Cooperative Learning (CL) is an instructional strategy that employs a variety of motivational techniques to make instruction more relevant and

students more responsible. This chapter outlines the benefits of CL in terms of its motivational impact.

Benefits of Cooperative Learning In Relation to Student Motivation

Dr.Theodore Panitz

Introduction
General guidelines for classroom motivation (for example, Forsyth and McMillan, 1994) suggest emphasis on challenging, engaging, informative activities and the building of enthusiasm and a sense of responsibility in learners. Well-developed instructional strategies such as Cooperative Learning (CL) offer many potential benefits to learners (Panitz, 1998). The definition of CL as a motivational strategy includes all learning situations where students work in groups to accomplish particular learning objectives and are interdependent for successful completion of the objective. Forsyth and McMillan (1994) emphasize intrinsic motivation as a key element in teaching and learning, as does Wlodkowski (see Chapter 1 of this issue), noting that successful intrinsic motivation develops attitude, establishes inclusion, engenders competence, and enhances meaning within diverse students. How can CL be a positive motivator for a diverse student population? This chapter attempts to answer that question.

Developing attitude: creating a favorable disposition toward thelearning experience through personal relevance and choice
A primary benefit of CL is that it enhances students' self esteem which in turn motivates students to participate in the learning process (Johnson & Johnson 1989). Cooperative efforts among students result in a higher degree of accomplishment by all participants (Slavin 1987). Students help each other and in doing so build a supportive community which raises the performance level of each member (Kagan 1986). This in turn leads to higher self esteem in all students (Webb 1982) Cooperation enhances student satisfaction with the learning experience by actively involving students in designing and completing class procedures and course content (Johnson and Johnson 1990). Effective teams or groups assume ownership of a process and its results when individuals are encouraged to work together toward a common goal, often defined by the group. This aspect is especially helpful for individuals who have a history or failure (Turnure & Zigler 1958). CL promotes mastery while passive acceptance of information from an outside expert often promotes a sense of helplessness and reliance upon others to attain concepts. In a typical college classroom emphasizing lecturing, there is little time for reflection and discussion of students' errors or misconceptions. With the CL paradigm students are continuously discussing, debating and clarifying their understanding of the concepts.

CL reduces classroom anxiety created by new and unfamiliar situations faced by students (Kessler, Price & Wortman 1985). In a traditional classroom when a teacher calls upon a student, he/she becomes the focus of attention of the entire class. Any mistakes or incorrect answers become subject to scrutiny by the whole class. In contrast, in a CL situation, when students work in a group, the focus of attention is diffused among the group. In addition, the group produces a product which its members can review prior to presenting it to the whole class, thus diminishing prospects that mistakes will occur at all (Slavin & Karweit 1981). When a mistake is made, it becomes a teaching tool instead of a public criticism of an individual student. Test anxiety is significantly reduced (Johnson and Johnson 1989). CL provides many opportunities for alternate forms of student assessment (Panitz and Panitz, 1996). This situation leads to a reduction in test anxiety because the students see that the teacher is able to evaluate how they think as well as what they know. Through the interactions with students during each class, the teacher gains a better understanding of each student's learning style and how he/she performs and an opportunity is created whereby the teacher may provide extra guidance and counseling for the students. CL develops positive student-teacher attitudes (Johnson & Johnson 1989). The level of involvement of all the participants in a cooperative system is very intense and personal. Teachers learn about student behaviors because students have many opportunities to explain their actions and thoughts to the teacher. Lines of communication are opened and actively encouraged. Teachers have more opportunities to explain why policies are established and the system allows students to have more input into establishing policies and class procedures. The empowerment created by the many interpersonal interactions leads to a very positive attitude by all parties involved. CL sets high expectations for students and teachers (Panitz and Panitz 1998). Being made responsible for one's learning and for one's peers presumes that one has that capability. By setting obtainable goals for groups and by facilitating group interaction, teachers establish high expectations which become self fulfilling as the students master the cooperative approach, learn how to work well together in teams, and demonstrate their abilities through a variety of assessment methods.

CL Establishes inclusion, creating a learning atmosphere in which learners feel respected and connected to one another. CL
creates a strong social support system (Cohen & Willis 1985). CL techniques use students' social experiences such as warm-up exercises and group building activities to encourage their involvement in the learning process. The teacher plays a very active role in facilitating the process and interacting with each student while moving around the class and observing students interacting (Cooper et. al. 1985). Teachers may raise questions with individuals or small groups to help advise students or explain concepts. In addition, a natural tendency to socialize with the students on a professional level is created by CL. Students often mention offhandedly that they are having difficulties outside of class related to work, family, friends, etc. Openings like this can lead to a discussion of those problems by the teacher and student in a non-threatening way due to the informality of the situation, and additional support from other student services units in such areas can be a beneficial by-product (Kessler & McCleod, 1985).

CL develops students' social interaction skills.

A major component of learning elaborated by Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1984) includes training students in the social skills needed to work cooperatively. In our society and current educational framework, competition is valued over cooperation. By asking group members to identify what behaviors help them work together and by asking individuals to reflect on their contribution to the group's success or failure, students are made aware of the need for healthy, positive, helping interactions (Panitz 1996; Cohen & Cohen 1991). According to Kessler and MaCleod (1985 page 219) "CL promotes positive societal responses .... reduces violence in any setting .... eliminates fear and blame, and increases honor, friendliness, and consensus. Process is as important as content and goal. CL takes time to master, and facilitators who have done the personal work that allows sharing of power, service to the learners, and natural learning, find CL a joy." Sherman (1991) makes the observation, "Most social psychology text books contain considerable discussions about conflict and its resolution and/or reduction. Almost all introductory educational psychology text books now contain extended discussions of effective pedagogies for improving racial relations, self-esteem, internal locus of control and academic achievement (Messick & Mackie, 1989). Cooperative learning fosters student interaction at all levels (Webb 1982). Research has shown that when students of high ability work with students of lower ability, the former benefit by explaining or demonstrating and the latter benefit by seeing an approach to problem solving modeled by a peer (Johnson & Johnson 1985, Swing, Peterson 1982; Hooper & Hannafin, 1988). Warm-up and group building activities help students to understand their differences and to learn how to capitalize on them rather than use them as a basis for antagonism. CL helps majority and minority populations in a class learn to work with each other (Felder 1997, Johnson & Johnson 1972, Slavin 1980). Because students are actively involved in exploring issues and interacting with each other on a regular basis in a guided fashion, they are able to understand their differences and learn how to resolve social problems which may arise (Johnson & Johnson 1985). Training students in conflict resolution is a major component of learning training (Aronson 1978; Slavin 1987). CL establishes an atmosphere of cooperation and helping school-wide (Deutsch 1975). CL focuses attention on the accomplishments of the group as well as the individual. Teamwork is the modus operandi and inter-group cooperation is encouraged. Even when group competitions are used (Slavin 1987), the intent is to create a positive helping environment for all participants. In CL environments, students are taught how to criticize ideas, not people (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec 1984). A function of cooperative learning is to help students resolve differences amicably. They need to be taught how to challenge ideas and advocate for their positions without personalizing their statements. In cooperative classes, students may be assigned roles in order to build interdependence within the groups. These roles often model societal and work related roles which students will encounter in real life. Adult motivational theory has shown that the direct applicability of classroom

small group problem-solving to students' lives will enhance motivation to learn (Wlodowski 1985). Cooperative learning is particularly effective at increasing the leadership skills of female students and for getting male students used to turning to women for help in pressure situations (Bean 1996). This benefit is especially important in mathematics classes where men generally dominate class discussions and presentations. The Johnsons (1990, p121) point out that, "Students tend to like and enjoy math more and be more intrinsically motivated to learn more about it continually." CL also helps to develop learning communities within classes and institutions (Tinto 1997). Community colleges and many four-year colleges are primarily commuter schools. Students do not remain on campus for extracurricular or social activities. Many students have jobs and/or family pressures which also limit their ability to participate in campus life. Thus it falls to the classroom teacher to create an atmosphere of community within the college. The previous discussion of the social benefits of CL make it clear that creating a community of learners is easily accomplished using CL techniques. There is a significant benefit to CL which is not always apparent because it takes place outside of the classroom. If groups operate long enough during a course, the people in them will get to know each other and extend their activities outside of class. Students will exchange phone numbers and contact each other to get help with questions or problems they are having, and they will often sign up together for classes in later terms and seek out teachers who use CL methods (Bean, 1996;Felder, 1997).

Engendering competence: creating an understanding that learners are effective in learning something they value
CL develops higher level thinking skills (Webb 1982). Students are engaged in the learning process instead of passively listening to the teacher. Pairs of students (followed by threesomes and larger groups) working together represent the most effective form of interaction (Schwartz, Black, Strange 1991). When students work in pairs one person is listening while the other partner is discussing the question under investigation. Both are developing valuable problem solving skills by formulating their ideas, discussing them, receiving immediate feedback and responding to questions and comments (Johnson, D.W. 1971; Peterson & Swing 1985). This aspect of cooperative learning does not preclude whole class discussion. In fact whole class discussion is enhanced by having students think out and discuss ideas thoroughly before the entire class discusses an idea or concept. In addition, the teacher may temporarily join a group's discussion to question ideas or statements made by group members or to clarify concepts or questions raised by students. Cooperative learning fosters higher levels of performance (Bligh 1972). Critical thinking skills increase and retention of information and interest in the subject matter improve (Kulik & Kulick 1979). This creates a positive cycle of good performance building higher self esteem which in turn leads to more interest in the subject and better performance (Keller, 1983). Students share their success with their groups, thus enhancing both the individual's and the group's self esteem. Skill building and practice can be enhanced and made less tedious through CL activities used both in and out of class (Tannenberg 1995). In order to

develop critical thinking skills, students need a base of information to work from. Acquiring this base often requires some degree of repetition and memory work. When this is accomplished individually the process can be tedious, boring or overwhelming. When students work together the learning process becomes interesting and fun despite the repetitive nature of the learning process. Male (1990) for example, has documented the positive impact of CL in drill-and-practice computer use. CL Develops students' oral communication skills (Yager, Johnson and Johnson 1985). When students are working in pairs one partner verbalizes his/her idea while the other listens, asks questions or comments upon what she/he has heard. Clarification and explanation of one's ideas is a very important part of the cooperative process and requires higher order thinking skills (Johnson, Johnson, Roy, Zaidman 1985). Students who tutor each other must develop a clear idea of the concept they are presenting and orally communicate it to their partners (Neer 1987).

Enhancing meaning: creating challenging, thoughtful learning experiences that include learner's values and perspectives and contribute to an equitable society.
The focus of cooperative learning is to actively involve students in the learning process (Slavin 1980). Whenever two or more students attempt to solve a problem or answer a question they become involved in the process of exploratory learning. Promotive interaction, a basic principle of CL, builds students' sense of responsibility to themselves and their group members through reliance upon each other's talents, and CL assessment processes reward both individuals and groups thus reinforcing this interdependence (Baird & White 1984). During the cooperative process, students can become involved in developing curriculum and class procedures (Kort 1992). They are often asked to assess themselves, their groups, and class procedures (Meier & Panitz 1996). Teachers can take advantage of this immediate formative input without having to wait for the results of exams or course evaluations. Students who participate in structuring the class assume ownership of the process and their opinions and observations are given credibility. CL helps students wean themselves away from considering teachers as the sole sources of knowledge and understanding (Felder 1997) The primary foci in CL are the process of learning and the means by which individuals function independently and within groups. The high level of interaction and interdependence among group members leads to "deep" rather than "surface" learning (Entwistle and Tait, 1994), and to more emphasis on higher order learning (see Donald in this issue). CL is student centered, leading to an emphasis on learning as well as teaching and to more student ownership of responsibility for that learning. In contrast, other teaching paradigms consist of individual student effort, competitive testing to assess competence and an evaluation hierarchy based upon "grade orientation" rather than "learning orientation" (Lowman, 1987). Students who develop personal professional relations with teachers by getting to know them, and who work on projects outside of class, achieve better results and tend to stay in school (Cooper 1994, Hagman & Hayes 1986). Teachers who get to know their students and to understand their learning

styles and problems, and can often find ways of dealing with those problems and inspiring students (Janke 1980). According to (Felder, 1997) additional benefits accrue to students in areas of grade improvement, retention of information, information transfer to other courses and disciplines, and improved class attendance. There is a strong positive correlation between class attendance and success in courses (Johnson and Johnson 1989) which may help account for the improved performance. Students who are actively involved in the learning process are much more likely to become interested in learning and make more of an effort to attend school (Astin 1977). A class where students interact fosters an environment conducive to high student motivation and participation and student attendance(Treisman 1983, 1992). Cooperative learning inherently calls for self-management by students (Resnick 1987). In order to function within their groups students are trained to come prepared with assignments completed and they must understand the material which they are going to contribute to their group. They are also given time to process group behaviors such as checking with each other to make sure homework assignments are not only completed but understood. These promotive interactions help students learn self- management techniques. CL increases students' persistence and the likelihood of successful completion of assignments (Felder 1997). When individuals get stuck they are more likely to give up, but groups are much more likely to find ways to keep going. This concept is reinforced by the Johnsons (1990 p121) who state, "In a learning situation, student goal achievements are positively correlated; students perceive that they can reach learning goals if and only if the other students in the learning group also reach their goals. Thus, students seek outcomes that are beneficial to all those with whom they are cooperatively linked."

Conclusion
CL provides many advantages to teachers and learners. Many of these advantages arise from the intrinsic motivational strengths of CL and the extent to which CL fosters student interest, behavioral and attitudinal change, and opportunities for success. As Keller demonstrates (1983) this set of outcomes results from the successful incorporation of motivational issues into instruction.

Cooperative Learning in a multilingual Mathematics Classroom 1/8

ooperative Learning in a multilingual Mathematics Classroom

Abstract
The education of language minority children in Greece focuses up to date only on teaching and learning of the second language, the satisfactory sufficiency of which is considered essential and efficient condition for these childrens smooth integration and progress in the Greek school. Regarding Mathematics education no provision has been made, since the dominant opinion prevailing about these childrens limited linguistic sufficiency is not considered as an obstacle to learning Mathematics. The teaching practices that continue to be applied almost exclusively in the Greek educational context and mainly in Mathematics, concern the traditional teaching model and instructive environments that raise competition between pupils. Since there is no research done in Greece around this field, the work presented here contributes to knowledge regarding Mathematics, minority pupils and cooperative learning. It presents the results of a research realised in Greece which investigates the importance of cooperative learning in Mathematics education of language minority children. The research was carried out for three months with year 6 pupils of a primary school (Control group: n = 20, experimental group: n = 17) who were taught Mathematics in the collaborative model of Students Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD). This particular work presents the hypotheses of the research, the methodology followed, as well as qualitative and quantitative data that came to light a) from the results of three experimental tests (pre, post and delay test) concerning pupils achievement in a comparative mode (native speakers, language minority children) and b) from the pupils semistructured interviews.

Georgia Douvli, Greece

Introduction
Student population in Greek schools has changed in the last few years. The monolingual homogeneous classroom of the previous decades has been converted into a multilingual, multinational and multicultural community. The main cause of all these changes has been the large influx of immigrants in the past decades, mostly from nearby countries and the Former Soviet Union Democracies. This new reality was and still remains a basic Cooperative Learning in a multilingual Mathematics Classroom 2/8 concern of the educational community, as the number of foreign students reaches the 9.7% of the total school population of Greece. (Institute for the Greek Diaspora Education and Intercultural Studies, 2007). In Greece the education of Language Minority Students until now has focused only on the teaching and learning of Greek as a second language, of which attaining a sufficient level of knowledge is considered an essential and efficient condition for the smooth integration and progress of these children in the Greek school system. Foreign students are expected to acquire the necessary knowledge and use of language, through a maximum exposure in the target language, without the teaching process being adjusted in any way in order to meet their needs apart from the reception class and the additional language lessons No provision has been made regarding the teaching of Mathematics, since the prevailing opinion on these childrens limited linguistic ability is not considered an obstacle to learning Mathematics. The fact that Mathematics possesses a system

of symbols through which the semantic content is expressed, creates the impression that it is a neutral cognitive topic and is learned independently from the native language. As a result both students and teachers share the impression that in Mathematics they face fewer problems (Psalti, 1999, Mitakidou & Tressou, 2002), a fact that it has not been confirmed by other researches, according to which there is no difference between the performance in Language lessons and Mathematics (Ovando & Collier, 1985, Pern & Merrifield, 1996, Paleologou, 2003, Tourtouras, 2004). On the contrary, Language Minority Students face problems both in Language lessons and Mathematics (PISA 2000, 2003, TIMSS 1995, 1997, 2003). Researches that have been conducted in Greece are almost exclusively limited to providing a description of todays educational situation with data based on numbers of students, country of origin and the performance of Language Minority Students, and thus shaping the picture that prevails in the Greek educational system, without, however, taking further steps in making suggestions or developing educational approaches in any specific fields. Other research has largely focused on the tuition of Greek as a second language.

The research design

The research design focused mostly on Mathematics as a school subject in elementary school, and the improvement of the performance of Language Minority Students. The purpose of this research was to organise the school classroom through the use of cooperative learning methods, resulting in the improvement of learning conditions. Native speakers, bilingual and multilingual students are then better able to develop their strengths and take full advantage of their capabilities. This specific goal relies on international research findings, which suggests that cooperative learning results in higher achievement for all students, in all fields and for all grades, when compared to the competitive and individualistic learning methods (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, Slavin, 1995, Dunne & Bennett, 1990, Charalambous & Georgas, 1995, Matsaggouras, 2000). To achieve the above goal, the following hypotheses were raised and examined: The academic performance of Language Minority Students under cooperative learning methods, compared to students that did not participate in such methods has a positive impact. Cooperative learning methods help students of high or low academic performance achieve better academic performance. Cooperative learning contributes to the development and use of the mathematics register. Cooperative Learning in a multilingual Mathematics Classroom 3/8 In the study, the action research approach was adopted. Quantitative and qualitative methods of collecting data were used in a collateral way. The experimental method -teaching intervention- was used in an effort to combine the two examples of research. Observation and interview covered the qualitative part. Cross data validity and confidence in the findings were achieved through data triangulation. Teaching interference, based on the cooperative learning method, was the independent variable of the research. The method of random formation of the groups and the same treatment of both groups in all fields took place in the research. Same school faculty, translated as similar socio-economic environment and same educational opportunities, same teaching material, simultaneous teaching of the appropriate curriculum in both classes, same time and same conditions under which the oral and written tests took place by only one researcher, attempted to ensure that the only element that differed between the two groups was the group cooperation model of teaching. Teachers were not considered as having

a serious impact on the results of the research, as both were under the guidance of the researcher.

The sample
Two schools participated in the pilot study and the research. Both schools are public and are situated in the center of Thessalonica where lives a large number of immigrants. Choosing the groups intended for research took into consideration the following criteria: a) schools that corresponded to the requirements of the research, e.g. schools that had a large number of Language Minority Students; b) a necessary requirement was the consent and the cooperation of the teaching staff of each school. The sample of the study consisted of 37 students of the sixth grade at the same school, divided into two classes. The class that was chosen as the experimental group was taught the subject of Mathematics for 3 months in accordance to the principles of the cooperative learning method Student team-achievement divisions. At the end of the teaching period the Group Investigation method was used. During this phase, after constructing a medieval castle, the children did a quick revision of all that they had learned until then during the Math lessons. In the meantime, the control group was taught the same units of Mathematics and in the same order according to the traditional way of teaching, through lectures, class discussion and individual exercises.

Research strategy and data collection

The course of the research procedure briefly included the following: a) the observation of the experimental group before the application of the program; b) a pre test for both groups - written and oral;- c) the application of the learning model and the observation of the experimental group until its completion; d) a post test for the two groups, both oral and written; e) interviews with the students in the experimental group; and f) after 3 months, a delay test was conducted for both groups.

The interviews of the students in the experimental group

The interview was semi structured centered on three sections. Section one consisted of descriptive questions that helped find out more about the respondents background including age, country of origin, when he/she came to Greece, previous school experience in both countries, participation in the lesson, level of sufficiency of the Greek language, language that was used at school and at home, subjects that the child had difficulties in. Section two included the way Mathematics had been taught before the new learning method was applied, and section three included the intervention in the Cooperative Learning in a multilingual Mathematics Classroom 4/8 teaching process. Open questions and opinion gathering questions were used in both parts.

The tests
Tests were used as the tools for the quantative measurement of the sample students achievement. Three written and three oral tests were realized during the program. The first test took place before the application of the teaching intervention (pre test). Its goal was to ascertain the cognitive aptitude of the children in relation to the mathematics concepts that they had come across in previous years and were considered as being important knowledge, firstly, for this years lessons and secondly, to create a point of reference for the students performance in Mathematics. Following the application of the teaching intervention, a second written test was realized (post test). The post test included the curriculum that the students had covered until then, during the intervention process, and its purpose was the evaluation of the program. After approximately three months, a delay test was carried out to examine if the mathematics knowledge acquired until then, had endured the time. The oral tests took place after each written test and covered the same curriculum with

each written test respectively. The goals were to check whether and if so to what extent students had been helped by their classmates during the written test, as well as to check both the level of comprehension of the mathematics terminology and the level of mastery of the necessary mathematics knowledge.

Results
In this paper, quantative results of the performance of both groups in Mathematics are presented and correspond to the first research hypothesis. The quantative analysis was realized through the SPSS 14 calculation packet. T-test for paired samples was used in all samples of the same comparison group. T-test for independent samples was used in samples of different comparison groups. When the samples examined where too small the Mann Whitney non-parametric statistical test was used. The level of statistical significance examined was 5% (p<0.5) A level that was considered satisfactory for the Sciences of Education. Firstly, a statistical research was conducted, which examined the school profile of students in both the experimental and the control groups. Each students school profile was derived from the final marks they had achieved in the cognitive subjects of Greek Language and Mathematics, and also from their overall average at the end of each yearfrom third grade onwards, until their final year in elementary school. From the data analysis, it was shown that students forming the control group had progressed in all three fields of evaluation Language, Mathematics, and the overall average- for all four years of elementary school. However, statistically significant differences occurred in the subject of language in the third (U=66.00 and p=0.003<0.004) and fourth grades (U=76.000 and p=0.002<0.004). In another analysis, where the sample consisted of Language Minority Students of the experimental group and an equal number of native language speakers of the control group, it was found that the native speakers progressed in all the evaluation fields. Statistically significant differences were observed in all the fields of the third and fourth grades as well as in the subject of language in the sixth grade. The subject of Language in the fifth grade and Mathematics in sixth grade can be described as statistically important despite being close to the borderline. The research findings showed the control group to Cooperative Learning in a multilingual Mathematics Classroom 5/8 be progressing in both Language and Mathematics in comparison to the experimental group. As already mentioned, both groups took three tests (the pre test, post test, delay test). The outcome of the statistical analysis of the tests can be summarized as follows: During the comparison of the three tests, for both groups, the analysis showed statistically significant differences in the mean scores of the performance of both groups in the pre test and the post test. The same occurred with the analysis of the post test and the delay test. An analysis of the experimental and the control groups results showed statistically significant differences in the mean scores of the experimental groups performance compared to those of the control group in all three tests. More specifically, in the pre test, the students in the control group showed statistically better performance compared to the members of the experimental group, with m=4.07 compared to m=2.89 with value t35=-2.436, p=0.02<0.05. However, in the other two tests, the findings altered this picture of stability. In the post test the mean scores of the experimental group were higher (m=6.20 as opposed to m=5.53), without being statistically significant: t35=1.035, p=0.308>0.05. The findings are also the same for the delay test, where the experimental group progress with mean scores of m=6.82 to m=6.73 of the control group without, however, being statistically significant either

t34=0.127, p=0.900>0.05. It appears that even though the members of the control group did better in the pre test, with statistically important differences, the same progress does not appear to be present in the next two tests. During these tests, the difference is not great and although the students in the experimental group improved, it was not to a statistically significant extent. Bearing in mind the above, the group cooperation method used in the subject of Mathematics seems to have greatly benefited the experimental group. Not only did the children manage to decrease the gap, but they also were able to get ahead. The next comparison was based on the Language Minority Students of both groups in all three tests. The analysis showed statistically significant differences existing for the experimental group between the pre and post tests, as well as between the post and delay tests. No statistically significant differences were found for the Language Minority Students in the control group. Comparing the performance of the Language Minority Students of both groups in all three tests, we found that even though Language Minority Students of the control group had begun by showing a better performance in the pre test (m=3.19 compared to m=2.73 of the experimental group), the Language Minority Students of the experimental group made better progress in the post test and the delay test. Even though the differences in the post and delay tests are not statistically significant, they show tendencies that are worth examining. Following, the analysis dealt with the test performance comparisons between the Language Minority Students of the experimental group and native speakers of the control group. The purpose of this analysis was to find out if the new method applied, has a positive impact on Language Minority Students and if they manage to stand as equals to the native speakers. The t-test analysis for Independent Samples showed that statistically significant differences occurred in the performance of the native speakers in the control group on the pre test (m=4.54 to m=2.73 of the Language Minority Students) having the following value t26=-3.685, p=0.001<0.05. This statistically significant difference, however, was not repeated in the next two tests. In the final test, although the native speakers appeared to have an advantage (m=6.04) over the Language Minority Students (m=5.88), the difference was not considered statistically significant (t26=-0.227, p=0.823>0.05). Cooperative Learning in a multilingual Mathematics Classroom 6/8 Exactly the same situation occurred in the delay test where the native speakers scored better than the Language Minority Students (m=7.67 to m=6.56 respectively). Once again, however, the results were not statistically significant. The value was t25=-1.563, p=0.131>0.05. Concluding, it can be said that the new method helped the Language Minority Students eliminate the differences that were initially present between them and their native speaker classmates. The corresponding analysis concerning the experimental group between native speakers and Language Minority Students came up with the same results.

Interviews
After the students interviews were recorded, all the answers, based on the same questions, were gathered and transcribed. Categorisation and factionalism of the answers, in relation to their content, followed. No predefined categories existed, as they were created based on the analysis of students answers. Related answers for each topic shaped new categories, based on the existing questions. Only answers that had the same or related content were placed in each category. Specific key words played an important role each time in the categorisation process. The third part of the interviews consisted of students answers in relation to the application of the teaching intervention method and

specifically their cooperation within the groups will be presented in this paper. 70% of students stated that they prefer working in groups and only 12% support the traditional way of teaching. Working in groups drew positive reactions, as can be seen from students answers. Almost all children mentioned that the lesson was better, more organized, and that they received more help than before. A student characteristically declares You werent alone; there were others willing to help you. In a time of need, they were there. Students mention also that they faced more difficulties during the use of the traditional way of teaching (53%), as they felt that no help was offered, compared to working in groups. The majority of students expressed that traditional teaching causes more anxiety. According to students answers, they feel ashamed to express their inability to understand something in front of the whole class. The key verbs mostly found in students answers, which related to the way their team worked, were ask and explain. Students quickly passed from a competitive stance to one of cooperation. Rather than competing for the correct answer, they began exchanging ideas and discussing solutions. As a student claimed four or five minds are better than one. Cooperative learning speeds up students learning pace. The help students receive from the rest of the team as well as the group discussion offered, are important factors determining the learning and comprehension of Mathematics. High achievement students state that the repetition and the explanation they gave to the rest of the group helped them better comprehend the cognitive content of the study units. Students were asked how they reacted when they got stuck on a problem. Individual methods such as rereading, thinking harder and asking for personal help from the teacher were the core activities of the traditional way of teaching. Some students even mentioned that they expected to see the answer written on the board. After working collaboratively, however, their perceptions changed. All the students asked for help from their group, they discussed their opinions and gave specific arguments to support them. Cooperative Learning in a multilingual Mathematics Classroom 7/8 Students started caring about each other (We asked the boys some questions to find out if they understood what they were asked to do or not, I think Sergey didnt understand, and he didnt ask for help. We asked him questions to find out if he actually understood.). Students became more actively engaged in the learning process. Even reluctant learners, who initially had no interest in the lesson, started paying attention. They became active participants who contributed effectively to the success of their group.

Conclusions
Bearing in mind the results of all the analysis made above, we actually see that students in the experimental group have made visible progress through the tests and with great statistical significance in most cases. Comparing the two groups, it can be seen that even though the experimental group started with lower mean scores, at the end of the experimental procedure they managed to approximate the control groups performance, and in some cases to surpass it. Members of the experimental group and especially Language Minority Students managed to stand as equals to the native speakers of the control group, surpassing the initial differences. The findings verify the basic experimental question of this work showing that cooperative learning methods can and do have a positive impact on the learning of Mathematics for both native speakers and

Language Minority Students. In a cooperative environment students are shown to be more effective and able to succeed in various cognitive fields, while a competitive/based on self, individualistic environment promotes feelings of failure and may enhance learning difficulties.

References
Dunne, E., Bennett, N. (1990) Talking and Learning in Groups (London, Macmillan). Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. (1989) Cooperation and competition: Theory and research (Minnesota, Interaction Book Company). Institute for the Greek Diaspora Education and Intercultural Studies, http://www.ipode.gr, http://eomogeneia.cti.gr/content.asp?CatId=40&ContentTypeId= Matsaggouras, H. (2000) Cooperative teaching and learning (Athens, Grigori). [in Greek] Mitakidou, S., Tressou, E. (2002) Teaching language and mathematics through literature (Thessalonica, Paratiritis). [in Greek] Ovando, C.J., Collier, V.P. (1985) Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (USA, McGraw-Hill). Pern, C.A., Merrifield, M. (1996) Strategies for classroom teachers: A lesson from mathematics intervention, in: H. Forgasz, A. Jones, G. Leder, J. Lynch, K. Maguire, & C. Pern (Eds) Mathematics: Making connections. (Brunswick, Mathematical Association of Victoria). Paleologou, N. (2003) School achievement and students assessment: Panhellenic research results, in: . Tressou & S. Mitakidou (Eds) Teachers talk to teachers for their experiences: Educating Language Minority Students. (Thessalonica, Paratiritis), 193-203 [in Greek] Slavin, E.R. (1995) Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (Boston, Allyn and Bacon). Tourtouras, C. (2004) School integration and educational exclusion for children from ex USSR. The case of the schools of Thessalonica during the decade 1990-2000. PhD Thesis. (Thessalonica, Aristotle University) [in Greek]. Charalambous, N., Georgas, D. (1995) Cooperative learning, school ability and achievement, Psixologia, 2(2), 146-164. [in Greek] Cooperative Learning in a multilingual Mathematics Classroom 8/8 Psalti A. (1999) Students from ex USSR and Albania in Greek schools: attitudes, needs, expectations. PhD Thesis. (Thessalonica, Aristotle University) [in Greek]. [1] The reception classes, in which language minority students are taught the Greek language, function in conjunction with regular classes. Students go to these lessons daily for a few hours, while the rest of the time they attend mainstream classes. [2] Additional language lessons have the same role as the reception classes but they are held after-school hours.