes of the engineering students were
surveyed as well. The results of this study show a consistent positive relationship between
cooperative learning method and attitudes towards learning English. Students in cooperative
learning environment perceived their learning environment more favourably. It is a finding that
appears to clash with the findings about students’ attitudes suggesting that traditional teacher-
centred instruction may affect students negatively towards learning English. It may be that the
students perceive the climate in a cooperative teaching–learning environment more supportive
and comfortably, and their attitudes therefore increase positively. It can be inferred that coop-
erative learning method had a significant positive impact on students’ attitudes and enhanced
their attitudes better towards learning English. All the students evaluated positively the Jigsaw
II method in terms of developing positive attitudes towards learning English. This finding
coincides with that of Gömleksiz (1993), who looked at the effects of cooperative learning
on the democratic attitudes of the Turkish students. Cooperative learning method encourages
students to work together and gives equal opportunity for every student to participate in learn-
ing activity (Johnson et al. 1993). As evidenced by the findings of Tinker-Sachs et al. (2003)
students felt more relaxed and freer in the classroom and they were also interested in and happy
with learning English with cooperative learning method. As it was also indicated by Johnson
and Johnson (1985), Slavin (1983, 1991) cooperative learning improves attitudes toward the
subject and heightens self-esteem of the students. It results in greater efforts to achieve and
more positive relationships among students (Cooper et al. 1980, Solomon et al. 1990).
To conclude, the findings of current research reveal that the likelihood of positive results is
quite high if cooperative learning is implemented effectively. This experimental study provides
strong evidence to support using cooperative learning (Jigsaw II) method to stimulate engi-
neering students’ interest towards English, increase their success to learn English for specific
purposes.

6. Recommendations

Today, the success of higher engineering education depends on transforming innovative ideas
into new products more quickly, more efficiently, and with less expense than can their com-
petitors. Learning a foreign language will help engineers of future use the worldwide data
networks like the internet and intranets effectively and will support individuals communicate
with their partners on all multimedia levels and practice real and virtual mobility on a global
scale.
Meaningful expectation in current engineering educational applications requires that
students participate in a collective control over the conditions of their learning, determine
to motive, which, reflexively, allows them to participate teaching-learning activities actively,
cooperated and in motivated ways. Students should be allowed more control over their for-
eign language learning and thus partake of effective English language learning experiences
622 M. N. Gömleksiz

through the needs and necessities of engineering education for the global world. The traditional,
instructor-centred paradigm is to transfer knowledge to passive students but the learner-centred
paradigm, while retaining the principles of learning objectives that are crucial from the point
of view of professional, accredited curricula, is based on collaborative learning in the context
of real-life applications.
Necessary resources for a wide range of activities, including effective use of equipment,
textbooks and courseware as well as effective methodology in ELT in engineering education
should be provided. Edge and Wharton (1998) point out the importance of use of teaching
materials. They claim that they may limit the amount of investment and involvement that
students can have in the learning process and this may cause the learners’ autonomy and the
teachers’ creativity at risk. To overcome this problem, teachers should use a wide variety
of resources and encourage students to find and bring to class texts, stories, or any piece
of information on topics that are of interest to them. If the students choose the materials
themselves, they are starting on the road to autonomous learning. The teacher’s role here is to
be a facilitator and provide the material for the students when necessary (Le 2005).
ELT teachers in the engineering faculties should follow the latest developments in ELT to
promote student involvement and active participation, enhance classroom interaction, elevate
motivation and interest, improve students’ language skills through understanding grammatical
structures and avoid rote learning. Innovation and best practice in ELT in the Faculty of
Engineering through the activities of interest groups and other means should be promoted.
It is known that the teaching environment affects students’learning. Good teaching, freedom
in learning and avoidance of overloading drive students towards deep approaches to learning
and positive attitude and all these improve the quality of learning (Ramsden and Entwistle
1981). Use of the most effective teaching-learning environment design suitable for the needs
of the engineering students in the classroom setting should be taken into consideration. The
question whether the design used in the classroom affect learning or retention should be
answered. To do this, related research findings should be benefited. Researches into the new
trends, methodology of the teaching-learning processes and assessment the effectiveness of
different methods of teaching a language to engineering students would therefore be of value.
So further research on teaching vocabulary effectively to engineering students and improve
their level of English is needed.
Student-centred teaching and learning techniques should be encouraged to achieve the
desired positive attitudes towards learning English. The teacher should support the students in
ELT environment to make them feel confident and successful, and this will lead the students
to develop positive attitudes towards learning English. Taking into account the necessities of
an effective ELT environment for engineering students, it is believed that a non-rigid, flexible
ELT process can significantly help to overcome the problems faced in ELT in engineering
education.
There are also a number of precautions to be taken into account when considering the prac-
tical application of modern methods in language classrooms. The other inner and outer factors
thought to be as important or more important in learning English for specific purposes should
also be taken into consideration. There is an urgent need to redesign learning environment of
ELT in Turkish engineering education system. This will inevitably require redesigning the ELT
curriculum in engineering faculties to enable the engineering students to achieve better learn-
ing in English. Overall, it is strongly recommended that resources and materials be devoted
to realize effective language learning to train the global engineer of the future.
To conclude, the aim of all these changes is to better compete worldwide for engineering
students and prestige. Universities and engineering schools must come to terms with the fact
that there is a global education market. They must therefore develop their engineering curricula
accordingly. They must work together in international education, promote studies abroad, and
 Cooperative learning method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students 623

prepare future engineers for a global society. National education systems must be oriented
toward compatibility with international standards, and must be facilitated by a full range of
communication channels. Teaching at least one foreign language to the engineers of future
will help overcome these problems in terms of training well-qualified engineers. This process
will help Turkish higher engineering education system adopt and integrate the principles of
the EU and train the global engineer of the future.

References
Açıkgöz, K., İşbirliğine dayalı öğrenme ve geleneksel öğretimin üniversite öğrencilerinin akademik başarısı,
hatırda tutma düzeyleri ve duyuşsal özellikleri üzerindeki etkileri, I. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, 1993,
187–201.
Augusti, G., Transnational recognition and accreditation of engineering educational programmes in Europe:
perspectives in a global framework. Eur. J. Engng Edu., 2006, 31, 249–260.
Berkelmans, M., Sleegers, P. and Fraser, B., Teaching for active learning. In New Learning, edited by R. J. Simons,
J. Van Der Linden and T. Duffy, pp. 227–242, 2000 (Kluwer Academic Publishers Hingham, MA: USA).
Birenbaum, M., Breuer, K., Cascallar, E., Dochy, F., Dori,Y., Ridgway, J., Wiesemes, R. and Nickmans, G., A learning
integrated assessment system. Edu. Res. Rev., 2006, 1, 60–67.
Bologna process. Available online at: http://www.aic.lv/ace/bologna/default.htm (accessed 20 February 2007).
Brandt, D. and Henning, K., Perspectives of information and communication technologies for engineering education.
Eur. J. Engng Edu., 2001, 26, 63-68.
Brown, R., Self-regulation and other mysterious mechanisms. In Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding,
edited by F. Winert and R. Kluwe, pp. 65–116, 1987 (Hillsdale: Erlbaum).
Cholewka, Z., The influence of the setting and interlocutor familiarity on the professional performance of foreign
engineers trained in English as a second language. Global J. Engng Edu., 1997, 1, 67–76.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K., Research Methods in Education, 5th edition, 2000 (Taylor & Francis Group:
London).
Cooper, L., Johnson, D., Johnson, R. and Wilderson, F., Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individual-
istic experiences on interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous peers. J. Social Psychol., 1980, 111,
243–252.
Davis, C. and Wilcock, E., Developing, implementing and evaluating case studies in materials science. Eur. J. Engng
Edu., 2005, 30, 59–69.
Deen, J.Y., Comparing interaction in a cooperative learning and teacher-centred foreign language classroom. I.T.L.
Rev. Appl. Linguistics, 1991, 153–181.
Edge, J. and Wharton, S., Autonomy and development: living in the materials world. In Materials Development in
Language Teaching, edited by B. Tomlinson, pp. 295–311, 1998 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).
Edge, J., Co-operative development. ELT Journal, 1992, 46, 62–70.
Erdem, L., The difference between cooperative learning method and traditional method in terms of academic achieve-
ment in educational sociology course at higher education level. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, 1993.
Fengning, Y., Context clues-a key to vocabulary development. English Teaching Forum, 1994, 32, 39–41.
Gömleksiz, M. and Özyürek, D., Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dersinde Uygulanan Kubaşık Öğrenme Yönteminin Erişiye,
Demokratik Tutumlara ve Benlik Saygısına Etkisi, 1. Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, Kuram-Uygulama-Araştırma:
Bildiriler, 1994, 476–493.
Gömleksiz, M.N. and Onur, E., İngilizce öğreniminde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin öğrenci başarısı üzerindeki etkisi
(Elazığ Vali Tevfik Gür ilköğretim okulu örneği). Milli Eğitim, 2005, 166, 183–200.
Gömleksiz, M., Kubaşık öğrenme yöntemi ile geleneksel yöntemin demokratik tutumlar ve erişiye etkisi,
Yayınlanmamış Doktora tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana., 1993.
Gömleksiz, M., Kubaşık ÖğrenmeYönteminin Demokratik Tutumlar ve Erişi Üzerindeki Kalıcılığı. 1. Eğitim Bilimleri
Kongresi, Kuram-Uygulama-Araştırma: Bildiriler, 1994, 421–430.
Irandoust, S. and Sjöberg, J., International dimensions: a challenge for European engineering education. Eur. J. Engng
Edu., 2001, 26, 69–75.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T., The internal dynamics of cooperative learning in groups. In Learning to Cooperate,
Cooperating to Learn, edited by R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb and R. Schunk,
pp. 103–124, 1985 (Plenum: New York).
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R., Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic
Learning, 1999 (Allyn & Bacon: Boston).
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Stanne, M.B., Cooperative learning methods: a meta-analysis. Available online at:
http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html (accessed 20 November 2006).
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. and Holubec, E., Circles of Learning, 4th edition, 1993 (Interaction Book Company: Edina
MN).
Kuhnke, R.R., The training of tomorrow’s engineers-challenges of change. Global J. Engng Edu., 2000, 4, 257–261.
624 M. N. Gömleksiz

Le, N.T.C., From passive participant to active thinker a learner-centered approach to materials development. English
Teaching Forum, 2005, 43, 2–9.
Littlewood, W., Teaching Oral Communication: A Methodological Framework, 1992 (Blackwell: Oxford).
Long, M.H., Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1980.
Long, M.H. and Porter, P.A., Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quart., 1985,
19, 207–228.
Malkinson, T., The global engineer: succeeding without boundaries. Available online at: http://www.todaysengineer.
org/2003/Jun/global.asp (accessed 25 November 2006).
Mattingly, R.M. and VanSickle, R.L., Cooperative learning and achievement in social studies: Jigsaw II. Soc. Edu.,
1991, 55, 392–395.
McGuire, S.P., An application of cooperative learning to teaching english as a foreign language in japan. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, 1992.
McManus, S.M. and Gettinger, M., Teacher and student evaluations of cooperative learning and observed interactive
behaviors. J. Edu. Res., 1996, 90, 13–22.
Mirici, İ.H., Classroom techniques: some communicative activities based on overhead projectors. English Teaching
Forum, 2005, 43, 46–48.
Nguyen, D.Q., The essential skills and attributes of an engineer: a comparative study of academics, industry personnel
and engineering students. Global J. Engng Edu., 1998, 2, 65–75.
Nguyen, D.Q. and Pudlowski, Z.J., Environmental engineering education in an era of globalisation. Global J. Engng
Edu., 2005, 9, 59–68.
Oxford, R., Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know, 1990 (Newbury House: New York).
Pala, A., İşbirlikli öğrenmenin yabancı dil öğretimindeki etkililiği. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül
Üniversitesi, İzmir (1995).
Ramos, F.V., Educating the global engineer. Global J. Engng Edu., 2000, 4, 7–11.
Ramsden, P. and Entwistle, N.J., Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British J.
Edu.Psychol., 1981, 51, 368–383.
Ribeiro, L.R.C. and Mizukami, M.G.N., Problem-based learning: a student evaluation of an implementation in
postgraduate engineering education. Eur. J. Engng Edu., 2005, 30 137–149.
Richards, J., Easier said than done. In Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials Writing, edited by A. C.
Hidaldo, D. Hall and G. M. Jacobs, pp. 95–135, 1995 (Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center:
Singapore).
Riemer, M.J., English and communication skills for the global engineer. Global J. Engng Edu., 2002, 6, 91–100.
Roldán Riejos, A. and Úbeda-Mansilla, P., Metaphor use in a specific genre of engineering discourse. Eur. J. Engng
Edu., 2006, 31, 531–541.
Sapon-Shevin, M. and Schniedewind, N., Cooperative learning as empowering pedagogy. In Empowerment through
Multicultural Education, edited by C. E. Sleeter, pp. 159–178, 1991 (State University of New York Press: New
York).
Schinke-Llano, L.A., Foreigner talk in content classrooms. In Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language
Acquisition, edited by H. Seliger and M. H. Long, pp. 146-164, 1983 (Newbury House: Rowlet, MA).
Shuell, T.J., The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Edu. Psychol., 1988, 13,
276–295.
Slavin, R.E., Cooperative Learning, 1983 (Longman: New York).
Slavin, R.E., Are cooperative learning and untracking harmful to the gifted? Edu. Leadership, 1991, 48, 68–71.
Slavin, R., Cooperative learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, 1995 (Allyn and Bacon: Boston).
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Schaps, E., Battistich, V. and Solomon, J., Cooperative learning as part of a comprehensive
classroom program designed to promote prosocial development. In Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research,
edited by S. Sharan, pp. 231–260, 1990 (Praeger: New York).
Tinker Sachs, G., Candlin, C.N. and Rose, K.R., Developing cooperative learning in the efl/esl secondary classroom.
RELC Journal, 2003, 34, 338–369.
Wang, M.C., Heartel, G.D. and Wahlberg, H.J., Toward a knowledge base for school-learning. Rev. Edu. Res., 1993,
63, 249–294.
Yang, A. and Cheung, C.P., Adapting textbook activities for communicative teaching and cooperative learning. English
Teaching Forum, 2003, 41, 16–24.
Yeargan, J. and Hernaut, K., The globalization of European engineering education: an American observer’s per-
spective. Available online at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7628/20808/00964024.pdf (accessed 18 February
2007).

About the authors

Dr Mehmet Nuri Gömleksiz is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Education at Firat

University, Elazig, Turkey. He graduated from the Faculty of Education (1984) majoring in
 Cooperative learning method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students 625

Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) from Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey
and received his Masters (1993) and Doctorate (1999) in the field of Curriculum Development
and Instruction from Firat University, Elazig, Turkey. From 1984 to 2000, he worked as an
English Instructor at the Department of Foreign Languages at Firat University. His special
research interests are curriculum development and TEFL. He is currently doing his researches
on curriculum development and TEFL.