Dynamic Changes and Individual Differences in Learners’ Perceptions of Cooperative Learning During a Project Activity

Abstract

Although cooperative learning is a well-researched framework with many reports on its effective implementation in education, successful cooperative learning practice remains elusive in the classroom. The literature suggests certain elements of cooperative learning are key, but few studies have addressed their importance with respect to the dynamics of the learning activity and differences in individual learners’ attitudes. The objective of this study is to examine (1) whether learners’ perception of cooperative learning changes throughout a project, and (2) how differently individual learners perceive their activities with reference to the five elements (i.e. positive interdependence; face-to-face promotive interaction; individual accountability; social skills; group processing), and thereby to explore measures for successful implementation of cooperative learning. Analyses of a questionnaire survey and weekly journal entries revealed that there were dynamic changes in learners’ perception of cooperative learning in accordance with the shifts in phases of the project. The results also showed that there were significant differences in individual learners’ perceptions and that their engagement in cooperative learning could be affected by certain factors that were not weighed by the five elements. The results of this study can provide hints for better pedagogical interventions for teachers introducing cooperative learning into the classroom.

Keywords

Cooperative learning project-based learning group work film-making activity English learning in EFL classroom

Introduction

For a long time, teacher-led, non-interactive, and translation-based classes have dominated English education in Japan, but in recent years, there has been a gradual shift to more student-centered classes that incorporate many activities, tasks, and projects. One of the reasons is that the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) recommends the implementation of “proactive, interactive, and deep learning” (i.e. active learning) in the New Course of Study for English Education (MEXT, 2017, 2018). In response to the guideline, the number of English classes that incorporate pair work, group work, and project-based activities has recently been increasing. Cooperative learning (CL) has long been noted as one way to successfully carry out group activities and, as a pedagogical practice, has had a profound effect on student learning and socialization (Roseth et al., 2008; Slavin, 2014). Therefore, it is expected to make a positive contribution to education.

However, in attempts to implement CL in an actual classroom, students may face a variety of difficulties (Jacobs et al., 2002). For example, group activities are rarely conducted smoothly from beginning to end when students work in groups on a project. Furthermore, effective CL can be expected only when quality interaction is generated within the group (Webb et al., 2002). The purpose of this study is to focus on the process of CL and to examine measures for implementing it more effectively, investigating whether learners’ perception of CL changes and how differently each learner perceives their activity during projects in English classes.

Literature Review

The Theoretical Underpinnings of Cooperative Learning

CL is one of the most researched frameworks in education, with studies conducted in several countries, at all levels of education, and in many different subject areas (Johnson et al., 2000). In cooperative situations, learners help each other to achieve goals, which further increases the expectation of success over that of learning individually (Dörnyei, 2001). Johnson and Johnson (2015) claimed that there are four major theoretical perspectives supporting the use of CL: cognitive development, social–cognitive, behavioral–learning, and social interdependence theories. Slavin (2014) also proposed four perspectives (motivational, social cohesion, cognitive, and developmental), pointing out that they are not independent of each other but rather complementary in achieving a group’s goals. The implementation of CL has been shown to positively affect these four perspectives.

Based on these theoretical backgrounds, experts have presented basic elements for effective CL in group activities. Kagan and Kagan (2009) identified four critical attributes of the structural approach to CL: positive interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation, and simultaneous interaction. Johnson et al. (2013) proposed five basic elements (positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual accountability, social skills, and group processing) for establishing CL in practice. Although each expert claims a different number of basic elements for the effective implementation of CL, “[the] main idea in all the cooperative learning approaches is that students work and learn together actively in small groups to accomplish a common goal in a mutually helpful manner” (Davidson and Major, 2014: 14).

This study focused on the five elements described by Johnson et al. (2013) since they comprise the most widely used theory in CL research. Specifically, Johnson and Johnson (2009, 2018) provided the results of a meta-analysis of over 1200 studies on cooperative, competitive, and individual efforts. The results showed that cooperation was more effective than competition and individual efforts, concluding: “The more students cooperate with each other, the higher tends to be their self-esteem, productivity, acceptance and support of classmates, and autonomy and independence” (Johnson and Johnson, 2018: 8).

According to the CL theory advocated by Johnson et al. (2013), the first factor of the five basic elements is positive interdependence. Individual success is linked to group success so that a group cannot succeed unless an individual succeeds. Helping and respecting each other is essential to achieving group goals. The second factor is face-to-face promotive interaction. Members of a group help each other in the completion of a task. They need to recognize other members’ efforts and encourage each other. The third factor is individual accountability. Members of the group should be aware of their responsibility to contribute to group activities so that they can achieve their goals. The fourth factor is social skills. Each member consciously needs to develop interpersonal and group skills that are necessary to work well with other group members. The last factor is group processing. It is important to reflect as a group to determine what behaviors of members were helpful or unhelpful and which should be improved.

Cooperative Learning in the EFL Classroom

The use of CL techniques in the ESL/EFL classroom has been advocated on the assumption that it contributes to linguistic development, promotes classroom interaction, and enhances learners’ cognitive and communicative development (McCafferty et al., 2006; Ning, 2011). Sachs et al. (2003) found that students in CL groups were more motivated to speak English compared with students in traditional classrooms and also revealed that the majority of students as well as teachers had a positive attitude toward CL.

There are many research reports on CL in English classes at Japanese universities as well. Abe and Yamanishi (2013) observed a cooperative writing class in which Japanese university students in pairs were left with minimal instructions and concluded that CL was utilized in their writing activity. Oba (2017) implemented reading activities incorporating the five basic elements of CL proposed by Johnson et al. (2013) in an English reading class and confirmed that students’ perceptions of cooperative activities had improved. Fushino (2012) pointed out that the need for students to learn in cooperative groups based on the five principles of CL and the learning experience is “likely to lead them to believe in the value of cooperation and the usefulness and efficiency of group work” (Fushino, 2012: 718). There are also many other reports on incorporating CL theory in Japanese university English classes (e.g. Japan Association for Study of Cooperation in Education, 2019).

Johnson and Johnson (2018) suggested that the five basic elements need to be structured into the activity. However, is simply incorporating these five basic elements into a group activity sufficient for students to implement CL? Antil et al. (1998) claimed that it is difficult in practice to include all five basic elements of CL when designing project learning. In the absence of a suitable CL environment, CL in groups is unlikely to be effective. For example, Ning and Hornby (2014) investigated the impact of CL on the motivation of tertiary EFL learners. The results showed that CL significantly improved intrinsic motivation, but no differences were found in other aspects of motivation. Miyasako (2019) showed that 26 out of 50 studies on CL in EFL environments had positive effects on learners’ English learning and motivation, but this result can be interpreted as a lack of beneficial effects in about half of the CL practices. These findings suggest that CL does not necessarily work well for all learners.

Research Objectives and Questions

As previous research has shown, it is not easy to implement a group activity that satisfies all five basic elements of CL throughout a project. Few studies have focused on which elements of CL students should focus on during a project in order to make it work well. In other words, there is a gap between theory and practice. Therefore, this study investigated the changes in each student’s perception in the process of implementing CL with respect to the five basic elements. Understanding the dynamics of students’ perception during CL will help student groups engage in it more effectively. It will also help teachers find better educational interventions for projects. The research questions in this study are:

Do students’ perceptions of CL change depending on the timing and activity of a project?

What individual differences in students’ attitudes toward CL arise as they work in groups toward the same goal?

Method

Participants

The participants were 50 Japanese EFL university students aged 19 to 21. The cohort consisted of 28 females and 22 males, all of whom were students of international studies. They had Japanese as their first language. Their English proficiency ranged from A2 to B1 levels based on the scale of the Common European Framework of References for Language (Council of Europe, 2001). Among them, four students had studied abroad for more than half a year. Most of those students had a B1 level of English proficiency. The others, with no such overseas experience, fell under A2. They engaged in a film-making activity (FMA; see below for details) in their seminar classes (each fall semester, 2016–2018). Classes were held for 90 minutes once a week for 15 weeks, which corresponds to the length of a teaching term in the Japanese higher education system. However, in practice, the students could not complete the project in the class time allotted; therefore, they met outside of class for more than 15 weeks to work on it.

The Process of Cooperative Learning Through a Film-Making Activity

The process of the FMA consisted of five stages: (1) choosing a drama series and script writing; (2) casting, scheduling, memorizing the script, preparation, and rehearsal; (3) acting and shooting; (4) editing; and (5) public showing. Students were randomly placed in groups of six to eight in the first class. The teachers explained to them the concept and procedures for carrying out the FMA in a group.

Choosing a drama series, script writing, and translation (Weeks 2–5)

The first step was to choose one drama from among Japanese drama series and adapt the storyline for a short film. Considering the feasibility of acting and making a film with limited props and equipment (e.g. costumes, video cameras, PCs, software), limited shooting locations, and the limited number of actors, students discussed and chose the most suitable series for them. After choosing a series, as most original drama stories are too long for a 30-minute film they had to downsize the story and develop the script for their film, discussing ideas within the group. The next step was script writing and translation. They cooperatively wrote their first draft script in Japanese and translated it into English with their group members. The teachers proofread it and gave them feedback so that they could revise the script.

Casting and scheduling (Week 5)

After completing the script, copies were handed out to each member to interpret, memorize, and practice before shooting. As for casting, students discussed who should play the major and minor characters. They were assigned all jobs—director, editor, prop masters, and other crew positions. Teachers required the students to divide their responsibilities among themselves and make each team member’s contribution to the project as equal as possible. For example, a student who played a minor character in a film might need to shoot and edit scenes more than a student playing a major character. To make a film successfully, it was essential for students to ensure positive teamwork as well as to decide the schedule for shooting and planning. They also decided on shooting locations and asked their teachers to prepare suitable props and costumes for their characters.

Memorizing the script, preparation, rehearsal, and shooting (Weeks 6–14)

After deciding the cast and shooting schedule, students were expected to memorize their lines before shooting each scene. Students needed to recite the lines for their characters as homework, so they had to repeat the lines many times at home. Before shooting a scene, they rehearsed until the other group members accepted their English speaking and performance. For better performances, they needed not only to memorize their lines but also to express feelings with their body language and facial expressions. As for shooting, teachers sometimes advised them on basic cinematographic techniques such as camera movements and camera angles, which enabled them to think about how the scenes should be shot. For equipment, one group used two digital cameras with tripods, microphones, and lights for different types of shot in the film, while the other groups used their smartphones.

Editing (Weeks 8–15 and onward)

Soon after shooting the scenes, students edited the film by themselves with the pre-installed iMovie software on Apple MacBook Pro. Teachers did not necessarily have to teach editing because students could learn from each other how to use the software to edit the films. However, teachers could advise students on some basic editing skills and provide technical assistance if the students were unfamiliar with editing or the computer. In addition to organizing the sequence of shots, cutting and pasting, and adding music and voiceovers, students were able to add Japanese subtitles to the film. This gave them an opportunity to practice their translation skills.

Public showing

Finally, a public showing was held off campus. The off-campus event was conducted after the semester ended in order to show the films the students had created. After the public showing, students critiqued each other’s work, and teachers gave feedback so that students could improve in the future.

Data Collection

Questionnaire Survey

A questionnaire was used for this study, which was administered immediately after the students had finished the project activity. The scale was a self-report questionnaire that assessed learners’ attitudes toward CL during the project (see Appendix). The scale was adapted for this study based on previous studies (e.g. Johnson and Johnson, 2015; Johnson et al., 2013). It contained 10 items in total (2 items for each of the 5 basic elements of CL). Since the survey was conducted as a part of the reflective activity of the course, a questionnaire containing many items was considered time-consuming to answer and increased the burden on the participants. Furthermore, several researchers argue that respondents are more likely to engage in “mindless response behavior” as the number of synonymous items grow (e.g. Drolet and Morrison, 2001). Therefore, we decided to keep the number of items included in the scale to a minimum (i.e. two items for each of the five elements) by using items whose psychometric properties had already been verified in previous studies. These items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.77, which revealed acceptable levels of reliability.

Learning journal

For self-monitoring, students were required to write in weekly journals about their opinions, emotions, reflections, and/or what happened during the activity. At the end of the semester, the journals were submitted to the teachers. The comments in students’ journals were separated at sentence level, tagged based on the five elements (positive interdependence; face-to-face promotive interaction; individual accountability; social skills; group processing), and analyzed for each week of the project and a reflection week. Students were asked to write about their impressions for the FMA conducted in class each week in their journal. We initially expected our students to describe their 15 weekly activities, but several students submitted more than 15 journal entries. That is because the FMA was not completed in the 15 classes of 90 minutes each. Therefore, when students wrote more than 15 entries on activities, we categorized them as “Week 16.” For objectivity and relevance, one researcher (first author) tagged the student journals in terms of the five elements of CL, and then another researcher (second or third author) checked them. Disagreements between two researchers were discussed until an agreement was reached. The inter-rater reliability (defined as [total number of references for five elements – number of disagreements] / total number of references for five elements = [416-109] / 416) was 0.74. This study consistently focused on the five CL elements in the analysis of entries from the journals, but it also looked through other comments not counted in the five elements. Among them, we briefly discuss some negative comments in the Results and Discussion section to illustrate the variety of content observed from the journals.

Data Analysis

As for the analysis of the questionnaire, we examined descriptive statistics and correlations for each element of CL, namely, the mean scores and data variations (i.e. standard deviations) in each subscale were checked. For correlation analysis, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were used to examine the strength of the association between each subscale. IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26 was used for these data analyses and the significance level was set at p < .05, non-directional. Next, for the analysis of the journals, we first identified how many references were made to each element within them and how many were made by each participant. Then, we examined mentions of the five elements in the journals to see if they changed as the project progressed. Finally, we examined individual participants’ references to the five elements based on a method called “multiple threading” (Davis and Sumara, 2006). Multiple threading “involves the presentation of several narrative strands” in which “some may be only brief phrases or single images that punctuate the text, and strands may overlap or interlink at times” (Davis and Sumara, 2006: 162). It facilitates a visual comparison of within-subject and between-subject observations using matrix coding to explore the dynamics of participants’ reflections on specific weeks and over the entire project (Sampson, 2018). We believe that using this approach allowed for a more detailed analysis of the dynamic changes in participants’ attitudes toward CL, as it allowed us to visually capture the frequency and duration with which each learner made reference to each element of CL.

Results and Discussion

Questionnaire Survey

Table 1 shows the questionnaire results for the five elements of CL conducted after the FMA was implemented. Since the questionnaire was based on a seven-point Likert scale, the higher the mean value, the more positively each element was perceived.

Table 1.

Results of descriptive statistics and correlations.

Element	M	SD	Correlation
Element	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Positive interdependence	6.28	0.91	—
2. Individual accountability	5.08	0.98	.53**	—
3. Face-to-face promotive interaction	6.16	1.04	.50**	.35**	—
4. Social skills	5.56	1.13	.29**	.22**	-.07*	—
5. Group Processing	5.60	0.95	.29**	.46**	.29*	.41**	—

p < .05; **p < .01

As the table indicates, the mean for each element tended to be high (M = 5.08 ~ 6.28). This result suggests that the learners perceived the FMA as satisfying the five elements of CL. Among them, positive interdependence (e.g. “It would not have been possible to get the task done by myself”; “We had a strong relationship among group members”) and face-to-face promotive interaction (e.g. “We had a lot of opportunities to meet each other for the task”; “A networking service such as LINE or Google Groups was utilized to communicate among members”) may have played more critical roles in promoting cooperative engagement among learners (M = 6.28 and 6.16, respectively).

As for correlations, generally weak to moderate correlations were found between the elements. The strongest correlations were found for positive interdependence and individual accountability (r = .53, p = .00) as well as face-to-face promotive interaction (r = .50, p = .00). In other words, the learners who performed their assigned duties were more likely to feel that they were able to play a part in the group activity and, at the same time, to engage in learning as a group. In contrast, there was no correlation between face-to-face promotive interaction and social skills (r = -.07, p = .62), suggesting that having a large number of interaction opportunities and being able to develop the skills to work with people through such opportunities are two separate issues. Overall, many of the elements seemed to be interrelated and to have influenced the students’ approach to FMA.

The questionnaire survey was conducted at the end of the activity, so it is not clear what role each element played in students’ engagement in the activity. It is also unclear what individual differences were (or were not) found in this process. Therefore, in the following section, we categorized the learners’ journal entries during the FMA based on the five elements of CL and examined how they differed every week for each learner.

Weekly Journal

Table 2 shows the number and percentage of references to each element observed in the journals, the number and percentage of students making those references, and example comments for each element. The most prominent elements were “Individual accountability” and “Face-to-face promotive interaction,” which were referred to in about one-quarter of the references in journal entries (26.00% and 22.40%, respectively). Moreover, an interesting observation was that the numbers of students who referred to these two elements were quite different—“Individual accountability” was written about by the most students (86.00%), whereas “Face-to-face promotive interaction” was written about by less than half of the students (46.00%). This indicates that there was an element that many students referred to widely, whereas there was also an element that specific students mentioned multiple times.

Table 2.

Frequency of references to the five elements and example comments.

Element	Number of references (percentage)	Number of students (percentage over the total number of students)	Example comment
Positive interdependence	70 (16.8%)	33 (66.0%)	Every member cooperates with each other. I feel our team has become more and more cohesive.
Individual accountability	108 (26.0%)	43 (86.0%)	My main duty is scheduling. I’ll make a good schedule, so we can work smoothly.
Face-to-face promotive interaction	93 (22.4%)	23 (46.0%)	This class is a 15-week English course, but I don’t remember how many times we gathered to complete the film. Maybe more than 30 times!
Social skills	80 (19.2%)	38 (76.0%)	We had different views from each other but had a heart-to-heart talk for a better-quality film.
Group processing	65 (15.6%)	24 (48.0%)	We could review the day and share some points to be improved with each other.

Another point worth mentioning regarding individual accountability is that even though this element was mentioned most often by students in their journals, it had the lowest mean (M = 5.08) among the five elements in the questionnaire survey (see Table 1). Similarly, positive interdependence was not often mentioned in the journals, but it had the highest mean in the questionnaire survey (M = 6.28). From these results, it can be said that the five elements of CL may include elements that are easier for learners to verbalize or focus their attention on and some that are not. Therefore, it is necessary to describe and analyze each of the five elements from various aspects to obtain a more accurate picture of their roles in actual activities.

So far, although the extent to which students referred to any element was exact, we still do not know how their references to each element changed (or not) throughout the process of CL. Thus, below is a figure summarizing the references to the five elements by week during the FMA. Figure 1 shows that, at the overall participant level, students perceived the importance of various elements even within a single week. More concretely, it can be seen that, at the beginning of the project, social skills was referred to by many students (e.g. Week 1: 42.86% of total entries; Week 2: 38.89%; Week 3: 38.89%), suggesting that for this type of project-based activity to work well, it is essential to prepare a psychologically safe environment and establish cooperative relationships within the group. From the first to the fourth week, students decided on the drama series to be produced and worked in groups to create and translate the script. Additionally, in the middle and toward the end of the project, face-to-face promotive interaction seemed to play a critical role (e.g. Week 12: 40.00% of total entries; Week 13: 33.33%; Week 14: 29.41%; Week 15: 47.37%). As the project neared its end, the students had numerous opportunities to get together and work collaboratively to complete their films. In the actual phases of the project, casts were chosen in Week 5, and shooting continued until the end of the project. As the shooting progressed, films were also edited. From these results, it can be said that the five elements of CL and the actual activities of the project are closely interrelated.

Figure 1.

References to the five elements by week (all participants).

Furthermore, it was evident that each element’s role and function may differ at each stage of the activity. For example, individual accountability was mentioned by many students from the beginning to the end of the activity. Among the five elements of CL, McCafferty et al. (2006) asserted that positive interdependence and individual accountability are especially crucial for creating effective cooperative relationships in a group. Kagan and Kagan (2009) pointed out that although learners need to spend a lot of time interacting with other learners in CL, the essential cooperative strategy is individual accountability. No matter how well roles are assigned in the group, the final outcome of the group activity depends mostly on each member’s efforts. In fact, as is clear from Figure 1, individual accountability played a key role from the beginning to the end of the project. Thus, this element is a factor that should be emphasized throughout the activity. In contrast, strategies such as developing social skills to promote the formation of interpersonal relationships within a group are expected to be more crucial at the start of the project. In summary, the elements that play more important roles in CL can vary depending on the timing of the project.

We have been able to get some idea of the changes in the five elements from week to week, but it is not yet clear whether the changes were common to all the participants or if they differed among individual students. Hence, we analyzed the variation in individual students’ references to the five elements in their journals. Figure 2 summarizes which students referred to which elements and when. The figure displays individual students along the vertical axis and weeks across the horizontal axis. Specifically, if a student (e.g. Student 4) mentioned one element (e.g. positive interdependence) in a particular week (e.g. Week 5), the cell is represented by one color (e.g. light blue). Similarly, if two elements (e.g. positive interdependence and face-to-face promotive interaction) were mentioned in Week 1, as was the case with Student 2, the cell is represented by two colors (e.g. light blue and gray). Cells with no reference to a particular element are white.

Figure 2.

References to the five elements by week (individual students).

As can be seen, some learners made fairly frequent references to the five elements of CL in their journals (e.g. total number of references was 25 for Student 25), while others did not make many references (e.g. the numbers of references were one for Student 50 and two for Students 11 and 35). This result demonstrates that despite working on the same activities in the same week, students had very different interpretations of and/or impressions about the project. If we focus on a particular week (Week 3), some students referred to a particular element (e.g. social skills) while others working on the same project referred to a different element (e.g. individual accountability). In addition, if we follow specific students longitudinally, some students (e.g. Students 9 and 22) referred to specific elements throughout the project, while others (e.g. Students 25, 31, and 32) referred to multiple elements. Taken together, the five elements in CL can have positive effects on the FMA, but a specific element is not universally important in every situation; the effects vary across learners and learning contexts. Even for the same learner, the effects of an element vary over time.

Some of the students did not mention the five elements of CL much. It was difficult to generalize what they wrote apart from these aspects because of the broad range of their comments, as the journals were supposed to be written in a casual manner throughout with no strict limitations in terms of topics. To illustrate a few of those miscellaneous comments that were not counted in our main analysis based on the five elements, here we address two sorts of comments that expressed some negative thoughts: those related to dissatisfaction and anxiety about the way the project was done (coded NE1, N = 20), and those related to relationships within the group (NE2, N = 47). Interestingly, two students significantly raised the number of negative comments: one accounted for twelve comments and the other nine. If we exclude these two exceptional students, the per-student averages of negative comments are 0.38 for NE1 and 0.58 for NE2, indicating that negatives were of a relatively small volume. The FMA project seems to have been perceived positively overall, but it also contained varying degrees of challenges and struggles for certain students.

Here are some specific examples of negative comments. With regard to NE1, many students had high expectations and enthusiasm for the activity at the start of the project, but as the project progressed, the journal descriptions sometimes revealed their struggles with unfamiliar filming and editing techniques and their dissatisfaction with the way the work was being done (e.g. “We had to decide on a location, where to shoot, costumes, and so on. We said it would be easy to make a film, but when we actually did it, it was a lot more work than we thought” [Student 3, Week 2]). As for NE2 (i.e. relationships within the group), because of the behavior of some members, several students felt that they were unable to have sufficiently productive interactions and distrusted those members. For example, Student 37 stated, “XX’s lines were still not said, so I would like him to work harder. I would like him to memorize them at least at home, not on the spot, and then come to the shoot” (Week 3). Student 50, on the other hand, seemed anxious about interacting with the members around him right after the project began (e.g. “I was worried about getting to know them because it was a new group” [Week 1]). Even in his final reflection, he wrote: “My honest impression is that the latter part of the shoot was tiring. . . . Of course, even in a group, we had different personalities and we were pretty careful about it. I also thought that this was an extension of working as a member of society,” implying that he was not able to build relationships with people who were comfortable talking to each other even at the end of the project. Even though the project seemed to be going well overall, when we considered the views of the students individually, we could see that they were working on the project with a variety of attitudes, feelings, and emotions.

Implications and Limitations

This study examined the process and effectiveness of CL in terms of the five elements of CL proposed by Johnson et al. (2013), and scrutinized how and when each student thought about it during the project. The first research question was: Do students’ perceptions of CL change depending on the timing and activity of a project? The results of our research indicate that the answer is yes. We found that the elements of CL that were perceived as important differed depending on the timing and project activities. For example, social skills were needed to facilitate group activities at the beginning of the FMA, but when students began the filming and editing process from the middle to the end of the project, face-to-face promotive interaction emerged as an important element because the group had to come together several times to complete the cooperative work. In addition, some elements (positive interdependence, individual accountability, and face-to-face promotive interaction) were more important than the others (social skills and group processing) in the overall project. The results of the post-questionnaire survey indicated that positive interdependence and face-to-face promotive interaction were more favored by the students than the other elements, suggesting that these factors were better incorporated into the FMA.

The second research question was: What individual differences in students’ attitudes toward CL arise as they work in groups toward the same goal? The results of the present study show that there were individual differences in the elements of CL that were emphasized during the project. These differences were found in a variety of areas, such as those who emphasized a number of CL elements and those who did not, and those who referred to the five principles in full and those who only referred to certain principles, even though students completed the FMA with the same goals in the group.

The pedagogical implications of this study for EFL teachers are as follows. When conducting educational interventions in CL, teachers need to pay attention to the fact that the importance of the five elements for students varies according to the timing and activity of a project. It is also important to understand that the roles and functions of the five elements of CL are different and that some elements are essential for the project overall while others are of limited importance depending on the timing and activity of the project. In addition, educational interventions that acknowledge individual differences will be necessary, as each student may be affected by different elements of CL during a project.

The limitations of this study are as follows: (1) it was not conducted in regular English classes but in seminar classes; (2) it focused on a special film-making project activity; and (3) the timing for conducting the questionnaire survey and that of the journal writing were different. As for (1) and (2), the number of participants in this study was small (N = 50) because the class was for a limited number of students and involved only students who were interested in film production. A large-scale survey in a general English class is needed to determine whether similar results are obtained. In addition, the CL activity in this study was a long-term project with an implementation period of more than 15 weeks; therefore, it is not practical to implement it in general English classes. It should be examined whether a shorter version of the FMA project in more general EFL classes would have the same results as this study’s. With respect to (3), the questionnaire survey was administered after the students had completed the FMA, but the journal was written weekly. This created a time gap between the questionnaire survey and the journal writing, which undeniably resulted in a slight discrepancy in students’ perceptions. Therefore, in future research, it is necessary to conduct a questionnaire survey each time the journal is filled out, or at least once every few weeks, to examine how students’ perceptions of the five elements and the relationships among the five elements develop and change from a more longitudinal perspective.

Conclusion

With the growing importance of implementing CL in EFL settings, there is still no easy way to do it successfully in classrooms with different students. By observing an FMA as a semester-long extensive CL project, the present study highlights dynamic changes and individual differences in learners’ perception of what they were doing throughout the process of the activity. The weekly journal entries recorded by the participants were found to be a rich source of information reflecting what was happening in the mind of each individual at various points of time. One of the most important implications of the findings is that careful handling of individual learners with regard to respective phases of the activity would help engage them in CL more proactively and thus more satisfactorily. Moreover, learners’ self-perceived worries and struggles may be lurking beyond the scope of the five elements of CL. A further study on a larger scale is expected to identify other potentially significant factors as supplements to the existing CL elements, which would be applicable to a broad range of CL practices in different EFL settings.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix.

The Questionnaire Items for the Project-based Film-Making Activity.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Neutral	Somewhat Agree	Agree	Strongly Agree

It would not have been possible to get the task done by myself.

We had a strong relationship among group members.

It would not have been possible to achieve the goal without me.

Each member played a specific role.

We had a lot of opportunities to meet each other for the task.

A networking service such as LINE or Google Groups was utilized to communicate among members.

We shared our views with each other.

A conflict of ideas was properly handled in group without spoiling the atmosphere.

There was advice from our teacher or others about how to work on the project.

10.

We sometimes self-reviewed what we had been doing in group.

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this article was facilitated by a research grant (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 19K00778) to the first author from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

ORCID iDs

Masahiro Yoshimura

Tomohito Hiromori

References

Abe

Yamanishi

(2013) Daigaku eigo kyouiku ni okeru kyoudouteki writing gakushu no kanousei: Grounded theory approach ni motoduita bunseki no kokoromi [Collaborative writing in college English education: A Grounded Theory approach]. Language Education & Technology 50: 93–117.

Antil

Jenkins

Wayne

, et al. (1998) Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal 35(3): 419–454.

Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson

Major

(2014) Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 25(3–4): 7–55.

Davis

Sumara

(2006) Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching, and Research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dörnyei

(2001) Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drolet

A L

Morrison

D G

(2001) Do we really need multiple-item measures in service research? Journal of Service Research 3(3): 196–204.

Fushino

(2012) Causal relationships between communication confidence, beliefs about group work, and willingness to communicate in foreign language group work, TESOL Quarterly 44(4): 700–724.

Jacobs

Power

Inn

(2002) The Teacher’s Sourcebook for Cooperative Learning: Practical Techniques, Basic Elements, and Frequently Asked Questions. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

10.

Japan Association for Study of Cooperation in Education (2019) Nihon no kyoudou gakusyu [The Study of Cooperation in Education in Japan]. Kyoto: Nakanishiya Shuppan.

11.

Johnson

(2009) An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher 38(5): 365–379.

12.

Johnson

(2015) Theoretical approaches to cooperative learning. In: Gillies

(ed.) Collaborative Learning: Developments in Research and Practice. Hauppauge: Nova, 17–46.

13.

Johnson

(2018) Cooperative learning: The foundation for active learning. In: Brito

(ed.) Active Learning: Beyond the Future. London: IntechOpen, 1–12.

14.

Johnson

Holubec

(2013) Cooperation in the Classroom (9th ed.). Edina: Interaction Book Company.

15.

Johnson

Stanne

(2000) Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

16.

Kagan

(2009) Kagan Cooperative Learning. San Clemente: Kagan Publishing.

17.

McCafferty

Jacobs

DaSilva Iddings

(eds) (2006) Cooperative Learning and Second Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Ministry of Education (Japan) [MEXT] (2017) National curriculum standards for lower secondary schools: Foreign languages. Available at: www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/11/1298356_10.pdf

19.

Ministry of Education (Japan) [MEXT] (2018) National curriculum standards for upper secondary schools: Foreign languages. Available at: www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/newcs/youryou/eiyaku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/11/1298353_9.pdf

20.

Miyasako

(2019). Is cooperative learning prevalent in TEFL? In: Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Foreign Language Education & Technology in Tokyo, 6-9 August 2019. Available at: https://www.j-let.org/fleatvii/schedule/ (accessed 21 September 2020).

21.

Ning

(2011) Adapting cooperative learning in tertiary ELT. ELT Journal 65(1): 60–70.

22.

Ning

Hornby

(2014) The impact of cooperative learning on tertiary EFL learners’ motivation. Educational Review 66(1): 108–124.

23.

Oba

(2017) Eigo reading jyugou ni okeru shinrai ni motoduku kyoudou gakushu ga kyoudouteki katudou heno ninshiki ni ataeru kouka [The effects of trust-based cooperative learning in English jigsaw reading and story-retelling on the recognition of cooperative activities among university students]. Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education 36(2): 467–475.

24.

Roseth

Johnson

(2008) Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships. Psychological Bulletin 134(2): 223–246.

25.

Sachs

Candlin

Rose

(2003) Developing cooperative learning in the EFL/ESL secondary classroom. RELC Journal 34(3): 338–369.

26.

Sampson

(2018) Complexity in acting on images of ideal classmates in the L2 classroom. Konin Language Studies 6(4): 387–410.

27.

Slavin

(2014) Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork work? Anales de Psicología 30(3): 785–791.

28.

Webb

Nemer

Zuniga

(2002) Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science performance. American Educational Research Journal 39(4): 943–989.