Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction: Three Communicative Strands

in the Language Classroom

Author(s): Rebecca L. Oxford
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 81, No. 4, Special Issue: Interaction, Collaboration,
and Cooperation: Learning Languages and Preparing Language Teachers (Winter, 1997), pp.
443-456
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/328888 .
Accessed: 04/09/2014 09:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CooperativeLearning,Collaborative
Learning,and Interaction:
Three
CommunicativeStrandsin the
Language Classroom
REBECCA L. OXFORD
EducationDean's Office
University
ofAlabama
CarmichaelHall, Box 870231
Tuscaloosa,AL 35487-0231
Email:roxford@bamaed.ua.edu

This articledescribes importantdistinctionsamong threestrandsof communicationin the

foreignor second language (L2) classroom: cooperativelearning,collaborative
learning,and in-
teraction.
These threestrandshave differentconnotations,which,whenunderstood,can help
us bettercomprehendlanguage learningand teaching.Cooperativelearningrefersto a par-
ticularset ofclassroomtechniquesthatfosterlearnerinterdependenceas a routeto cognitive
and social development.Collaborativelearning has a "social constructivist" philosophical
base, whichviewslearningas constructionof knowledgewithina social contextand which
thereforeencourages acculturationof individualsinto a learningcommunity.Interactionis
the broadestof the threetermsand refersto personal communication,whichis facilitatedby
an understandingof fourelements:language tasks,willingnessto communicate,stylediffer-
ences, and group dynamics.

THE CONCEPTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARN- eral fieldofeducation and as applied to L2 learn-

ing, collaborativelearning,and interactionIare
widelyused in the teachingof mathematics,sci-
ence, social studies,languages, and manyother
subjects.
Although common usage sometimes treats
these concepts as though theywere the same,
each has developed special connotations and
classroomapplicationsin recentyears.In thelan-
guage teachingfield, the differences(and simi-
larities)among thesethreeconceptsare particu-
larly important for teachers to understand.
Cooperativelearning,collaborativelearning,and
interactionare three"communicative strands"in
the foreignor second language (L2) classroom.
The purpose of this article is to distinguish
among these threestrands,both withinthe gen-
TheModernLanguageJournal,81, iv,(1997)
0026-7902/97/443-456 $1.50/0
@1997 TheModernLanguageJournal
ing and teaching.Table 1 providesa comparative
overviewofthemainaspectsofthesethreestrands.
Cooperativelearning,as compared withcollabora-
tivelearning,
is consideredmorestructured,more
prescriptiveto teachers about classroom tech-
niques, more directiveto studentsabout how to
worktogetherin groups,and more targeted(at
least itwas in itsbeginnings)to thepublic school
population than to postsecondaryor adult edu-
cation (Matthews,Cooper, Davidson, & Hawkes,
1995). "Cooperative learning researchers and
theoreticiansare educational or social psycholo-
gists or sociologists whose original work was
intendedforapplication at the K-12level" (Mat-
thewset al., p. 39). Cooperative learningis de-
fined as "group learning activityorganized so
thatlearningis dependent on the sociallystruc-
turedexchange ofinformationbetweenlearners
in groups and in whicheach learneris held ac-
countable forhis or her own learningand is mo-
tivatedto increasethelearningof others"(Olsen

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
444 81 (1997)
TheModernLanguageJournal

TABLE 1
Learning,and Interaction
ConceptualComparisonsamongCooperativeLearning,Collaborative
Strand1: Strand2: Strand3:
Aspects CooperativeLearning Collaborative
Learning Interaction

Purpose Enhancescognitiveand learners

Acculturates Allowslearnersto
socialskillsvia a setof intoknowledge communicate with
knowntechniques communities othersin numerousways

DegreeofStructure High Variable Variable

Relationships Individualis accountable Learnerengageswith and

Learners,teachers,
to thegroupand vice "morecapableothers" othersengagewitheach
versa;teacherfacilitates, (teachers,advanced otherin meaningfulways
butgroupis primary peers,etc.),whoprovide
assistanceand guidance

of
Prescriptiveness
Activities High Low Variable

KeyTerms Positive Zone ofproximal Interaction-producing

interdependence, development, cognitive to
tasks,willingness
accountability apprenticeship, interact,
learningstyles,
teamwork,roles, acculturation, groupdynamics, stages
cooperativelearning situated
scaffolding, ofgrouplife,physical
structures cognition,reflective environments
inquiry,epistemology

& Kagan, 1992,p. 8). Thus, cooperativelearning
has taken on the connotation of a set of highly
structured,psychologically based
and sociologically
techniques that help studentswork togetherto
reach learninggoals. Both thegoals and thetech-
niques of cooperative learning are explained
laterwithreferenceto L2 learning.
In contrast,the concept of collaborative
learning
derivesfromdifferentintellectualroots,thatis,
"theoretical,political, and philosophical issues
such as the nature of knowledgeas a social con-
structionand the role of authorityin the class-
room" (Matthewset al., p. 40). More specifically,
"collaborativelearningis a reacculturativeproc-
ess thathelps studentsbecome membersof the
knowledge communitieswhose common prop-
ertyis differentfromthe common propertyof
knowledgecommunitiestheyalreadybelong to,"
according to Bruffee (1993, p. 3). Qualley and
Chiseri-Strater(1995) describecollaborativelearn-
ing as a "reflexive a
dialogue, knowing'deeper
thanreason"' (p. 111). Collaborativelearninghas
thus taken on the connotation of social con-
structivism, which holds that learning is accul-
turationintoknowledgecommunities.
Interactionrefersto the situationin whichpeo-
ple act upon each other. This article focuses
mostlyon verbal interactionas opposed to non-
verbal interaction(for nonverbalbehaviors,see
Neu, 1990; Oxford, 1995). In educational set-
tings,interactioninvolvesteachers,learners,and
othersactingupon each otherand consciouslyor
unconsciouslyinterpreting(i.e., givingmeaning
to) those actions. Thus, interaction involves
meaning,but itmightor mightnot involvelearn-
ing newconcepts.
This article uses a varietyof sources to com-
pare cooperative learning, collaborative learn-
ing, and interaction.Many of the sources come
fromthefieldof L2 learningand teaching.How-
ever,the researchon at least two of these three
strands--cooperativelearningand collaborative
learning-is more abundant outside of the L2
field.Therefore,referencesare frequentlymade
here to investigationsbeyond the L2 arena, on
the assumptionthatit is possible and important
to learn fromresearchacross disciplines.
We turn firstto the most highlystructured
strand,cooperativelearning.This strandis com-
monlyfoundin manyL2 classrooms.
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Cooperative learning has developed into a
rathercomplicatedsetofactivitiesand optionsin
the last 10 or 15 years.This section demystifies
cooperativelearningand demonstratesthatit is
much more thanjust small-groupwork.Cooper-

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RebeccaL. Oxford
ativelearningis based on theprinciplesshownin
Table 2, summarized from a varietyof L2 and
non-L2 sources.
Researchon Cooperative
Learning
ResearchonFrequencyofUseofCooperative Learning.
Large-scale North American research outside
the L2 field shows that class sessions are struc-
turedcooperativelyonlybetween7% and 20% of
the time (Johnson,Johnson,& Holubec, 1990,
1994), and teachersdo 75% of thetalking(Good-
lad, 1984). Because manyL2 classroomsare in-
tentionallycommunicative,itis probable thatthe
percentagesare somewhatdifferent, but L2 class-
room researchis not adequate to produce large-
scale informationon thesepercentages.
ResearchonAdvantages Re-
ofCooperative
Learning.
search findingsboth outside the L2 field (John-
son,Johnson,& Holubec, 1994; Slavin,1991) and
withintheL2 domain (Holt, 1993; Kessler,1992)
suggest that cooperative learning has benefits
for manylearners.2Johnson,Johnson,and Hol-
ubec (1990) assertthat"whatwe knowabout ef-
fective instruction indicates that cooperative
learningshould be used when we wantstudents
to learn more,like school better,like each other
better,like themselvesbetter,and learn more ef-
fectivesocial skills"(p. 5). Numerousstudiesindi-
cate thatcompared to competitiveor individual-
istic learningexperiences,cooperative learning
is more effectivein promotingintrinsicmotiva-
tion and task achievement,generatinghigher-
order thinkingskills,improvingattitudestoward
the subject, developing academic peer norms,
heighteningself-esteem, increasingtimeon task,
creatingcaring and altruisticrelationships,and
loweringanxietyand prejudice.
445
AdvantagesofCooperative LearningMightNotAp-
to
ply Everyone. Not all students consistently gain
the same benefitsfromcooperativelearning,ac-
cording to an analysisof four studieswithsam-
ples totalingalmost 1,000 studentsfromgrade
school throughuniversity (Huber et al., 1992). In
this multistudyanalysis,students (and student
teachers)whocould deal withuncertainty showed
a preferenceforcooperativelearningover tradi-
tional expositorylearning. Students (and stu-
dent teachers) who needed greater certainty
were more negativeand performedworsein co-
operative learning than in traditionallearning
(Huber et al., 1992). In a differentinvestigation
byLi and Adamson (1992), giftedsecondarystu-
dentstended to likeindividualisticlearning(and
sometimescompetitivelearning) betterthan co-
operativelearning,and forthesestudents,coop-
erativelearningwas not significantly
related to
higherachievement.
Research onPromotingPositiveInterdependence
and
Accountability.Research on cooperativelearning
outside the L2 field showsthatpositiveinterde-
pendence is promotedbygivingindividualsspe-
cific role assignmentswithinthe group (Cohen,
1994). Assigninga role (e.g., gatekeeper,encour-
ager,recorder,explainer) to each studenthas the
effectof assigningcompetence to each student,
which can improve self-esteemfor low-status
learners.Moreover,positiveinterdependenceis
enhanced by havinga group goal to whicheach
person must contribute (Johnson,Johnson,&
Holubec, 1990, 1994). Positiveinterdependence
can sometimesbe improvedby structuringthe
materials (e.g., one pencil per group, one com-
puter terminalper group,jigsawed division of
a given reading forthe group to share) (Slavin,
1991). Positiveinterdependenceis enhanced by

TABLE 2
Principlesof CooperativeLearning
1. Positiveinterdependence:Gains forone person are associatedwithgains for others;can be attained
throughstructuring thegoals,rewards, or rules
roles,materials,
2. Accountability:Everypersonis accountablethroughindividualgradingand testing;thegroupis account-
able througha groupgrade;improvement scoresare possible
3. Teamformation: Teamsareformedinvariousways-randomly; bystudentinterest;
bytheteacherusingspe-
cificcriteria(heterogeneously,
representingdifferentcharacteristics
suchas aptitudeor gender;or homo-
geneously)
4. Teamsize:Groupsofsmallerthan7 membersusuallyworkbest
5. Cognitivedevelopment:
Thisis oftenviewedas themaingoal ofcooperativelearning
6. Socialdevelopment:Developmentofsocialskillssuchas turntaking,activelistening,
and so forthcan be as
importantas cognitivedevelopment

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
446 TheModernLanguageJournal81 (1997)

havingclearlydefinedrulesand clear criteriafor systematic,explicit practice with these skills

gradingbothindividualand group performance; (Hertz-Lazarowitz& Miller,1992).
methods that use only a group grade without
making each person accountable do notconsis- toCooperative
Approaches Learning
tentlyproduce achievementgains (Slavin,1991).
"Improvementscoring"forthe individualand Three primaryapproaches are mentionedfre-
forthegroup giveseveryonea chance to improve quentlyin the researchon cooperativelearning.
and providesa sense of accountability(Olsen & The firstapproach consistsof a multisteplesson-
Kagan, 1992). However,such scoring mightbe planning process, the second approach is com-
perceived negativelyby initiallyhigh achievers prisedoforganized,repeatableclassroom"learn-
who have less room to improvethan do initially ing structures,"and the thirdapproach involves
low achievers. Perhaps this is one reason that the packagingof entirecurricula.
manygiftedstudents(see Li & Adamson, 1992) The lesson-planningapproach, called Learn-
preferredindividualisticlearningover coopera- ing Together,organizescooperativelearningfor
tivelearning. use in any grade or age level with any subject
Research onEffectiveFormation (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1990, 1994).
ofCooperativeGroups.
researchout- Eighteen steps are divided into five categories,
Accordingto cooperative-learning decision points:
side the L2 field, structuredformsof teacher- representing lesson-planning
(a) specifying objectives; (b) making decisions
assigned heterogeneousgrouping can enhance about group size and assignments,arrang-
relations among classmates, promote learner- (e.g.,
to-learnertutoring,increase tolerance,decrease ing the room, planningmaterials,and assigning
group roles); (c) communicatingthe task, the
prejudice, and promote cross-culturalunder- structure, and thelearningactivity;(d) mon-
goal
standing (Slavin & Oickle, 1981; Kagan, 1985), and intervening;and (e) evaluatingand
itoring
although such grouping involves increased or taskcan fit
processing.VirtuallyanyL2 activity
thought,effort,and energyon the part of the into this structure.What defines this model as
teacher.Heterogeneous grouping can be done
on the basis of language proficiency,language cooperativelearningratherthanmerelyas group
work-and as potentiallyvaluable for L2 in-
background,ethnicity, gender,or otherfactors. struction-is the fact that interdependence,ac-
Random groupingor interest-based grouping
can providea perceptionof fairness,althoughit countability, group formation,social skills,and
structureare all builtintothesequence and com-
can also create possible incompatibilitiesand
municatedto the studentsin multipleways.
"loser teams" (Olsen & Kagan, 1992). Homoge-
The second approach, sometimes called the
neous grouping (according to language profi-
StructuralApproach, is based on the use of se-
ciencyor otherfactors)can ease classroomman-
quences of organized, content-free, repeatable
agementbut can creategroup labelingproblems classroombehaviors,knownas "structures"(Ka-
and inhibitlearner-to-learner tutoringopportu-
nities (Olsen & Kagan, 1992). gan, 1989; Olsen & Kagan, 1992; Sharan, 1990;
Sharan & Hertz-Lazarowitz,1980; Slavin, 1990;
Research on DevelopingSocialand Communicative Wade, Abrami, Poulsen, & Chambers, 1995).
Skills.Non-L2 research indicates that develop- These are differentfrom "activities,"which are
mentof specificsocial and communicative skills defined as content-boundand cannot be re-
is possiblethroughcooperativelearning(Slavin, peated meaningfully manytimes.Multiplestruc-
1991). Such skillsinclude askingforclarification, turescan sometimesbe used withina givenclass
checking the understandingof others,explain- period, depending on the learning objectives.
ing,paraphrasing,acknowledgingcontributions, There is littleor no systematicL2 research on
asking others to contribute,praising others,veri- these particularstructureswithregard to effec-
fyingconsensus,and mediatingconflicts. tivenesswithstudentsof different L2 proficiency
In the L2 classroom,many of these skillsare levels.However,one mightspeculatethatclass-or
viewedas socioaffective learningstrategies(O'Mal- team-buildingstructures(SimilarityGrouping,
ley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990, 1996a), and Line-Up,Roundtable,Round Robin),division-of-
some are included as memorizedL2 routinesor labor structures(Partners,Jigsaw),communica-
"gambits"(Coelho, 1992).These behaviorsare es- tion-creatingstructures(Talking Tokens, Para-
sentialin normalhuman communication,so it is phrase Passport,Match Mine), and masteryand
no surprisethatmanyL2 teacherspay attention review structures(Numbered Heads Together,
to them.If theseskillsare to be learned mostef- PairsCheck,Inside-OutsideCircle,Co-op Cards,
fectively,teachersmustprovideopportunitiesfor StudentTeamsAchievement Divisions,and Teams-

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RebeccaL. Oxford
Games-Tournaments)mightbe usefulwithlearn-
ers of varyingL2 proficiencies.Some concept-
development structures (Group Discussion,
Three-StepInterview, Pair Interview,Think-Pair-
Share, Solve-Pair-Share)and project structures
(Co-op/Co-op and Group Investigation)might
require studentsto have greaterL2 proficiency.
The thirdapproach consistsof using existing,
publishedcooperativelearningpackages thatad-
dressone or more aspects of the curriculum.For
instance,FindingOut/Discubrimiento (De Avila et
al., 1987) is a Spanish and English package de-
signed forelementarymath and science in Eng-
lishas a secondlanguage (ESL) /bilingualsettings.
In this package, teams are assigned to learning
centers;each team member must complete the
assignmentbefore the team can move on, with
rapid completershelpingslowercompleters.Com-
prehensive Readingand Composition
Integrated (based
on work by Slavin, 1990; Stevens et al., 1987)
combines cooperative learning structureswith
reading and process writing.TeamAccelerated In-
struction (Slavin et al., 1986) applies cooperative
learningstructuresto mathematics.Olsen's Prob-
lemSolvingApproachfor language learning asks
studentsto identifydifferencesbetween picture
pairs (see Kessler,1992). Listeningand Describing
Techniques (Palmer et al., 1988) applies discrete
data in fourkindsof pairworktasksforlanguage
learning: describing pictures, listening to de-
scriptionsofpictures,listeningfora word,and lis-
teningforcues to a scripteddialogue. The pack-
age called All SidesoftheIssue (Coelho, Winer,&
Olsen, 1989) asks each group of language learn-
ers to deal withfoursides of a controversial issue,
fromwhichdebates and discussionsemerge.
Comparison. As can be seen fromthe descrip-
tion of these three approaches, cooperative
learningis indeed highlyorganized and has spe-
cific aims. All of these approaches are usable
within the L2 setting, but more research is
needed about the effectiveness of these models
forthevarietyofpurposes (e.g., fluencydevelop-
ment, accuracy, and cultural understanding)
servedbyL2 instruction.
The next section, which deals withcollabora-
tivelearning,showsa verydifferent outlookfrom
thatof cooperativelearning.Cooperative learn-
ing concentrateson rigorouslyprescribed, al-
thoughcreative,featuresof classroomorganiza-
tion designed to lead to skill development.
Collaborativelearninghas a possiblydeeper epis-
temologicalbasis and focuseson social relation-
shipsin a communityof learners.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
447
COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
This section describesthe second communica-
tivestrand,collaborativelearning.In itscurrent
meaning,collaborativelearningis related to so-
cial constructivist
philosophy.Not all usersof the
term collaborative learningrefer to social con-
structivism,but increasingnumbersof people in
academia have begun to use thistermto implya
constructivistepistemology.Epistemologyis the
field of studythatdeals withwhatis knownand
how it is known.
Dewey'sPragmaticFormofSocial Constructivism
JohnDewey,an Americanphilosopherand ed-
ucator who is oftenviewed as a social construc-
tivist(although the termconstructivism was not
yet in vogue during his lifetime),developed a
pragmatic/instrumentalist approachto epistemol-
ogy (for details, see Oxford, 1997). In Dewey's
view,learnersdo not learn in isolation; the indi-
vidual learns by being part of the surrounding
communityand theworldas a whole.Deweypro-
posed a triangularrelationship for the social
constructionof ideas among the individual,the
community, and theworld.
Deweybelievedthatideas are meaningfulonly
iftheyare (a) partofan acceptabletheory,(b) in-
strumentally useful for creatingpositiveaction,
(c) constructedby participantsin society,and
(d) relatedto theguidepostsor referencepoints
providedbysociety.In Dewey'sview,disciplined,
reflectiveinquirypromotedby a communityof
learners (i.e., the knowledgecommunity)helps
createmeaningamongseeminglyunstableevents.
In manymodern publicationsabout L2 teaching
and learning, referencesare made to Dewey-
based ideas such as reflectivelearning,reflective
teaching,and communitiesof scholarsor learn-
ers. (For an excellentexample of some of these
usages,see Richards& Lockhart,1994.)
In the educational setting,Deweypreferredto
organize content around broad content-rich
ideas rather than around smaller problems or
projects.He was latermistakenlyviewed as pro-
motingprojectworkin the classroom,but in fact
he did not believe in discrete projects uncon-
nected to major themes.Modern-daythematic
instruction,covering themes such as family,
friendship,power,emotions,health,technology,
and so forth,is foundin some of today'smostin-
novativeL2 textbooks.This type of instruction
echoes Dewey's concept of content-rich ideas or
themes,as filteredthroughvarious L2 instruc-
tionalconceptssuch as functional-notional teach-
448 81 (1997)
TheModernLanguageJournal

ing and proficiency-basedinstruction(Nyikos, they participate. In a communityof learners,

personal communication,March 15, 1997). both childrenand adultsare activein structuring
the inquiry conversationally,although usually
Social ConstructivistIdeas withasymmetricroles.
Vygotsky's
For social constructivists, the emphasis is on
Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist,contrib- the learning process, ratherthanjust the com-
uted significantly to social constructivist episte- pletion of projects, in activity-basedsituations
mology.Like Dewey,Vygotskyrecognized that withmeaningfulpurposes.The studentbecomes
ideas have social origins; theyare constructed acculturated, enculturated, or reacculturated(i.e.,
throughcommunicationwithothers.An individ- apprenticedintoa particularlearningcultureor
ual's cognitivesystemis a resultof communica- environment[Bruffee,1993]) throughclassroom
tion in social groups and cannot be separated activitiesand throughthe modeling and coach-
fromsocial life (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Vygotsky ing of the teacherand manyothers.Ratherthan
(withDewey) focused on the individualpower- just the teacher/learnerdyad,thereexistsa field
fullyrooted in thegroup context(Donato, 1994; of manyactorsand manydifferent kindsof rela-
John-Steiner, 1985; Lantolf,1993). tionships.Manypeople can providethe scaffold-
ForVygotsky, the teacheracts as a facilitatoror ing that the student needs.
guide and the provider of assistance.Teachers
performa greatserviceto studentsbyproviding ApplicationsofSocial Constructivism to
any and all formsof assistancethat mighthelp Collaborative Learning in theL2 Classroom
students develop their language and cultural
skills.In the L2 classroom,Vygotsky's idea of as- The L2 learningprocessis situatedin a partic-
sistancemightinclude a hintor clue, a word of ular social context.It involvesbecoming part of
praise, a suggestion,a learningstrategy, a gram- thecultureofthelearningcommunity. FortheL2
mar reminder,or an intensivereview-anything learner, the immediate, close-at-handlearning
that the particularL2 studentneeds at a given communityis the classroom. For instance, an
time.When the learnerneeds the greatestassis- Australianor NorthAmericanor Britishlearner
tance, the teacher gives "scaffolding"to ensure of Spanish finds a learning communityin the
that the learner's constructswill continue to Spanish language classroom,iftheatmosphereis
growstrongerand more complex.As the learner nurturingand the proper assistanceis available.
requiresless help, the teacherslowlyremovesthe However,the L2 learning communitycan and
no longer needed scaffoldingthatprops up the should also extend beyond the classroom. L2
learner, and the learner becomes increasingly learningcan be a global adventurethatinvolves
self-directed and self-empowered. learningabout, understanding,and (at least to
Vygotsky introducedthe concept of the zoneof some extent)identifying withanotherculturein
proximaldevelopment (ZPD), that is, the realm of which people use a different language, possibly
potentiallearningthateach learnercould reach in a completelydifferentpart of the world. In
withina given developmentalspan under opti- fact,the proficiencystandardsof the American
mal circumstancesand withthebestpossiblesup- Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
port from the teacher and others in the environ- (ACTFL, 1995) specificallyhighlightthe cultural
ment.Lantolf(1993) emphasizesthatthe ZPD is aspectsoflanguage learning.Fewotherfieldsare
negotiatedbetween the teacherand the student as culture-orientedin the Deweyan sense as the
(or betweenthe studentand peers or others). fieldofL2 learningand teaching.The L2 teacher
oftenactsas an envoyor representative ofthetar-
get culture, notjust as a participantin theculture
RecentSocial Constructivist Contributions
of the classroom.Particularlyin unilingualcon-
Other social constructivistconcepts include textswherethetargetlanguage is viewedas a for-
context and situated cognition.The context (i.e., set- eign language, the teachermightbe themain or
ting and activity)in which knowledgeis devel- onlydirectcontactthatthe language learnerhas
oped cannotbe separatedfromlearning,nor is it withthe targetculture.
neutral (Lave & Wenger,1991; Rogoff& Lave, In a communityofL2 learners,culturaland lin-
1984). Learningis fullysituatedor locatedwithin guisticideas are best shaped throughreflective
a given context. Learning occurs while people inquirywithotherpeople (teachers,peers,native
participatein the socioculturalactivitiesof their speakers,etc.),who help thelearnernegotiatehis
learningcommunity, transforming (i.e., construct- or her own ZPD, thatis, the student'sdegree of
ing) theirunderstandingand responsibilitiesas potentialunder the best conditions.In a strong

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RebeccaL. Oxford
L2 learning community,these people provide
scaffolding,consistingof multipleformsof assis-
tance thatcan be removedbitbybitas thelearner
becomes moreproficientin thelanguage and the
culture (Scarcella & Oxford,1992).
Thus, social constructivismis the foundation
forcollaborativelearningin theL2 classroom.In
contrastwithcooperativeL2 learning,collabora-
tiveL2 learningas described here appears much
more grounded in an epistemologicalbase. Col-
laborativeL2 learning,when compared withco-
operativeL2 learning,seems less technique-ori-
ented, less prescriptive,and more concerned
withacculturationinto the learningcommunity.
Compared withcooperativeL2 learning,collab-
orativeL2 learningis more explicitlyorientedto
negotiatingand fulfillingthe potential (travers-
ing the ZPD) of each L2 learner,althoughcoop-
erativelearningproponentsmightdebate this.
We turnnowto thethirdcommunicative strand,
interaction.The followingexplanation viewsin-
teractionfromseveral theoreticaland practical
angles thatmightbe applicable to both coopera-
tivelearningand collaborativelearning.
INTERACTION
Interactioninvolvesinterpersonalcommunica-
tion. In the L2 classroom,interactionrelatesto:
(a) typesof language tasks,(b) learners'willing-
ness to communicatewitheach other,(c) learn-
ing styledimensions affectinginteraction,and
(d) group dynamics.
Language TasksPromoting
Interaction
Certain kinds of L2 tasks encourage interac-
tion: simulations,games, role plays,drama, and
theuse ofelectronicmedia. These can be used as
part of eithercooperativelearningor collabora-
tive learning,provided that theyare employed
using the principlesmentionedabove.
Simulationis thegeneral,overarchingtermde-
scribinga broad field thatincludes a varietyof
activitiesfrequentlyfound in the L2 classroom
such as games, role plays,and drama activities
(Crookall & Oxford,1990). A simulationsuch as
a mock internationalrelations summit repre-
sentssome real-worldsystem.At the same time,a
simulationis an actual, currentrealityin and of
itself.Other featuresof L2 simulationsinclude
theirrelativesafetyand thelowcostofmakingan
error.In an L2 classroomin whichthe teacheris
supportive,physical and emotional safetyare
guaranteedand participantscan make linguistic
mistakeswithoutseriousreal-world consequences.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
449
Contrastthiswithsome real-lifeL2 communica-
tion situations.For a person who is not a native
speaker of Japanese, participatingin an actual
(nonsimulated)Japanese-languagebusiness ne-
gotiation in Japan involvesveryhigh social and
financialstakes.
Role playin the L2 classroomis a formof sim-
ulation. Role playis a social activityin whichpar-
ticipantsact out specified roles, oftenwithina
moreor lessprescribedsocial settingor scenario.
The role playparticipantrepresentsand experi-
ences some charactertypeidentifiablein every-
day life. In L2 role play,studentsare asked to
memorize,paraphrase,or even create the words
said by a particularcharacter.Drama in the L2
classroom is similar to role play but might be
more formalized and more literary.L2 games
might or mightnot involvetaking clear social
roles and usually have no permanentlyserious
error cost, although theyoftenproduce tempo-
rarywinnersand losers.
L2 research (Scarcella & Crookall, 1990) indi-
cates thatsuch tasksgeneratevastamountsofau-
thenticlanguage, cause active student involve-
ment,engage students'motivationand interest,
help studentsthinkabout and livethe targetcul-
tureto some degree,and enable learnersto prac-
tice L2 communicationskills.Manybooks forL2
teachersand learnersemphasizesimulations, role
plays,drama,and games.3
Electronic media also encourage interaction.
Relevanttasks include networkingbetween stu-
dents at home and abroad, networkingbetween
studentsand teachers,communicatingin inter-
active-videodiscsimulations,talkingin a small
group gatheredaround the computer,and track-
ing one's own learningstrategiesinteractively via
computer (Baltra, 1990; Baily,1996; Chapelle &
Mizuno, 1989; Crookall & Oxford,1990; Gonza-
les-Edfelt,1990; Hansen, 1990; Holland, Kaplan,
& Sams, 1995; Smith,1988).
to Communicate
Willingness in the
Language Classroom
A second aspectofclassroominteractionis will-
ingnessto communicate,which is defined as a stu-
dent'sintentiontointeractwithothersin thetarget
language, given the chance to do so. Research
has shown that willingnessto communicatein
one's own nativelanguage is related to a feeling
of comfort,high self-esteem,extroversion,low
anxiety,and perceivedcompetence,whereasun-
willingnessto communicate (i.e., communica-
tion apprehension) is associated withthe oppo-
sites: discomfort,low self-esteem,introversion,
450
high anxiety,and perceivedincompetence (Mc-
Croskey,1984). Accordingto L2 research (Mac-
Intyre,1994;MacIntyre& Charos,1996),students,
especiallynovices,who are willingto communi-
cate withothersin the targetlanguage are likely
to possess a strongtolerancefor ambiguity,low
anxiety,and a desire to take moderatebut intelli-
gentrisks,such as guessingwordmeaningsbased
on backgroundknowledgeand speaking up de-
spite the possibilityof making occasional mis-
takes (see discussionoflearningstylebelow).Stu-
dentswho take no risksat all, or thosewho take
extreme,uninformedrisks,are less likelyto have
positive experiences and more prone to lan-
guage anxiety. Unwillingnessto communicate
can arise ifthe L2 studentdoes not feel anylink
with the targetlanguage group or feels threat-
ened by the loss of his or her native-language
identity.Willingnessto communicatemightbe a
keyvariablein describingdifferencesamong L2
learnerswhentheygo out intothereal world.It is
certainlyrelated to communicativeconfidence
and to thedegree ofanxietya personexperiences
about interacting withothersin a communicative
setting (Clement, 1986; Clement & Kruidenier,
1985; Gardner & MacIntyre,1993; Horwitz &
Young,1991; Labrie & Clement,1986; MacIntyre
& Gardner,1989, 1991).
Willingnessto communicatein theL2 is proba-
blyalso associated withwhatSeliger (1983) calls
"input generation,"although this relationship
has not yet been explored empirically.High in-
put generatorsinitiateL2 conversationswiththe
teacheror withpeers,usinganynumberofmeans
to take an activerole. Low inputgeneratorstake
a more passiverole in theL2 classroom,interact-
ing almost exclusivelywith the teacher.Seliger
foundthat,comparedwithlow inputgenerators,
highinputgeneratorsspokemoreoftenin theL2,
caused othersto directmore L2 speech toward
them,and made fewercross-languageerrors.
Cooperativeand collaborativelearningproba-
bly encourage involvementby studentswho are
inclined to be high input generatorsand allow
reticentstudentsto feel morewillingto commu-
nicate. The social-psychologicalaspects of inter-
action are no doubt related to the kind of L2
tasksemployedand to thenatureof theL2 learn-
ing environment.
Potentially
LearningStyles L2
Influencing
ClassroomInteraction
A third interactionalaspect involveslearning
which can be defined as the general ap-
styles,
proaches studentsuse to learn a new subject or
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheModernLanguageJournal81 (1997)
tacklea new problem.Some of theseapproaches
involvea highdegree ofinteractionwhereassome
emphasize less interaction.Individual learners
have a compositeof at least 20 styledimensions
(Oxford& Anderson,1995; Oxford,Hollaway,&
Horton-Murillo,1992), including the following,
among others:global versus analytic,concrete-
sequential versus intuitive-random, closure-ori-
entedversusopen, extroverted versusintroverted,
and visual versusauditoryversushands-on (see
Table 3). The most relevantstyledimensionfor
language classroom interactionis extroversion
versusintroversion, althoughTable 3 showsthat
manydimensionscan affectsuch interaction.
Everytime a studentinteractswith any other
studentin theL2 classroom,multipledimensions
of the firststudent'sstyleinteractwithmultiple
aspectsof thesecond student'sstyle.Imagine this
single-student-to-single-student situation expo-
nentiatedbythenumberof studentsin the class,
resultingin hundreds of possible styleinterac-
tionsjust among the studentsthemselves.Then
imagine theL2 teacher-who bringsa set of per-
sonallyvaluable learningstyledimensionsas well
as a set of teachingstyleelementsthatmightnot
matchhis or her own learningstyle-interacting
witheach of the students,withsmall clustersof
students,and with the whole class. Sometimes
these interactionsresult in styleharmonies,in
whichthe stylesare the same or at leastcompati-
ble; however,at othertimes,theseinteractionsre-
sult in styleconflicts,in which the stylesclash
subtlyor dramatically. Wallaceand Oxford(1992)
discovered that teacher-studentstyle harmony,
compared withstyleconflict,resultedin signifi-
cantly better grades for writing,reading, and
grammar.
Teachers and learnersare in the best position
to understandstyleconflicts(as well as stylehar-
monies) if theyhave taken the time to identify
and discuss their own preferredstyles.A style
survey (see instrumentscontained in Reid's
[1995] book on learning stylesin the L2 class-
room) is a quick, usefulwayto identifylearning
styles.Student-written learning narrativesand
group discussions about learning uncover stu-
dents' learningstylesand experienceswithteach-
ers. Understandingthe stylepreferencesof indi-
vidual language learnersand of any L2 class in
generalhelps theteacherdesignlessonsthatpro-
vide a range of activitiessuitableforall the peo-
ple in the class, neitherslightingnor favoringa
particularsetofindividuals(Oxford,Hollaway,&
Horton-Murillo,1992; Oxford,1996b).
RebeccaL. Oxford
TABLE 3
of Different
Characteristics LearningStylesInfluencingL2 ClassroomInteraction
GLOBAL
Asksforthebigpicture
Notalwaysinterestedin accuracy
Feelscomfortablewithcompensating
in speechforlackofknowledge
Impulsive
CONCRETE-SEQUENTIAL
Needshighstructure and order
Talksaboutthepresenttask
Asksforexplicitdirections
Needsan authorityfigure
CLOSURE-ORIENTED
Requestsdeadlinesfortaskcompletion
List-maker
and list-follower
Wantsto decide rapidly
EXTROVERTED
Getsenergyfromotherpeople
Enjoysgroupwork
Likesmanyeventsand activities
Oftenextremely
sociable
VISUAL AUDITORY
Learnsbestvisually Learnsbestauditorally
GroupDynamicsin theL2 Classroom
A finalaspectof classroominteractionis group
dynamics.The group,whichis richerin resources
than anysingleindividual,affectsmembers'atti-
tudes, such as confidence and satisfaction,and
theseattitudesinfluenceinteraction.Groupspro-
vide guidelines for behavior within the group
(which might be very differentfrom behavior
outside thegroup),offerstandardsforself-evalu-
ation, and help learnersmaintainenergy.
In the L2 classroom,the group can be consid-
ered the whole class of students (and the
teacher),butitcan also be smallerclustersor sub-
groups of studentsworkingon specifictasks.Se-
nior (1997) argues that L2 classes need to be
transformedinto bonded groups. For a class to
become bonded, the typicalstages in group life
oftenoccur. Frankand Brownell(1989) identify
fourstagesof group life.The firststage is group
formation,whereasthelast three (conflict,cohe-
sion,and problem-solving)are sometimesknown
collectivelyas group development.
Harris (1993), an organizationalbehaviorspe-
cialist,describes three typesof group cultures:
(a) authoritarian/bureaucratic,(b) compromise/
supportive,and (c) performance/innovative. The
authoritarian/bureaucraticculture uses rules,
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
451
ANALYTIC
Asksformanydetails
Asksforaccuracyand precision
Avoidscompensationstrategiesthat
mightcause imprecision
in speaking
Reflective
INTUITIVE-RANDOM
Likesrandomness and freedom
Talksaboutfuturisticpossibilities
Prefersto makeup owndirections
Does wellwithoutan authorityfigure
OPEN
Sometimesfeelsrestrictedbydeadlines
Ignoreslistsevenaftermakingthem
Wantsto keepall optionsopen
INTROVERTED
Feelsenergyis sappedbyothers
Likesto workaloneor in familiar
grouponly
Prefersto concentrateon fewerthings
Can be sociableor withdrawn,dependingon
situationand whois involved
HANDS-ON
Learnsbestthroughmovement/touch
laws,rewards,and punishmentsto controlmem-
bers,withthe desired end being compliance to
authority.The compromise/supportiveculture
uses interpersonalor group commitment, discus-
sion, and agreement,with the desired goal of
consensus.The performance/innovative culture
emphasizesinternallycontrolled,highlyindivid-
ualistic ideas, with the goal being self-actualiza-
tion and individualachievement.Depending on
theteacherand thegroup members,theL2 class-
room can containanyofthesetypesofgroup cul-
tures.
The classroom'sphysicalenvironmentgreatly
affectstheinteractionstakingplace withinit.Al-
thoughlittleresearchon physicalenvironments
has been conducted in L2 instructionsettings,
common sense suggeststhatthisenvironmental
principle applies to the L2 classroomjust as it
does to otherkindsof classrooms.The arrange-
mentofthetraditionalclassroom,withitsrowsof
desksand theteacherat thefront,is teacher-cen-
tered.Research (Pattersonet al., 1979; Loughlin,
1992) indicates that such an arrangementhin-
derscommunication,exceptbetweentheteacher
and one studentat a time.This can be comfort-
ing to studentswho wantto have as littleinterac-
tion as possible. Yet this settingalso reinforces
students'fearsthat,ifsingledout, theymightre-
452
ceive the teacher'snegativecriticismin frontof
the whole class. A circular or semicircularar-
rangement(withconcentricdouble or triplecir-
cles, or semicirclesifthegroup is large) is adapt-
able formanyL2 tasksand helps achieve optimal
eye contact (which mightbe culturallyaccept-
able for some studentsbut not others). When
small-groupworkoccurs,the teacheris not typi-
callypresentin themain interactionnetworks.4
As discussed here, the interactionstrand in-
cludes at least four aspects: language tasks,the
social-psychologicalconcept of willingness to
communicate,learningstyles,and group dynam-
ics. Interactionis thus a heterogeneousbut im-
portantconcept forthe communicativeL2 class-
room.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE QUESTIONS
This article argues that cooperative learning,
collaborativelearning,and interactionare three
strandsin the communicativeL2 classroom.Co-
operativelearningrefersprimarilyto an arrayof
highlystructuredgoals and techniquesforlearn-
ing. Collaborativelearning is more philosophi-
callyoriented,withthe goal of acculturatingstu-
dents into the immediatecommunityof learners
and the widerworld of the targetlanguage and
culture. Interactionis a varied and broad con-
cept related to a number of keythemes,as dis-
cussed above.
The articlesin thisspecial issue reflect,to one
degree or another,the use of these threeterms,
althoughnot alwaysin thewaysdescribed in the
presentdiscussion.Each article involvesvarious
kindsand degrees of interaction.This themeis a
specific focus for Devitt,who describes interac-
tion betweenthe studentand the authentictext.
Interactionarisesclearlyin anotherarticle,when
Vandergriftspeaks of receptivestrategiesin in-
teractivelistening.In D6rnyei's article,the pri-
maryfocusis on one aspectofinteraction,group
dynamics.
Severalarticlesin thisspecial issue deal explic-
itly or implicitlywith collaborative learning,
whichembodies the constructivist viewof accul-
turation into a community.Nyikos and Hash-
imoto,Horwitzet al., and Wilhelmall describe-
in multiple and interestingways-apprentice
language teachersbecomingpartof a cultureor
communityof teachers. Warschauer explores
computer-mediated collaborativelearning.
Althoughbeyondthescope of thepresentarti-
cle, otherimportantquestionscall forfurtherre-
search:What differencesexistin the culturalac-
ceptabilityof cooperativelearning,collaborative
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheModernLanguageJournal81 (1997)
learning,and interactionin language classrooms
in different partsof theworld?Would everycul-
ture embrace cooperative learning,which pro-
motes not only achievementbut also Western-
stylesocial skills,in-class communication,and
such valuesas toleranceand altruism?Would the
social constructivist
beliefsunderlyingcollabora-
tivelearning-beliefs such as the need foraccul-
turatingthe studentinto a learningcommunity,
scaffoldingand nurturingthe learner,and nego-
tiatingthe ZPD in a social context-be equally
accepted bythePeople's Republic of China, New
Zealand, Zimbabwe,or France? How does reli-
gion relate to the acceptabilityof these social
constructivistideas? Would diverse culturesbe
warmly enthusiastic about interaction-related
tasksthatmightrequiresignificantinstructional
varietyand creativity,involvecomplex group dy-
namics, allow styleconflictsto emerge, or per-
haps embarrassthosewho are reluctantto com-
municate?For some ideas about theseissues,see
Hofstede (1986), Oxford (1995), and Sullivan
(1996).
Anotherset of questions includes the follow-
ing:To whatextentcan cooperativelearning,col-
laborativelearning,and interactionbe employed
in the same L2 classroom?To what degree do
these approaches clash? To whatdegree do they
overlap?Matthewset al. (1995) call forbuilding
bridges between cooperative learning and col-
laborative learning,although these authors do
not specificallyinclude interactionas another
possible candidateforbridge-building. What de-
gree ofeffort would be involvedin buildingthese
bridges?Would anyone have to forsakedeeply
held values in theprocess?5
Furtherdialogue is needed among L2 teachers
and researchersabout cooperativelearning,col-
laborativelearning,and interaction.As thisdis-
cussion continues,we can develop these three
strandsintoa larger,more comprehensive,more
cohesive typologyof interpersonalcommunica-
tion in theL2 classroom.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Barcelos
AnaMariaFerreira
Thankstomystudents,
(1997) and Mark Putnam (1996), and to colleague
ZoltainD6rnyei(1994) forstimulatingmythinkingand
providingresources.I appreciatethehelpfulreviewsby
Elaine Horwitzand MarthaNyikos,whose criticismis
alwayswarmlywelcomed. For theircontributions,my
sincerethanksgo to SallyMagnan, editor of thisjour-
nal, and her excellenteditorialassistants;myhusband,
MauryBreecher;and myfather,George Oxford.
RebeccaL. Oxford
NOTES
1 Dictionarydefinitionsare a startingplace forun-
derstandingthe concepts of cooperativelearning,col-
laborativelearning,and interaction.To cooperate is de-
fined as "towork(operate) togetherjointly withothers
to some end," according to TheNewLexicon:Webster's
Dictionaryof theEnglishLanguage,Encyclopedic Edition
(Lexicon, 1987). In thesame volume,tocollaborate is de-
fined as "to worktogether,especiallyon workof an in-
tellectualnature."Therefore,at the mostfundamental
and collaborative
level, cooperative both describe a situa-
tion of workingtogetherwithothersto some end, pos-
siblyan intellectualone. To interactmeans "to act upon
each other,"according to the same dictionary(Lexi-
con, 1987). Interactionthereforerefersto the situation
in whichpeople (or things)act upon each other.
2 For other L2 research evidence, see Deen (1991),
D6rnyei (1994), Fathman and Kessler (1993), Gunder-
son and Johnson (1980), McGroarty(1993), and Szo-
stek (1994). For non-L2 evidence, see Davidson and
Worsham(1992),Jacques (1991),JohnsonandJohnson
(1989, 1994), Johnson,Johnson,and Holubec (1990,
1994), Slavin (1990, 1991), Qin (1992), and Thousand,
Villa, and Nevin (1994).
3 A few of these books include: MethodsthatWork:
Ideas for Literacyand Language Teachers(Oller, 1993),
Making It Happen: Interactionin theSecondLanguage
Classroom(Richard-Amato,1988), Interactive Techniques
fortheESL Classroom (Shoemaker & Shoemaker,1991),
DevelopingCommunication Skills:A PracticalHandbook for
Language Teachers, withExamplesin English,Frenchand
German(Pattison, 1987), GamesforLanguageLearning
(Wright,Betteridge,& Buckby,1991), and Drama Tech-
niquesforLanguageLearning:A Resource BookofCommu-
nicationActivitiesforLanguage Teachers(Maley & Duff,
1992).
4 A new book edited by Bailey and Nunan (1996),
Voices fromtheLanguageClassroom: Research
Qualitative in
SecondLanguageAcquisition, illustratesmanyaspects of
group dynamicsinfluencinginteraction.
5 In myown teaching,I employthe threeapproaches
I regularlyuse simple but powerful
fairlycomfortably.
cooperative learning tasks such as Value Line, Brain-
storming,Jigsaw,and Think-Pair-Share.I consciously
apply the collaborativelearningconcepts of accultura-
tion,situatedcognition,ZPD, and scaffolding.I use in-
teraction-generating games and simulations,analyzeas
best I can the interactivedynamicswithingroups,and
pay close attentionto the relationshipsbetween learn-
ing stylesand willingnessto interactin the classroom.
So farI have foundmanypointsof concordance in the
threeapproaches or perspectives.However,as noted in
thisarticle,I perceivesome philosophicaland practical
differencesin emphasisamong thesethreeapproaches.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
453
REFERENCES
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan-
guages. (1995). Standards forlanguageand culture
learning.Hastings-on-Hudson,NY: Author.
Bailey,K. M., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1996). Voicesfromthe
language classroom:Qualitativeresearchin second
languageeducation.Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versityPress.
Baily,C. A. (1996). Unobtrusivecomputerizedobserva-
tion ofcompensationstrategiesforwritingto de-
terminethe effectiveness of strategyinstruction.
In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Languagelearningstrategies
aroundtheworld:Crosscultural (pp. 141-
perspectives
150). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Baltra, A. (1990). Language learning through com-
puter adventuregames. Simulationand Gaming,
21(4), 445-452.
Barcelos, A. M. F (1997, February).Culturalaspectsof
Brazilianand Americanculturerelatedto classroom
learningand teaching. Paper presentedat the In-
ternational Conference on Language, Litera-
ture, and Culture, Gadsden State Community
College, Gadsden, AL.
Bruffee,K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning:Higheredu-
cation,interdependence,and theauthority of knowl-
edge.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins University Press.
Chapelle, C., & Mizuno,S. (1989). Students'strategies
with learner-controlledCALL. CALICOJournal,
7,25-47.
Clement,R. (1986). Second language proficiencyand
acculturation:An investigationof the effectsof
language status and individual characteristics.
JournalofLanguageand SocialPsychology, 5, 271-
290.
Clement,R., & Kruidenier,B. G. (1985). Aptitude,atti-
tude, and motivationin second language profi-
ciency:A testof Clement'smodel.JournalofLan-
guageand SocialPsychology, 4, 21-37.
Coelho, E. (1992). Cooperative learning: Foundation
for a communicativecurriculum.In C. Kessler
(Ed.), Cooperativelanguagelearning:A teacher's re-
sourcebook(pp. 31-50). Englewood Cliffs,NJ:
PrenticeHall.
Coelho, E., Winer,L., & Olsen,J.W-B. (1989). All sides
oftheissue.Hayward,CA: Alemany.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring theclassroom:Con-
ditionsforproductivesmallgroups. ReviewofEd-
ucationalResearch, 64(1), 1-35.
Crookall,D., & Oxford,R. L. (1990). Linkinglanguage
learningand simulation/gaming.In D. Crookall
& R. L. Oxford (Eds.), Simulation, gaming,and
languagelearning(pp. 2-24). Boston: Heinle.
Davidson, N., & Worsham,T. (Eds.). (1992). Enhancing
thinkingthroughcooperative learning.New York:
TeachersCollege Press.
De Avila,E. A., Duncan, S. E., & Navarrete,C. (1987).
Findingout/Discubrimiento. Northvale,NJ:Santil-
lana.
454
Deen,J. Y (1991). Comparinginteractionin a coopera-
tive learning and teacher centered foreignlan-
guage classroom.ITL ReviewofApplied Linguistics,
93-94, 153-181.
Devitt,S. (1997). Interactingwithauthentictexts:Mul-
tilayeredprocesses.ModernLanguageJournal,81,
457-469.
Donato, R. (1994). Collectivescaffoldingin second lan-
guage learning.InJ.P. Lantolf& G. Appel (Eds.),
(pp. 31-56). Vygotskian on secondlan-
perspectives
guageresearch. Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
D6rnyei,Z. (1994). Motivationand motivatingin the
foreign language classroom. ModernLanguage
Journal,78,273-284.
D6rnyei,Z. (1997). Psychologicalprocessesin coopera-
tivelanguage learning:Group dynamicsand mo-
tivation.ModernLanguageJournal,81, 482-493.
Fathman,A. K., & Kessler,C. (1993). Cooperative lan-
guage learningin school contexts.AnnualReview
ofAppliedLinguistics, 13, 127-140.
Frank,A., & Brownell,J. (1989). Organizational commu-
nicationand behavior: Communicating toimprove per-
formance (2 + 2 = 5). New York:Holt, Rinehart&
Winston.
Gardner,R. C., & MacIntyre,P. D. (1993). On the mea-
surement of affectivevariables in second lan-
guage learning.LanguageLearning,43, 157-194.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place calledschool:Prospects forthe
future.New York:McGraw-Hill.
Gonzales-Edfeldt,N. (1990). Oral instructionand col-
laborationat the computer:Learning Englishas
a second language with the help of your peers.
Computers in theSchool,7(1-2), 53-89.
Gunderson,B., &Johnson,D. (1980). Buildingpositive
attitudesby using cooperative learninggroups.
ForeignLanguageAnnals,13, 39-43.
Hansen, E. (1990). The role of interactivevideo tech-
nology in higher education: Case studyand a
proposed framework.EducationalTechnology, 30
(9), 13-21.
Harris, T. E. (1993). Appliedorganizational communica-
tion:Perspectives, and pragmatics.
principles, Hills-
dale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller,N. (Eds.). (1992). Inter-
actionin cooperative groups:A theoreticalanatomyof
grouplearning.New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Hofstede,G. (1986). Cultural differencesin teaching
and learning.International JournalofIntercultural
Relations,10, 301-320.
Holland, V. M., Kaplan, J. D., & Sams, M. R. (Eds.).
(1995). Intelligent languagetutors:Theoryshaping
technology.Mawah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Holt, D. D. (Ed.). (1993). Cooperativelearning: A response
tolinguistic Washington,DC:
and culturaldiversity.
CenterforApplied Linguistics.
Horwitz,E., Bresslau,B., Dryden, M., McLendon, M.
E., & Yu,J.-F.(1997). Helping teachersprepare
forcollaborationwithlanguage learners:A grad-
uate course about the second language learner.
ModernLanguageJournal,81, 518-526.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Modern Language Journal 81 (1997)
Horwitz,E., & Young,D. (1991). Languageanxiety: From
theory and research toclassroom implications. Engle-
wood Cliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Huber, G. L., Sorrentino,R. M., Davidson, M. A., Ep-
plier,R. (1992). Uncertaintyorientationand co-
operativelearning:Individualdifferenceswithin
and across cultures.Learningand IndividualDif-
ferences, 4(1), 1-24.
Jacques, D. (1991). Learningin groups(2nd ed.). Lon-
don: Kogan Page.
John-Steiner, V. (1985). The road to competence in an
alien land:AVygotskianperspectiveon bilingual-
ism.InJ.V.Wertsch(Ed.), Culture, communication,
and cognition:Vygotskian perspectives(pp. 348-
372). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Johnson,D. W, &Johnson,R. T. (1989). Cooperation and
competition: Theory and research.Edina, MN: Inter-
action Book.
Johnson,D. W.,& Johnson,R. T. (1994). Learningtogether
and alone:Cooperative, competitive,and individualis-
ticlearning(4thed.). Boston:Allyn& Bacon.
Johnson,D. W.,Johnson,R. T., & Holubec, E.J. (1990).
Circlesof learning:Cooperationin the classroom.
Edina, MN: InteractionBook.
Johnson,D. W.,Johnson,R. T., & Holubec, E.J. (1994).
The newcirclesoflearning:Cooperation in theclass-
roomand school.Alexandria,VA: Association for
Supervisionand CurriculumDevelopment.
Kagan, S. (1985). Co-op co-op: A flexiblecooperative
learning technique. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S.
Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz,C. Webb, & R.
Schmuck(Eds.), (pp. 67-96) Learningtocooperate,
cooperating tolearn.New York:Plenum.
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learningresourcesfor teachers.
SanJuanCapistrano,CA: ResourcesforTeachers.
Kessler,C. (Ed.). (1992). Cooperative learning:A teacher's
resource book.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Labrie, N., & Clement,R. (1986). Ethnolinguistic vital-
ity,self-confidence, and second language profi-
ciency: An investigation.JournalofMultilingual
and Multicultural Development, 7,269-282.
Lantolf,J. (1993). Socioculturaltheoryand the second
language classroom:The lesson of StrategicIn-
teraction.In J.E. Alatis (Ed.), Strategic interaction
and languageacquisition:Theory, practice,and re-
search(pp. 220-233). Washington,DC: George-
townUniversity Press.
Lave,J.,& Wenger,E. (1991). Situatedlearning: Legitimate
peripheralparticipation.Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Li, A. K. E, & Adamson, G. (1992). Giftedsecondary
students'preferredlearningstyle:Cooperative,
competitive,or individualistic? JournalfortheEd-
ucationoftheGifted, 16(1), 46-54.
Loughlin, C. E. (1992). Classroom physicalenviron-
ment.In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofEduca-
tionalResearch(6thed., Vol. 1, pp. 161-164). New
York:Macmillan.
MacIntyre,P. D. (1994). Variables underlyingwilling-
ness to communicate:A causal analysis.Commu-
nicationResearch Reports, 11, 135-142.
RebeccaL. Oxford
MacIntyre,P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, atti-
tudes, and affectas predictorsof second lan-
guage communication.JournalofLanguage and
SocialPsychology, 15, 3-26.
MacIntyre,P. D., & Gardner,R. C. (1989). Anxietyand
second language learning:Toward a theoretical
clarification.LanguageLearning,39, 251-275.
MacIntyre,P. D., & Gardner,R. C. (1991). Language
anxiety:Itsrelationto otheranxietiesand to proc-
essing in nativeand second languages. Language
Learning,41, 513-534.
Maley,A., & Duff,A. (1992). Drama techniques in lan-
guagelearning:A resource bookofcommunication ac-
tivitiesfor language teachers.Cambridge: Cam-
bridgeUniversity Press.
Matthews,R. S., Cooper,J.L., Davidson, N., & Hawkes,
P. (1995). Building bridgesbetween cooperative
and collaborativelearning.Change,27, 35-40.
McCroskey,J. C. (1984). The communicationappre-
hension perspective.In J. A. Daly & J. C. Mc-
Croskey (Eds.), Avoidingcommunication: Shyness,
reticence,and communication apprehension (pp. 13-
38). BeverlyHills,CA: Sage.
McGroarty,M. (1993). Cooperative learning and sec-
ond language acquisition.In D. D. Holt (Ed.), Co-
operative learning(pp. 19-46). Washington,DC:
CenterforApplied Linguistics.
Neu,J. (1990). Assessingthe role of nonverbalcommu-
nication in the acquisition of communicative
competencein L2. In R. C. Scarcella,E. S. Ander-
son, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communica-
tivecompetence in a secondlanguage(pp. 121-138).
New York:NewburyHouse/Harper & Row.
Thenewlexicon:Webster's dictionary oftheEnglishlanguage
(encyclopedic edition).(1987). New York:Lexicon.
Nyikos,M., & Hashimoto,R. (1997). Constructivist the-
oryapplied to collaborativelearningin teaching
education: In search of ZPD. ModernLanguage
Journal,81, 506-517.
Oller,J.W.,Jr.(1993). Methodsthatwork:Ideasforliteracy
and languageteaching (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle.
Olsen, R. E. W-B., & Kagan, S. (1992). About coopera-
tivelearning.In C. Kessler(Ed.), Cooperative lan-
guagelearning:A teacher's resource
book(pp. 1-30).
Englewood Cliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
O'Malley,J. M., & Chamot,A. U. (1990). Learningstrate-
gies in second language acquisition.Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Oxford,R. L. (1990). Languagelearningstrategies: What
everyteacher shouldknow.Boston: Heinle.
Oxford,R. L. (1995). Patterns ofculturalidentity.
Boston:
Heinle.
Oxford,R. L. (Ed.). (1996a). Languagelearning strategies
aroundtheworld:Crosscultural Manoa:
perspectives.
University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford,R. L. (1996b). Personalitytypein the foreign
or second language classroom: Theoretical and
empiricalperspectives.In A. Horning& R. Sudol
(Eds.), Understanding Personality
literacy: preferences
in rhetoricaland psycholinguistic contexts(pp. 125-
145). Creskill,NJ:Hamden.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
455
Oxford,R. L. (1997). Constructivism:Shape-shifting,
substance, and teacher education applications.
Peabody JournalofEducation,72,35-66.
Oxford,R. L., & Anderson,N.J. (1995). A crosscultural
view of language learningstyles.LanguageTeach-
ing,28, 201-215.
Oxford,R. L., Hollaway,M. E., & Horton-Murillo,D.
(1992). Language learning styles:Research and
practicalconsiderationsforteachingin the mul-
ticultural tertiaryESL/EFL classroom. System,
20(4), 439-456.
Palmer,A. S., Rodgers,T. S., & Olsen, J. W-B. (1988).
Back and forth:Pair activities forlanguagedevelop-
ment.Hayward,CA: Alemany.
Patterson,M. L., Kelly,C. E., Kondracki,B. A., & Wulf,
L. J. (1979). Effectsof seating arrangementon
small-group behavior. Social Psychological Quar-
terly,42, 180-185.
Pattison, P. (1987). Developingcommunication skills:A
practicalhandbook forlanguageteachers, withexam-
ples in English,Frenchand German.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Putnam,M. (1996). Collaboration and cognition. Unpub-
lished manuscript, Universityof Alabama at
Tuscaloosa.
Qin, Z. (1992). A meta-analysisof the effectiveness of
achievinghigher-orderlearningtasksin cooper-
ative learningcompared withcompetitivelearn-
ing. (Doctoral dissertation,University of Minne-
sota, 1992.) University MicrofilmsInternational
DissertationInformationService No. 9236971.
Qualley,D. J., & Chiseri-Strater, E. (1995). Collabora-
tion as reflexivedialogue: A knowing "deeper
than reason."JournalofAdvancedComposition, 14
(1), 111-130.
Reid,J. (Ed.). (1995). Learningstyles in theESL/EFLclass-
room.Boston: Heinle.
Richard-Amato, P. A. (1988). Makingithappen:Interaction
in thesecondlanguageclassroom. New York:Long-
man.
Richards,J.C., & Lockhart,C. (1994). Reflective teaching
in secondlanguageclassrooms. Cambridge: Cam-
bridgeUniversity Press.
Rogoff,B., & Lave,J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition.
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Scarcella, R., & Crookall, D. (1990). Simulation/gam-
ing and language acquisition. In D. Crookall &
R. L. Oxford (Eds.), Simulation, gaming,and lan-
guagelearning(pp. 223-230). Boston: Heinle.
Scarcella, R., & Oxford,R. (1992). The tapestry oflan-
guagelearning:Theindividualin thecommunicative
classroom. Boston: Heinle.
Seliger,H. W. (1983). Learner interactionin the class-
room and its effecton language acquisition. In
H. W Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-
orientedresearchin second language acquisition
(pp. 246-266). Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse.
Senior,R. (1997). Transforminglanguage classes into
bonded groups.ELTJournal,51(1), 3-11.
Sharan, S. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative learning:Theoryand
research.New York:Praeger.
456 The ModernLanguage Journal 81 (1997)

Sharan, S., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). A group-in- Thousand,J.S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin,A. I. (1994). Cre-
vestigationmethod of cooperative learning in ativity and collaborative
learning:A practicalguideto
the classroom.In S. Sharan,P. Hare, C. D. Webb, empowering studentsand teachers.
Baltimore:Paul
& R. Hertz-Lazarowitz in educa-
(Eds.), Cooperation Brookes.
tion.Provo,UT: BrighamYoung University Press. Vandergrift, L. (1997). The Cinderella of communica-
Shoemaker,C. L., & Shoemaker,E. F (1991). Interactive tion strategies:Reception strategiesin interac-
techniques for the ESL classroom.NY: Newbury tivelistening.ModernLanguageJournal,81, 494-
House/HarperCollins. 505.
Slavin,R. E. (1990). Cooperativelearning:Theory, research, Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society:The development of
and practice.Boston: Allyn& Bacon. higher psychological Cambridge,MA: Har-
processes.
Slavin,R. E. (1991). Synthesisof researchon coopera- vardUniversity Press.
tive learning. EducationalLeadership,48(5), 71- Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language.Cambridge,
82. MA: MIT Press.
Slavin, R. E., Leavy,M. B., & Madden, N. A. (1986). Wade, A., Abrami,P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers,B.
TeamAccelerated Instruction: Mathematics. Water- (1995). Currentresources in cooperativelearning.
town,MA: Charlesbridge. New York:University PressofAmerica.
Slavin, R. E. & Oickle, E. (1981). Effectsof learning Wallace, B., & Oxford,R. L. (1992). Disparityin learn-
teamson studentachievementand race relations: ing stylesand teaching stylesin the ESL class-
Treatmentbyrace interactions.Sociology ofEduca- room: Does this mean war? AMTESOL Journal,
tion,54, 174-180. 1(1), 45-68.
Smith,W. E (Ed.). (1988). Modernmediainforeignlan- Warschauer,M. (1997). Computer-mediated collabora-
guage education:Theoryand implementation. Lin- tive learning:Theory and practice. ModernLan-
colnwood,IL: National Textbook. guageJournal, 81, 470-481.
Stevens,R. J.,Madden, N. A., Slavin,R. E., & Farnish, Wilhelm,K. H. (1997). Sometimeskickingand scream-
A. M. (1987). Cooperative integratedreading ing: Language teachers-in-training reactto a col-
and composition: Two field experiments.Read- laborativelearningmodel. ModernLanguagejour-
ingResearch Quarterly, 22, 433-454. nal, 81, 000.
Sullivan,P. N. (1996). Socioculturalinfluenceson class- Wright,A., Betteridge,D., & Buckby,M. (1991). Games
room interactionalstyles.TESOLJournal,6, 32- for language learning.Cambridge: Cambridge
34. University Press.
Szostek,C. (1994). Assessingthe effectsof cooperative
learning in an honors foreign language class-
room. ForeignLanguageAnnals,27, 252-261.

Forthcomingin TheModernLanguageJournal
into BusinessGer-
Maria Egbert& Hiram Maxim. "IncorporatingCriticalThinkingand Authenticity
man Testing"

Eileen W. Glisen & David A. Foltz. 'AssessingStudents'Oral Proficiencyin an Outcome-Based Cur-

riculum:StudentPerformanceand Teacher Intuitions"

JamesF Lee. "The Relationshipof Verb Morphologyto Second Language Reading Comprehension
and Input Processing"

Ronald P. Leow. "The EffectsofAmountand Type of Exposure on AdultLearners' L2 Developmentin

SLA"

on Kanji Recognition"
YoshikoMori. "Effectsof FirstLanguage and PhonologicalAccessibility

Jean-MarieSalien. Editorial:"Quebec French:Attitudesand Pedagogical Perspectives"

Susan Gass. 'Apples and Oranges: Or,WhyApplesAre Not Orange and Don't Need to Be." A Response
to Firth& Wagner

Alan Firth& JohannesWagner."SLA Property:No Trespassing!"

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions