

## Collaborative Learning in Learner Development
Collaborative Learning in Learner Development

Published by the Learner Development Special Interest Group of JALT at Smashwords

Copyright 2014 Japan Association of Language Teaching Learner Development SIG and each respective author

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this ebook. This book remains the copyrighted property of the authors, and may not be redistributed to others for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their owncopy from their favorite authorized retailer. Thank you for your support.

Title: Collaborative Learning in Learner Development

Editors: Tim Ashwell, Steven Paydon, Masuko Miyahara & Alison Stewart

ISBN: 978-4-901352-45-1

Cover photograph copyright Gen Setsu

Cover design by Rob Moreau
Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1

Clarifying Terms / 協働学習?協同学習?:用語の一律化 — Alison Stewart & Tim Ashwell

Chapter 2

Theoretical Underpinnings of Collaborative Learning / 協働学習に関する理論的根拠 — Alison Stewart, Masuko, Miyahara, Steven Paydon & Tim Ashwell

Chapter 3

A Dialogue on the Importance of Trust in Collaborative Learning / 協働学習における「トラスト」の重要性 — Steven Paydon & Dexter Da Silva

Chapter 4

Collaborative Learning Activities and the Motivation for Learning English: An Exploration of the Relationship between the Two in a University EFL Classroom / 協働学習活動と英語学習動機づけの関係:大学の英語の授業における探求 — Etsuko Shimo

Chapter 5

Investigating the Role of Collaborative Pre-Listening Tasks in University Listening Classes/ 大学英語リスニングクラスにおける「協働的プレ・タスク」の効果について — Hiromi Tsuda

Chapter 6

Exploring Collaborative Dialogue in Group Journal Writing / グループジャーナルライティングにおける協働的対話の研究 — Chika Hayashi

Chapter 7

The Role of Collaboration in a Learner Autonomy Programme / 学習者の自律を高める授業での協働的作業の役割 — Chris Fitzgerald & Martin Mullen

Chapter 8

Evaluating In-House Materials for Collaborative Learning / 協働学習を育成する教材開発とその評価 — Mathew Porter

Chapter 9

Implementing a Team-Based Learning Approach in Japanese University Seminar Classes / チームベースドラーニングの導入:大学ゼミにおける試み — Tim Ashwell

Chapter 10

Cross-Institutional Collaboration: Lessons From an Unsuccessful Project / 大学間の協働学習の試み:失敗に終わったプロジェクトからの教訓 — Ken Ikeda

Chapter 11

Collaboration: Content-learning, Language Learning and Practicum all Rolled into One / 容習得・言語習得・実習: 協働的学びへの試み — Ann Mayeda

Chapter 12

Collaborative Learning and Professional Development for Teachers in an Elementary School Context / 小学校における教師の協働的学びと専門的成長 — Hideo Kojima

Drawing Some Threads Together

Introduction

Collaborative learning (CL) is intuitively a very familiar concept. When two or more people work together to achieve a task or to understand something, there is potential for collaborative learning to occur. By pooling their resources groups can compensate for individual shortcomings and can surpass individual limitations to reach a level of achievement which is beyond even the most able member's capacities. To be banal, we recognize that two heads are often better than one and, as teachers, we often wish to encourage this supportive learning environment in order that no one is left behind and so that students learn to care for those around them. In our own field of language learning, it is useful for students to converse with other students in the target language in order to gain practice in using the language. In other areas of education pair and group work are often used to achieve other goals such as the development of social and teamwork skills and to foster citizenship. It is tempting to see collaborative learning everywhere because our students are regularly collaborating with each other. The papers in this collection, however, are written partly with the aim of showing that collaborative learning is, in fact, a rather elusive bird, something which is hard to identify and pin down and often only evident circumstantially. More broadly, the papers aim at shedding light on why or how or whether collaborative learning is an effective means of language and content learning.

The idea for this collection of papers grew out of discussions held at the JALT Learner Development Special Interest Group Tokyo Get-togethers from March 2012 onwards. Each month a small group of us discussed many of the basic definitional issues as well as some of the practical aspects of implementing CL in the classroom. We returned time and again to the basic questions of what collaboration is, how it might differ from collaborative learning, and what the distinction might be between collaborative and cooperative learning. We wanted to understand how informal, ad hoc groups, cooperative groups, and teams differed from each other and how we and our students should go about organizing CL groups. Once implemented, we wondered how we could assess learners' performance as they engaged in CL and we considered what we would need to do in order to research the effectiveness of CL for ourselves. When, for example, might it be better for learners to work alone rather than in groups? In learner development terms, we thought about the experiences our learners may already have had with CL and ways of using this experience when introducing CL into our classrooms. We also discussed the merits of teacher- and learner-initiated CL considering whether the latter might lead to a truer, more committed form of CL than the former. In some philosophical forays, we even discussed "high-" versus "low-" quality collaboration, whether disagreement, disjuncture, and disharmony are necessary ingredients for successful collaborative learning, whether CL is a process or a product, and also whether certain types of learning can only occur in social interaction.

After the idea for a collection of papers had emerged, the four editors began to explore the topic together. We discussed how the origins of collaborative learning in education may be traced back to theories of learning which see learning as an inherently social process. Vygotsky's writings have been particularly influential in this respect. CL may also however have fuzzier roots in humanistic approaches in education that gained ground in the West from the 1970s and which emphasized caring and sharing amongst students in order to develop more rounded members of society (e.g., Rogers, 1969; Curran, 1976; Moskovitz, 1978; Stevick, 1980). In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), the interaction approach has stressed the importance of using the target language in learner-learner and learner-teacher interaction because it leads to breakdowns in communication which in turn lead to negotiation for meaning, a site for language learning to occur (Long, 1996). The emphasis on communicative interaction has therefore perhaps encouraged teachers to introduce groupings that have collaborative characteristics.

We also realized that one might alternatively trace support for collaborative learning to less theoretical sources. Many teachers ask their students to work in pairs and groups because it encourages learners to rely more on their own resources rather than on the teacher. It breaks down the normal dynamic of the classroom and overturns traditional authority relationships. It turns the class into a more student-centred environment and may help improve the atmosphere by enabling students to relax or by encouraging them to take more responsibility for their own learning. There is an emphasis on process rather than product with the discussion and exchange of ideas and the resolution of disagreements an integral part of a more personalized and negotiated form of learning. It is also motivational in that learners are in a position where they support each other so that learning becomes social rather than individual. Working together also demonstrates how effective cooperation can be and that, in order to solve many problems in the real world, it is useful to collaborate with others and to negotiate ways through difficulties. Collaborative learning therefore represents a whole nexus of interwoven folk knowledge about teaching and learning that makes sense to a great many teachers.

The contributors to this collection of papers are either teachers of English as a foreign language or are language teacher educators. We therefore have an interest in how CL may contribute to language learning. It will be apparent, however, that most of the papers do not focus directly on the ways in which CL and second language learning relate, but on ways in which CL may create favourable conditions for second language learning, or on ways that it may contribute to enhanced content learning. Throughout this introduction and elsewhere in the collection we are addressing foreign language teachers who may be interested in the direct and indirect contributions CL may be able to make to second language learning, but at the same time we are addressing foreign language teachers as educators who may see the value in using CL when helping their learners to engage with content matter other than the target language itself.

### The Structure of this Book

The first two background chapters are intended to help readers orient themselves towards collaborative learning and assist them in critically assessing the chapters that follow. In Chapter 1, we attempt to clarify several issues which frequently complicate our understanding of CL. In Chapter 2, we explain some of the areas we think are key to exploring in greater depth what collaboration and collaborative learning involve.

The ten original studies which form the core of this collection appear as Chapters 3 to 11. Chapter 3, written by Steven Paydon and Dexter Da Silva, is an exception to the other papers in not being based on a piece of empirical action research. Instead Paydon and Da Silva present a discussion of the complex issue of trust which they consider an essential element when the goal is long-lasting, committed and valuable collaborative learning. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 are studies of CL implementations in regular university English language classes. In Chapter 4, Etsuko Shimo investigates the relationship between the CL activities she uses in an integrated skills course and students' motivational orientations. In Chapter 5, Hiromi Tsuda also explores the connection between CL and motivation, but specifically focuses on the use of CL pre-listening tasks. In Chapter 6, Chika Hayashi analyzes in detail entries in a group journal to see how collaboration and students' writing developed over the course of a year.

The following two chapters move us beyond regular English language courses to explore CL in different contexts. In Chapter 7, Martin Mullen and Chris Fitzgerald explain how CL activities were integrated into a course specifically aimed at developing learner autonomy. In Chapter 8, Mathew Porter shows how materials for collaborative activities were used and assessed in a self-access learning centre environment.

The next two chapters are concerned with the implementation of CL within university seminar classes. In Chapter 9, Tim Ashwell shows how a team-based learning approach was used in a seminar class which focused on topics in linguistics. In Chapter 10, Ken Ikeda explains how he introduced cross-institutional CL to help his students develop their graduation thesis projects and help him grow professionally as a seminar teacher.

In the final two chapters, the role of CL in formal teacher development is explored. In Chapter 11, Ann Mayeda looks at how CL activities helped pre-service trainee teachers of English to young learners develop both their English language proficiency and their disposition towards teaching. In Chapter 12, Hideo Kojima shows how collaborative learning developed between colleagues in an elementary school as they implemented English language activities.

### Chapter 1

Clarifying Terms / 協働学習?協同学習?:用語の一律化

Alison Stewart & Tim Ashwell

### Abstract

This chapter discusses the key terms chosen for this book, collaborative learning and learner development, and proposes broad definitions for each of them that can serve as a rationale for the project and a common point of departure for the action research studies that follow. Learning in groups is considered first of all as a mode of learning that has precedents in history and in non-Western cultures. It is only relatively recently that the benefits of working in groups have been acknowledged and exploited, for example, by proponents of cooperative learning (CoopL) and collaborative learning (CL). Although these terms are often used interchangeably, the authors have chosen CL because of its association with a more transformative view of interactive learning. Similarly, learner development is discussed in relation to other terms associated with learning to learn and learner autonomy. Drawing particularly on the Shizuoka definition of teacher-learner autonomy, learner development is defined as the holistic development of the individual (intellectual, emotional, physical and spiritual). Living in society, individuals have a responsibility for the wellbeing of others; thus, learners are responsible for furthering their own development but at the same time they are also responsible for helping others to develop and learn.

第一章ではこれからの章の基盤となる協働学習(collaborative learning)と学習者デイベロップメント(learner development) の二つの概念の定義をすると共に、この著書の執筆に至った理由について述べる。グループによる学習は学びの形態の一つとして過去、及び、西洋以外の文化圏では古くから浸透している。協同学習(cooperative learning (CoopL))と協働学習(collaborative learning (CL))のようにグループで学ぶ利点は近年になってようやく認識されるようになった。ただ、協同学習と協働学習は必ずしも区別されて使われている概念ではなく、相互交渉(インターアクション)によって意味や知識の構築が成されると捉える協働学習(collaborative learning (CL))の方を我々は定義とすることにした。同様に学習者デイベロップメント(learner development)の定義は学びの学習(learning to learn)と学習者オートノミー(learner autonomy)の概念と類似であると考えられてきた。本著では静岡宣言を基に、学習者デイベロップメント(learner development)を個人の心身、知力、精神力、情動などを含む、学習者の全人格的な発達につなげる行為と位置付けることにした。ここでは個人は自からの学習やデイベロップメントだけに責任をもつだけではなく、他者の学びやデイベロップメントにも責任をもつことであると捉える。

### Introduction

In this chapter, we review terms that are commonly used to denote learning in groups and discuss the meaning and significance of collaboration for learner development, another term that we seek to clarify. We have chosen to use the term _collaborative learning_ (CL) for this collection, but it will be apparent from a cursory review of the literature that there are a number of similar terms in use. In this section, we discuss the three most commonly used terms, _group_ , _cooperative_ and _collaborative learning_ , and consider the similarities and differences between them.

### Group, Cooperative and Collaborative Learning

_Group learning_ may be considered a generic term for any classroom arrangement that involves learners working together rather than individually. Because it is such a commonly used term, we begin by taking a very broad view of what group learning means and discuss it from a variety of different perspectives.

Taking a broad historical perspective, learning in groups is sometimes viewed as a progressive, humanistic trend in mainstream education compared with a style of learning where learning is viewed as an exclusively individual endeavor. What we might think of as "traditional" education, however, with learners seated in rows all facing the front as a teacher lectures from behind a lectern on a podium, is not in fact, a natural educational style, but was itself an innovation. The Prussian system of education, implemented under Wilhelm von Humboldt in the early 19th century, created a standardized system of compulsory education. Whilst nowadays the term Prussian education tends to connote a militaristic conformity to rules and regulations, in its time it was a significant development that brought high levels of education, which had been the preserve of a privileged elite, to the masses, a reform that aimed at underpinning economic growth and social stability (Howatt & Smith, 2007).

In time, however, the Prussian model's emphasis on the dominance of the teacher and on learners' unwavering acceptance of the curriculum began to be questioned. In diverse and democratic societies, such a regimented approach sits awkwardly with wider social mores, and a classroom in which learners are encouraged to speak up and speak often may be more respectful of the individual learners' rights and needs. Indeed, as the learners' autonomy has come to be valued more, the role of the teacher as the leader of the class at all times becomes less prominent, and the class as a group can be reconfigured into smaller groups. In smaller groups, individual learners have more chance of playing an active role in activities such as reviewing and confirming new information, formulating questions, problem-solving, and so on.

Group learning in language pedagogy can similarly be regarded as a historically and socially situated phenomenon. Indeed, Holliday (1994) addressed this phenomenon explicitly by identifying two distinct cultures of language teaching: one originating in commercial language schools in English-speaking countries, which he termed BANA (Britain, Australasia and North America), the other prevalent in formal educational institutions worldwide, which he termed TESEP (Tertiary, Secondary and Primary Education). Whereas the BANA culture of teaching favored more learner-centered classrooms, TESEP continued, and in many places still does continue, to be teacher-dominated. As Holliday describes in his study of conflicting teaching cultures (1994), teaching methods that originated in commercial language schools in English-speaking countries were not (and still are not necessarily) easily introduced into institutions where language is treated like other academic subjects as a distinct and bounded body of knowledge. The difference in the way power is distributed in a classroom can probably be explained by the fact that the students in commercial language schools are adults who choose and pay for their education, unlike in primary and secondary educational institutions where the students have no choice.

It is also perhaps not surprising that Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) first emerged from this BANA context, as classes full of learners who did not necessarily share a common language with each other or with the teacher had to learn the language through communication. Working together in pairs or in groups, where the onus is on learners to negotiate communication with each other and thus facilitate learning for each other can thus be seen as a pragmatic alternative to instruction by a teacher.

Whilst Holliday has focused on the culture of educational institutions, other researchers have looked at attitudes toward and practices involving pair or group work in CLT in national cultures. In a point-counterpoint debate, for example, Liao (2004) objected to Bax's (2003) claim that CLT was an appropriate approach to language learning in any context. Elsewhere, some researchers argued that mutually supportive and collaborative groups are characteristic of many non-western cultures (Flowerdew, 1998; Nguyen, Terlouw, & Pilot, 2006). Scollon (1999), for example, suggests that contradictory educational cultures or "discourse" that she observed in Hong Kong could be characterised as _Socratic_ or _Confucian_ , with the former emphasising individual initiative and achievement of the learner and the latter valuing social harmony and acceptance of authority, characteristics which would clearly work in favour of collaboration in groups. Such stereotypical descriptions of culture may now be regarded as rather old-fashioned; more recently, culture is regarded more microscopically, such as Holliday's (1999) _small cultures_ , which he uses to describe any class or group of learners who meet together at regular and frequent intervals, or else _culture_ is avoided altogether and replaced with alternative terms such as _identity_ or _discourse_ (Atkinson & Sohn, 2013). Thus, whereas national culture used to be thought of as a primary identity of individuals and groups, diversity, hybridity, and variability are now more widely assumed to be more important factors in the make-up of any group of learners, and this very complexity is a benefit and a resource for learning (Holliday, 2010).

The rising importance and value of group learning might be part of a social or political trend, but at the same time, its role in language learning has been further supported by findings in research first in the field of Second Language Acquisition and, more recently, in sociocognitive and sociocultural approaches to language learning research. These theories will be considered in detail in the following chapter. For now, however, it should be noted that the recommendations arising from this research are incorporated in textbooks and other language learning/teaching materials that are produced by the global ELT publishing industry (Gray, 2010). These publications, which are assumed to be "best practice" in the field of language teaching, have been influential in promoting and normalizing practices in the classroom, including group learning.

Whereas the term group learning is thus very broad, the terms _collaborative learning_ (CL) and _cooperative learning_ (CoopL) have tended to be more narrowly defined, but ambiguities remain, since in some cases they are used interchangeably and, in others, they are used with quite distinct meanings. Barkley, Cross and Major (2005), for example, argue that CL may tend to be applied to interactive group learning at the tertiary level and CoopL at the primary/secondary levels of education. One can also argue, as Barkley and colleagues do, that there is a branding issue involved here too. Some writers seem to have appropriated the terms and are particularly associated with their use. Bruffee (1981, 1999) has assiduously promoted _collaborative learning_ as a particular form of learning more appropriate for the college level while Johnson and Johnson (1989, 1995), Kagan (1997) and others have tended to monopolize the use of the term _cooperative learning_ to apply to interactive group learning for school students. Oxford (1997), in contrast, prefers to distinguish and define CL, CoopL and interaction as three different communicative "strands" in the language classroom.

The distinction has more substantial roots, however, in the different conceptions writers may have of the status of knowledge and how this relates to the authority of the teacher. Bruffee (1999) contends that the prevalent view is that "college and university professors discover, store and purvey knowledge, while their students consume, process, and use it" (p. xi). By contrast, his book on CL proposes that instead, "professors and students alike construct and maintain knowledge in continual conversation with their peers" (p. 3). Barkley et al (2005) sum up the position Bruffee (1999) takes about the differences in these terms:

Whereas the goal of cooperative learning is to work together in harmony and mutual support to find the solution, the goal of collaborative learning is to develop autonomous, articulate, thinking people, even if at times such a goal encourages dissent and competition that seems to undercut the ideals of cooperative learning (p. 7).

CL can thus be seen as part of the social constructivist movement, whereas CoopL deals exclusively with traditional canonical knowledge.

Others see CL and CoopL lying on a continuum from least to most structured respectively. Smith and MacGregor (1992), among others, see CL as an umbrella term that subsumes CoopL at one end of this same continuum. Similarly, Panitz (1996) sees collaboration as "a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle whereas cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of an end product or goal". He suggests that CoopL is more controlled by the teacher with a strong emphasis on "structure", and that CL is more student-centred. He further suggests that CoopL may have American roots with writers drawing on Dewey's (1916, 1938) emphasis on the social nature of learning and on Kurt Lewin's work on group dynamics (1947), while CL may have British roots. He refers to Myers (1991), who sees CoopL as transmission education at one end of a spectrum and CL as transformation education at the other, and who further proposes a type of transaction education as a compromise position. In this view, education becomes a conversation between the student and the curriculum, and teaching becomes a conversation in which teachers and students learn together through a process of negotiation with the curriculum to develop a shared view of the world.

To sum up, group learning is a general term that applies wherever learners interact in pairs or larger groups in order to pursue or provide mutual support for learning. Group learning may be a feature of particular cultures, national or educational, but it has been promoted around the world as a more democratic and pedagogically sound way of conducting all kinds of learning, including language learning. CoopL and CL, by contrast, tend to be defined more narrowly, although the specific ways in which they have been defined are contradictory. Despite the differences in these definitions, CL is the term that tends to be associated with the kind of autonomy-fostering, dialogic, transformative education that is of interest to the Learner Development SIG as a community of researchers and practitioners. These attempts to draw a distinction between CL and CoopL are made not so much in order to pinpoint an exact meaning for the term that we have chosen, but rather to indicate ranges or scales of meaning within which our definition might be located. In the same way, now, we wish to turn to _learner development_ and consider some of the meanings and associations of that term in comparison with other similar or related terms. What are the differences between _learner development_ , _learner autonomy_ and _interdependence_ , and how can each of the terms be related to CL?

### Learner Development, Learner Autonomy, and Interdependence

Before discussing the meanings of _learner development_ , _learner autonomy_ and _interdependence_ , we start with a word of caution regarding the ways in which terms become imbued with semantic and political connotations. A classic example, which many readers will be familiar with, is the controversy which has surrounded the terms _learning_ and _acquisition_ in the field of Second Language Acquisition for so long. In his theory of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Krashen (1981) distinguishes between _acquisition_ , which he defines as a natural, intuitive and subconscious process, and _learning_ , which he sees as a conscious process which usually occurs in a situation of formal instruction. In the case of languages, Krashen argues, _acquisition_ is more effective than learning. Acquisition means intuitive, practical mastery of the language, gained through natural communication. Paling in comparison, _learning_ means memorization of rules and conventions, and what is learned is often soon forgotten. In the past twenty years, in the light of a growing interest in alternative approaches in applied linguistic research (Atkinson, 2011), _learning_ has come back into favour, even among SLA researchers (Ortega, 2011). Nevertheless, Krashen's definitions of acquisition and learning are a reminder of how easily terms can be loaded semantically. Terms are also politically charged once a researcher or group of researchers lays claim to them and affixes their own definition onto them, as Krashen did with _acquisition_ and _learning_.

Turning now to _learner development_ , we can see that, as the name of the Special Interest Group (SIG) to which we and the chapter contributors all belong, this term also carries a raft of associations and connotations. This was not always the case. In an online article, Richard Smith, one of the founders of the SIG, relates that the name was chosen over a number of other terms connected with learner training and learner autonomy precisely because it had not then been used in the literature, and therefore came without "semantic baggage" (Smith, 1995). Over the 20-year history of the SIG, however, _learner development_ has become established as a term in its own right in the field. In this section, we wish to trace the background of learner development, in particular, exploring definitions and concerns of earlier terms that addressed issues surrounding the nature of learning and helping learners to learn by themselves. At the end of this section, we propose a definition of learner development and explain how, in our view, it may be integral to the notion of CL.

Although learner development may have been initially a term without associations in the field, it belongs to a movement in language pedagogy that was concerned with helping the learner to learn. In the United States, this movement received its impetus from pioneering studies in the 1970s on "the good language learner" (Rubin, 1975; Naiman, 1978). Based on a social psychological approach of individual differences, this led to a productive area of research into learner strategies (Oxford, 1990) and eventually to strategic self-regulated learning (Oxford, 2011). On the other side of the Atlantic, Henri Holec at the University of Nancy in France coined the term _learner autonomy_ , which he defined as "the ability to take charge of one's own learning" (1981). Although Holec regarded learner autonomy as a psychological capacity, other researchers interpreted the concept in more political terms by rewording _ability_ in the definition to the learner's _responsibility_ (Dickinson, 1987) or _control_ (Benson, 1997).

In the case of both learner strategies and learner autonomy, the key emphasis was initially on the individual learner and their freedom to make choices and decisions about their own learning, as opposed to having choices and decisions made for them by a pre-fixed curriculum or syllabus, or by the teacher in the classroom. Nevertheless, among European researchers in particular, this emphasis on responsibility and control was not merely concerned with freedom from authority; it had important social implications too. Kohonen (1992) explains this as follows:

Personal decisions are necessarily made with respect to social and moral norms, traditions and expectations. Autonomy thus includes the notion of interdependence, that is, being responsible for one's own conduct in the social context: being able to cooperate with others and solve conflicts in constructive ways (p. 19).

In Kohonen's view, autonomy through interdependence can be fostered through experiential models of pedagogy, such as collaborative decision-making within cooperative groups. This conceptualization and practice of learner autonomy is articulated in a similar way in the so-called Bergen definition of learner autonomy as a readiness to act "independently and in cooperation with others, as a socially responsible person" (Dam, 1995). Viewed from this perspective, collaborative decision-making, or working in cooperative groups, is first and foremost an ethical way of behaving, and it is through interdependence with other members of a learning community that learner autonomy becomes an ethical practice.

Interdependence, comprising collaborative or cooperative relationships with other learners, can thus be seen as a corollary of learner autonomy. Indeed, collaborative learning should not be restricted to learners; teachers can (or should) also be looking to learn through collaboration with their students. Smith has explored the notion of _interdependence_ between teacher and learner in his notion of _teacher-learner autonomy_ , which he defines as "the ability to develop appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes for oneself as a teacher, in cooperation with others" (2008, p. 83). This notion of acting "appropriately" is a key point, and one that raises interesting questions about learning. For how do we know what is appropriate for language learners? How do we know when another person understands or doesn't understand something? The definition of _teacher-learner autonomy_ that was formulated by members of the Learner Development SIG at a meeting in Shizuoka in 2001, is quite illuminating on this point:

The interrelationship between learner autonomy and teacher autonomy becomes clear when the values of co-learning, self-direction, collaboration and democratic co-participation are consciously highlighted in relation to the following three critical principles of action: critical reflective inquiry, empowerment, and dialogue. It is the quality of interdependence between these values and actions that links the development processes of teacher autonomy and learner autonomy. The processes by which those principles of action can be achieved centre on observing, inquiring, negotiating, evaluating and developing in collaboration with one's learners and colleagues (Barfield et al, 2001).

This definition of _teacher-learner autonomy_ is germane to our understanding of _learner development_. First of all, it highlights four interrelated values: _co-learning_ , _self-direction_ , _collaboration_ , and _democratic co-participation_. What is interesting about this list is that it represents two dialectic pairs: The first ( _co-learning_ and _self-direction_ ) can be seen as one individual learning with another on one side of the equation, and the individual learning independently on the other. The second ( _collaboration_ and _democratic co-participation_ ) connotes larger groups working together: collaborating to achieve the purposes of the group and participating in a democratic process for the benefit of all. By viewing each of these values as interrelated, it means that a focus on one value necessarily entails a focus also on the other three. For example, an activity that entails co-learning, or one individual learner working with another, should also involve self-direction, and widening out the social context of the activity, it should also entail collaboration and democracy in the community as a whole. The definition also includes the methods by which these values can be promoted: _critical reflective inquiry_ , _empowerment_ , and _dialogue_ , methods that have been described in the learner autonomy literature and that are exemplified in the chapters that comprise this anthology.

Our understanding of _learner development_ derives from the Shizuoka formulation. Stated simply: _Learner development_ entails the development (in all senses: intellectual, emotional, social, physical, spiritual) of the individual. As individuals, we are responsible to ourselves and to others. And as adult members of society, we have a responsibility to ensure that our society is just and fair and that it provides opportunities for the development of every individual living in it. We are responsible for passing on the knowledge that we have gained through experience in the same way that we are responsible for reaching out to others to learn from their experience. Collaboration, or CL, is therefore an integral part of this endeavor.

### Conclusion

We have sought in this introductory chapter to explain the terms that feature in the title of this collection as well as in the chapters by the contributors that follow. We have traced the background to collaborative learning and learner development, chiefly to uncover some of the theoretical antecedents of these terms, but also to indicate that our definitions of the terms have been influenced by some movements and schools of thought more than by others. We recognize that terms are always contestable, and, as you will see, our contributors bring their own experiences and thinking to their deployment and interpretations of collaborative learning in learner development. We hope that these rich understandings will resonate with your own as you read the following chapters.

### References

Atkinson, D. (2011). _Alternative approaches to second language acquisition_. New York: Routledge.

Atkinson, D., & Sohn, J. (2013). Culture from the bottom up. _TESOL Quarterly, 47_ , 669-693.

Barfield, A., Ashwell, T., Carroll, M., Collins, K., Cowie, N., Critchley, M., Head, E., Nix, M., Obermeier, A., & Robertson, M. (2002). Exploring and defining teacher autonomy: A collaborative discussion. In _On developing autonomy, Proceedings of the 2001 CUE Conference_ , Shizuoka, Japan. Tokyo: JALT.

Barkley, E., Cross, K., & Major, C. (2005). _Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty_. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. _ELT Journal, 57_ , 278-87.

Benson, P. (1997) The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), _Autonomy and independence in language learning_ (pp. 18-35) New York: Routledge.

Bruffee, K. A. (1981). Collaborative Learning. _College English, 43_ , 745-747. doi.org/10.2307/376907

Bruffee, K. A. (1999). _Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge_. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dam, L. (1995). _Learner autonomy 3. From theory to classroom practice_. Dublin: Authentik.

Dewey, J. (1916). _Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education_ (1966 Ed). New York: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). _Experience and education_. New York: Collier Books.

Dickinson, L. (1987). _Self-instruction in language learning_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flowerdew, J. (1998). Attitudes toward English and Cantonese among Hong Kong Chinese university lecturers. _TESOL Quarterly, 32_ , 201-231.

Gray, J. (2010). _The construction of English: Culture, consumerism and promotion in the ELT global coursebook_. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Holec, H. (1981). _Autonomy in foreign language learning_. Oxford: Pergamon.

Holliday, A. (1994). _Appropriate methodologies and social context_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. _Applied Linguistics, 20_ , 237-264. doi: 10.1093/applin/20.2.237

Johnson D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). _Cooperation and competition: Theory and research_. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). _Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning_ (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kagan, S. (1997). _Cooperative learning_. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.

Kohonen, V. (1992). _Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1981). _Second language acquisition and second language learning_. Oxford: Pergamon.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers of Group Dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science, social equilibria, and social change. _Human Relations, 1_ , 5-41.

Liao, X. (2004). The need for communicative language teaching in China. _ELT Journal, 58_ , 270-273.

Myers, J. (1991). Cooperative learning in heterogeneous classes. _Cooperative Learning, 11_ (4), 36-48.

Naiman, N. (1978). _The good language learner_. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Nguyen, P.M., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2006). Culturally appropriate pedagogy: The case of group learning in a Confucian heritage culture context. _Intercultural Education, 17_ , 1-19.

Ortega, L. (2011). _Understanding second language acquisition_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oxford, R. (1990). _Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know_. New York: Newbury House.

Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. _The Modern Language Journal, 81_ , 443-456.

Oxford, R. (2011). _Teaching and researching language learning strategies_. New York: Routledge.

Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative vs cooperative learning. http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collaborative-learning/panitz-paper.cfm

Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. _TESOL Quarterly, 9_ , 41-51.

Scollon, S. (1999). Not to waste words or students: Confucian and Socratic discourse in the tertiary classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), _Culture in second language teaching and learning_ (pp. 13-28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, R. (1995). Some thoughts on the formation of the JALT Learner Development N-SIG. http://penta.ufrgs.br/edu/telelab/7/richard1.htm

Smith, R., & Erdogan, S. (2008). Teacher-learner autonomy: Programme goals and student-teacher constructs. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), _Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses_. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Smith, B., & MacGregor, J. (1990). Collaborative learning: Shared inquiry as a process of reform. In M. D. Svinicki (Ed.), _The Changing Face of College Teaching: New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 42_. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing.

### Chapter 2

Theoretical Underpinnings of Collaborative Learning / 協同学習に関する理論的根拠

Alison Stewart, Masuko, Miyahara, Steven Paydon & Tim Ashwell

### Abstract

Collaborative learning is based on a concept of learning as a social practice. This chapter provides a critical review of some major theories which are used by the authors of the following chapters, and which address this basic concept in different ways. Firstly, Group Dynamics (GD) explores theories from social psychology chiefly aimed at explaining human motivation, and the role of other people in fulfilling our fundamental human needs. Next, Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory (SCT) sees learning as primarily social, mediated by other people or by cultural tools such as one's first language. The chapter raises questions as to how or whether SCT can be applied to learning other languages. Community of Practice (CoP) emphasizes the role of social context in learning; learning entails acquiring the discourses of a particular community. Here, too, the application of CoP to language learning is subjected to critical examination. The chapter ends with a section on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory. Although initially cognitive in its orientation, this field has begun to accept social theories of language learning and some researchers have adopted a sociocognitive approach to understand how people learn languages and what role other people may play in this endeavor.

協働学習の概念の根底にあるのは学習を個人の営みではなく、社会的相互作業の結果とみなしているところである。各章、この協働学習の概念を様々な観点から検証しているが、本章では特にその概念の基盤を形成していると思われる主な考え方をクリテイカルに論じる。まず、グループダイナミックスの理論(Group Dynamics Theory)を社会心理学的アプローチに用いり、動機付けや他者との交流が人間の基本的欲望を満たす上に必要不可欠であることを唱える。次にヴィゴッスキーの社会文化的アプローチ(Social Cultural Theory)の枠組みの中でどのように、また、どこまで、これが他言語の習得に関係があるのか批判的に考察する。さらに学習の社会的要素を強調している実践コミュニティ論(Community of Practice)を使い、ここでも、この概念が言語習得と実際にどのよう関係が成立するのかを見つめ直す。同様に、最後に第二言語習得論(Second Language Acquisition Theory)と協同学習との関係性についてまとめている。ここではもともとは言語習得を認知的アプローチからみていたが、学習を社会的な行為とみなす考え方を受けいれ、言語習得を社会認知的(sociocognitive )なアプローチからとらえ、人が言語を習得する時に他者とのかかわりを重要視する研究者が増えてきた。

### Introduction

As we suggested in the previous chapter, education is a cultural and, therefore, historically situated activity, and in school cultures that have developed in the west, we have come to think of learning as an individual rather than a social behaviour. Increasingly, however, theories of learning tend to emphasize the social dimensions of learning (Cooker & Benson, 2013). In this chapter, we wish to explore some key theoretical trends that have been influential in language learning research and that are deployed by the authors of the chapters in this book. In reviewing these ideas, we have sought to apply critical questions regarding their relevance or applicability to an understanding of learning through collaboration.

### Group Dynamics

Group Dynamics (GD) is a field of social psychology "dedicated to advancing knowledge about the nature of groups, the laws of their development, and their interrelations with individuals, other groups, and larger institutions" (Cartwright & Zander, 1968, p. 43). This definition is clearly far broader in scope than our focus on collaboration and learning, though there is arguably some merit in starting by examining why people come together in the first place, what effects this has on their behavior, and what light this throws on the connection between collaboration and learning.

Two of the most widely known GD-related theories explain human sociality as a basic human need. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory (1943) proposes that individuals are driven to satisfy certain basic needs in an ascending order of priority. Starting with physical needs, such as food and water, and then security, individuals are driven by a need for love and belonging. Only once that need is satisfied can they go on to satisfy more individually fulfilling desires for esteem and for self-actualization. Applying this to learning, this theory suggests that learners need to feel accepted and valued by others in order to go on to realize higher needs, such as personal growth.

Baumeister and Leary's (1995) Need to Belong Theory, however, emphasizes that individuals have "a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and impactful interpersonal relationships" (p. 497); in other words, they stress the importance of the need to belong to a social group. Furthermore, whereas Maslow's hierarchy suggests that needs are relatively discreet and there is a simple cumulative advance toward a zenith of wellbeing, Baumeister and Leary's theory implies that the need to belong is responsible for producing our strongest emotions, both positive and negative (p. 508). It also exerts an influence on how and what we think (p. 505). Belonging to a group can often entail at least some degree of acceptance of the preferences and prejudices of the group. Although this theory does not encompass processes of learning in groups, it does imply that one condition of belonging to a group may be a suppression of individual desires and tastes in order to preserve harmony.

A less deterministic view of the function of groups in the psychology of individuals, can be found in a number of theories relating to motivation, and thus have a more apparent relevance to learning. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) is concerned with the causes of human behavior and "... the design of social environments that optimize people's development, performance, and well-being" (p. 68). The theory posits three psychological needs—autonomy, competence and relatedness—which when satisfied lead to enhanced motivation and well-being. Although also addressing the need for acceptance, it is unlike Maslow's belongingness/love needs and Baumeister and Leary's Need to Belong Theory in that relatedness is seen as one of three equally essential needs. SDT has particular relevance to teachers utilising group learning aimed at cognitive development because it characterizes the kind of social environments that will generate enhanced motivation and performance, as well as the conditions that will promote the assimilation of information.

Motivation theories have built on a history of findings from research into the performance of individuals working alone or in groups. In an early psychological experiment conducted in 1898, bicycle riders were found to go faster when they rode with other cyclists than when they rode alone. Claims by skeptics that the enhanced performance of the group of cyclists as a whole was the result of slipstreams or drafts or vacuums created by the lead rider were proven to be unfounded (Forsyth, 2010). Weaker individuals in a group respond to the achievements of others by expending more effort than they would do working alone, a phenomenon known as the Köhler effect (Forsyth, 2010, p. 303). More recently, a group of researchers at Michigan State University (Son, Jackson, Grove, & Feltz, 2011) tested individuals' performance depending on whether their motivational self-talk in a darts-throwing contest focused on their own performance or on that of the group. The researchers found that "the influence of motivational _group-oriented_ statements was more pronounced than the influence of motivational _self-oriented_ (emphasis authors' own) statements" (p. 6); in other words, the groups which focused their self-talk on their own group's ability and performance were the groups whose performance improved. More importantly, the participants who focused their thoughts on the group's ability also performed better as individuals. This is compelling evidence for the fact that individuals are motivated to perform at a higher level when they are in a group situation. But does it also mean that they are likely to learn better in this situation too?

Research into learning outcomes by Roseth, Johnson, and Johnson (2008) supports the argument that people do learn better in groups. However, what is important in this study is that group learning is effective when the attainment of learning goals is structured cooperatively, as opposed to competitively or individually. Moreover, this study found that the more goals are cooperatively structured, the more students' relationships tend to be positive, and the more positive their relationships, the more they tend to achieve, thus showing a positive and mutually constitutive relationship between achievement and positive peer relationships. Slavin (1995) agrees that cooperative learning can influence achievement effects, but he stresses caution. In a 1983 research review, he found that 63% of studies showed significantly positive effects of cooperative learning methods on student achievement, and this increased dramatically to 89% for cooperative learning methods that incorporated individual accountability into the goal structure. Slavin emphasizes that individual accountability and a shared investment in the meeting the goal within the group are essential conditions for success in cooperative learning methods. Johnson and Johnson (1999) add to this _positive interdependence_ as another requirement of success in such groups. In a well-structured cooperative/collaborative group, students understand that they can only achieve their goals together with the cooperation of the other students in their group. When student goals are structured cooperatively, they tend to seek outcomes that are beneficial to the whole group. Conversely, negative interdependence equates with competition. In negative interdependence groups, students perceive that they can only achieve their goals at the expense of the other students with whom they are competitively linked. When student goals are structured competitively, they tend to seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves only (Roseth, et al. 2008, p. 225). Thus cooperative group structures encourage students to help each other for the benefit of the whole group.

To summarise, group dynamics comprises a number of social psychological theories that seek to explain the need people have to belong to groups and the benefits they derive from working with others. This area of research helps us to understand why collaboration may be a very satisfying and productive activity on many different levels, but it does not address the question of whether or how learning can be achieved in groups working together. In the following two sections, we review two theories of learning whose basic assumption is that learning is primarily a social, not individual or cognitive activity.

### Sociocultural Theory

From theories about the psychology of individuals in groups, we turn now to theories that seek to explain the process of learning and the role of other people in that process. Sociocultural Theory (SCT), particularly as it relates to the work of Lev Vygotsky, has been particularly influential in this regard in mainstream education since the 1980s (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wertsch, 1988) and in language education since the mid-1990s (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Lantolf, 2000). The basic premise of this theory is that learning is a two-stage process: first, learning is interpsychological, that is, mediated by people or learning tools, and then what is learnt is internalized and becomes the basis of future thought and behaviour. The concepts of _mediation_ , _zone of proximal development_ (ZPD), and _scaffolding_ are terms originating in this theory that are now widely used in research on language learning and learner development, and also feature in some of the chapters of this book. So it is worth considering what these terms mean and how they might be related to, or illuminate, or problematize, aspects of collaborative learning. How does mediation explain learning, including language learning, and can mediation be described as collaboration? Does the ZPD entail collaboration between people or among people in a class? And can scaffolding be collaborative?

Mediation is regarded in SCT as the basis of all learning. However, just where and how mediation occurs is subject to varying opinions, particularly with regard to the application of SCT to language learning research. In Vygotsky's own work (1934/1986), mediation is the process that describes firstly the interaction between adults or older children and young children learning to speak for the first time, and then, once children have learned to internalize their speech, it is the process by which "inner speech" or thought comes to regulate or control our behavior. Mediation thus is "the process through which humans deploy culturally constructed artifacts, concepts, and activities to regulate (i.e., gain voluntary control over and transform) the material world or their own and each other's social and mental activity" (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 79).

Vygotsky's work is aimed at understanding human speech and thought generally. He himself denied that mediation played the same kind of role in the learning of subsequent languages, arguing that the learning of a new language is always mediated through the first language (Vygotsky, 1986). Despite this, SCT researchers have maintained that mediation, starting with interpersonal and moving to intrapersonal, is also the process by which second language learners come to acquire the language. De Guerrero (2004), for example, illustrates this trajectory through a four-month study of the development of the inner speech of ESL beginners. The learners in her study progressed from concurrent processing or "shadowing" of text or speech, to recall of language they had heard, read or used, to preparing to use language themselves, to a silent verbalization of private thoughts. Ortega (2011) summarizes the SCT conceptualization of language learning thus as "learning to engage in cognitive mediation in the L2 [...] by progressing along a continuum from reliance on collaborative scaffolded L2 activity toward increasingly more independent forms of regulation" (p. 168).

This reliance on "collaborative scaffolded activity" is the point of key interest for us here and this brings us to our questions regarding the ZPD and scaffolding. As Daniels (2002) observes, teaching and learning are part of what make us human, and the presence of pedagogy in human affairs introduces a cognitive gap. The interaction between teachers and learners or experts and novices aimed at filling that gap is what creates _the zone of proximal development_ (ZPD). This interaction can be regarded as collaborative to the extent that both the learner and the teacher/expert are aware of this gap and are intent on bridging it. Anything that the teacher/expert does to support the learner in achieving that aim can be seen as scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Both the ZPD and scaffolding can thus be construed as a form of collaborative mediation since both the learner and the teacher/expert must recognize and then work together to overcome a cognitive gap. Lantolf and Poehner (2014), for example, define the ZPD as:

...cooperative activity undertaken by teachers and learners that allows individuals to function beyond their actual capabilities. From this perspective, the quality of mediation during such interactions performs a dual function by promoting learner development and providing insights into abilities that have not yet fully emerged but are in the process of forming (p. xiv)

What is most significant here is that it is collaborative mediation that creates the ZPD. The teacher or more competent peer provides a model of knowledge or skill for the learner, which the learner can see is different from their current level of knowledge or skill. In addition, the teacher or peer helps the learner to bridge the gap between them by helping them. An important difference between this account of learning and cognitive theories is that knowledge is always represented by people; knowledge does not exist by itself. Thus, the learner notices and acquires knowledge and skills via a particular teacher (who may also be a peer or a book).

In SCT-based research on language learning, the ZPD has become one of the most widely used concepts, but it has also been defined in ways that are widely divergent. Kinginger (2002, cited in Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 270) conducted a review of studies in North America that employed the term and found three distinct interpretations: skill, scaffolding, and metalinguistic. The skill interpretation focuses on the learner's level and can be seen as analagous to Krashen's (1982) "i + 1" formulation for comprehensible input; the scaffolding interpretation focuses on the assistance that is provided by teachers or peers, while the metalinguistic interpretation sees the ZPD as a collaborative, problem-solving activity. In other words, the focus in each case is on a different actor, or actors: skill on the individual learner, scaffolding on the teacher/expert, and metalinguistic on two learners working together.

Two studies by Ohta (2000) and Swain (2000) serve respectively to illustrate the difference between the scaffolding and metalinguistic interpretations of ZPD. In her study of a Japanese class in the United States, Ohta (2000) shows how a struggling learner was helped by her peers, as much as by the teacher, to remember grammar rules needed to form a sentence. The activity was conducted in Japanese, and the peers' scaffolding intervention was also in Japanese. Ohta claims that the scaffolding was triggered by "interaction cues to which peers orient in order to provide developmentally appropriate assistance" (Ohta, 2000, p. 52). Swain's study (2000), by contrast, shows two learners engaged in "languaging", or talking in English about the target language, French, in order to fulfill the task of reconstructing a text that they had previously listened to together. Swain (2000) calls this "linguistic problem-solving through social interaction" (p. 104). A key difference between these two situations is that in Ohta's study the focus is on the linguistic production of the individual learner, whereas in Swain's study, two learners are jointly responsible for the text they create. What this suggests is that collaboration can be for different purposes: the collaboration in scaffolding is aimed at an individual learner's cognitive development, whereas both parties in a collaborative dialogue are presumed to learn from the experience.

This raises the question, however, of what kind of learning is occurring in these situations. In both studies, the focus is on the learners' ability to produce language in clearly defined tasks by applying what they have already been taught. To this extent, both are examples of problem solving, an activity that may very well be best achieved through collaboration. But what about the acquisition of new knowledge or skills? Are peers able to mediate learning for each other? Storch (2002) has addressed this question by examining the interaction between different types of learners. In her study of four different interactional types of learners, she discovered that two types (Dominant-Dominant and Dominant-Passive) were ineffective, while the other two (Collaborative and Expert-Novice) were effective for learning. The Dominant-Dominant pair did not listen to each other, while in the Dominant-Passive pair the dominant partner was too authoritarian and did not permit the passive partner room for negotiation. With both the successful dyads, however, there was evidence of scaffolding behavior, such as engagement with, and building upon, each other's contributions, perhaps as might be expected.

Storch's study appears to confirm that a collaborative attitude may be ideal for pair interaction, but it also raises questions about issues such as classroom management and classroom culture. How easy is it to identify experts and novices in the classroom? Does a collaborative attitude in a pair override all considerations of relative expertise? Can a ZPD be created in an entire classroom? Lantolf (2000) argues that it can, that "people working jointly are able to co-construct contexts in which expertise emerges as a feature of the group" (p.17). But we should perhaps be cautious of such claims: Is the agency of all learners in the group respected and promoted at all times? Does collaboration benefit all learners equally, or are some more equal than others?

To summarise then, because SCT proposes that all learning is mediated, a key role is accorded to people who can help the learner to reach beyond their current abilities and to learn through that experience. To what extent this mediation is, or needs to be collaborative is a question that remains unanswered. We turn now to the theory of Community of Practice, in which expertise and learning are viewed primarily as concepts that have meaning only within specific social contexts.

### Communities of Practice (CoP)

In common with SCT, Community of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998) and Situated Learning Theory (SLT) (Lave & Wenger, 1991) regard learning as not just the acquisition of knowledge (and language learning not just as the acquisition of linguistic forms), but as a form of social practice where learners are viewed as historically and socially situated agents. However, whereas SCT is conceived more as a theory of mind, and is concerned with individuals' cognitive processes (e.g., learner's ZPD or the use of private and inner speech) CoP and SLT place more emphasis on "the social practices that facilitate cognitive process" (Swain, Kinnear & Steinmann, 2010, p. 27). The concept of CoP thus focuses on the relationship between human activities and the social context in which these activities take place. Accordingly, learning is seen as occurring through participation in a specific community of practice where identities arise and develop (Lave & Wenger 1991). In this section, we consider how CoP and situated learning theory might shed light on our understanding of CL: To what extent is a classroom a form of CoP? What kind of collaboration does CoP imply? Is participation tantamount to collaboration?

Based on studies of apprenticeship learning, one of the characteristic features in the CoP approach is the notion of _legitimate peripheral participation_ (LLP), which holds that learning occurs as newcomers strive to fulfill various roles alongside more experienced members of the community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). With increased participation, peripheral members gradually become established, expert members of the community. CoP is founded on three essential features. First, _mutual engagement_ : Through participation in the community, members establish norms and build collaborative relationships. Members interact, negotiate, and engage in practices together. The relationships they create through such activities are the ties that bind members of the community together as a social entity. The second feature is _joint enterprise_. Through their interactions, members create a shared understanding of direction for their mutual enterprise. Sometimes, their practices may differ or their interactions may be in conflict with one another, but members of a CoP have a sense of mutual understanding that they are working towards a certain joint venture. Finally, as part of its practice, the community builds up a _shared repertoire_ , a set of communal resources, for communicating and negotiating meaning. The members' shared repertoire is used in the pursuit of their joint enterprise and can include both literal and symbolic meanings.

In CoP, learning is thus regarded as participation in a particular community, that is, in a situated context. However, the CoP approach is not necessarily applicable in a schooling-related context. Having its roots in the workplace, applications of the concept of CoP to educational settings have raised a number of criticisms (Barton & Tusting, 2005; Jewson, 2007). This brings us to our first question: To what extent is a classroom a form of CoP?

One criticism of the CoP theory in educational contexts is that it fails to give an adequate explanation about the effect of a new member on an existing community of practice. Lave and Wenger (1991) focus largely on only one kind of participation: that of legitimate peripheral participants on an inbound trajectory leading to full participation and expertise. Wenger (1998) recognizes this limitation and revises his thesis in his later work by outlining five trajectories of participation that are more useful for understanding the notion of CoP and situated learning theory in educational contexts. However, as Haneda (2006) argues, in order to account for L2 classroom settings, it may be necessary to revise the theory to account for the way new members' dispositions can affect their life trajectories: past, present, and envisioned future. Thus, rather than a shared goal in learning, individual learners may have different levels of investment in the class, to the extent that it is impossible to define it as a community of practice.

Another argument that has been pointed out is the definition of novices and experts. In the school context, _novice_ and _expert_ are not stable concepts, and pedagogy cannot be characterized merely as the transmission of knowledge from the expert to the novice. In an L2 classroom, learners come in with different levels of proficiency; some may be fluent orally where as others may be more adept at writing. Likewise, there is no clear definition or standard of expertise for teachers. Although teachers are usually considered to be the experts in the classroom, they vary in terms of their knowledge of the language as well as their teaching skills. In such contexts, determining who the novices and experts are is very often less clear-cut and fixed than the way they are depicted by Lave and Wenger (James 2007). Especially, in an EFL environment, such as Japan, where access to the target language is limited, identifying who the experts are is quite problematic: Is an expert a native speaker of English? A Japanese English teacher? A student with a high level of proficiency? In terms of CoP, it is the experts in the community who determine the shared repertoire, but in a language classroom, where the notion of expertise may be contested, the shared repertoire may also be contested. Ultimately, CoP provides an authoritarian vision of groups in which it is the senior members who determine the goals and the repertoires and in which newcomers are tasked with accepting those goals and learning that repertoire. With little room for negotiation or collaboration, CoP may not be an appropriate concept for learner-centered classrooms.

So what kind of collaboration might be possible in a CoP? Can collaboration be defined as a form of participation? According to Wenger (1998), participation in a CoP may be achieved through _alignment_ and/or _engagement_ with its practices. Alignment, or, as Wenger elaborates, "coordinating our energy and activities in order to fit within broader structures and contribute to broader enterprises" (Wenger, 1998, p. 174), may be a necessary condition for a more engaged form of participation, such as collaboration, to occur. For example, in a classroom context, learners need to conform to broad structures such as the curriculum, the timetable, the educational culture, and, in most cases, the syllabus. Conforming to these structures makes it possible for the learner to engage more actively by asking questions, using materials and other resources, sharing what they know with the teacher and other students, practicing a new language by speaking it with classmates and so on.

One aspect of formal educational contexts, including language classes, that differentiates them from more typical CoPs is that the purpose of learning is often to enable learners to become members of another wider community to which they would not otherwise have access. Although in formal education other factors, chiefly grades, are the primary object of learning, ideally at least, language learners have an ultimate goal of proficiency in the target language. As proficient users of the language they are then able to participate in the communities that speak that language, namely in other countries or in the case of English, in lingua franca circumstances. Similarly, students of an academic discipline, such as linguistics or sociology may have the ultimate goal of becoming sufficiently proficient in the repertoire of practices of the community of linguists or sociologists that they can participate in that community (for example, by engaging in research and publishing) as equals. Thus, in educational contexts, CoP seems to include an additional dimension of imagination, since the classroom is only a transitional stage on the way to membership of another community of practice that may be harder to access without that assistance. Alignment, engagement and imagination are thus ways in which new members participate (or imagine participating) in communities of practice, but whereas engagement may involve collaborative activities, learning may not occur only by these means.

### Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

Up to this point, we have discussed theories that have a bearing on learning and on collaboration, but not necessarily or, at least, not specifically on second language learning. We include this section on SLA after some misgivings, since, until relatively recently, one may have been forgiven for thinking that SLA theory and collaborative learning were wholly unrelated concepts. SLA was dominated (and perhaps is still dominated) by a psycholinguistic and cognitivist orientation focusing on the learner as an individual and on the internal mental processes which lead to acquisition (Ortega, 2009; Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, 2013). CL, by contrast, is social in nature. It focuses on the conditions that need to be created in a classroom for learners to benefit from each other in order to learn. CL is concerned with learning in a social context and therefore the spotlight is on interpersonal factors which are no longer exclusively internal to an individual learner.

From the late 1990s, however, the centrality of the psycholinguistic and cognitivist orientation began to be challenged as writers questioned whether this orientation offered a comprehensive view of the second language acquisition process when it seemed to ignore the social situatedness of learning. As Thorne (2000) put it: "By hermetically compartmentalizing individual cognition, we may mask the very processes we seek to describe" (p. 221). While some leading theorists argued that SLA must hold on to its core cognitivist focus (e.g., Doughty & Long, 2003), others argued for a more pluralist approach and suggested that it was time for "the social turn in second language acquisition" (Block, 2003). Sociocultural theory had been making an impact in its own right for some time providing an entirely separate approach to understanding second language acquisition, but following these attempts to broaden SLA's remit, other "sociocognitive" perspectives on language learning emerged which lay great emphasis on the relationships between intra- and interpersonal factors in the acquisition process (e.g., Atkinson, 2010; Batstone, 2010; Ortega, 2011).

A sociocognitive perspective involves a re-examination of some fundamental constructs in the cognitivist SLA tradition such as _input_ , _output_ , _interaction_ , _attention_ and _noticing_. Tarone (2010), for example, argues that attention (to language form), a central concept in Long's Interaction Hypothesis, is not purely a cognitive construct but is also a social construct. Rather, "the core underlying social variable that causes attention to be directed to one or another linguistic variant is the people in the social setting—the audience—and most powerfully, the interlocutor" (Tarone, 2010, p. 55). Thus, the argument is that a cognitive process such as attention can be strongly influenced by a social factor such as the relationship one has with one's interlocutor. Using specific examples from research by Yule, Tarone shows how the L2 proficiency levels ( _high_ and _low_ ) and role ( _sender_ or _receiver)_ of students engaged in a pair task markedly affect the amount of negotiation of meaning that takes place. The opportunities for noticing of linguistic form (attention), and for this to trigger a process of intake are, therefore, heavily influenced by social factors: who has control over information in a paired task and what participants' perceptions are of their interlocutor's L2 ability.

Interaction, too, is characterized very differently in a sociocognitive approach from the way it appears to be regarded in the interaction approach (Mackey, 2008), which has developed from Long's Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996). The interaction approach is concerned with what the internal mental processes need to be fed in order to do their business and so interaction serves a rather mechanistic purpose. There is no need to explore the context.

SLA is a process that (often) takes place in a social setting, of course, but then so do most internal processes—learning, thinking, remembering, sexual arousal, and digestion, for example—and that neither obviates the need for theories of those processes, nor shifts the goal of inquiry [in SLA] to a theory of the settings (Long, 1997).

In a sociocultural and sociocognitive perspective, a detailed description of the interactional context and an exploration of how acquisition is born from the co-construction of meaning are central.

A sociocognitive perspective also, however, involves a radical shift in how cognition, learning and language are perceived. Atkinson (2011) explains that cognition need not be viewed as "lonely cognition", but can be conceived as adaptive intelligence that has enabled humans to survive and prosper in their ecological and social worlds. Cognition is "situated", "distributed" and "extended" so that it is no longer separate from the environment, but shared with it, and is continually adapting to that environment. In fact, the process of alignment with the environment is what constitutes learning. As we adapt we learn and as we change, we reshape the environment. Learning occurs through our interactions with the environment. It is not purely about computational processes in the brain, although these are essential components of the complex picture of language learning that is created. Rather, a sociocognitive perspective seeks to emphasize the situatedness of learning, the fact that it always takes place in a social context, and, critically, that it emerges through interaction with this context.

The sociocognitive perspective on SLA seems to borrow from and merge with sociocultural theory and the idea of situated learning in communities of practice described earlier. There are certainly many clear resemblances to SCT, as there are to van Lier's ecological perspective on language learning (van Lier, 2004). However, one difference that might be suggested between the sociocognitive perspective presented by Atkinson and Lantolf's version of SCT is that, in the former, there may be a stronger attempt to re-envisage cognitivist SLA concepts and their relationship to the social context. In contrast to CoP, a sociocognitive perspective seeks to marry the social and the cognitive together, while situated learning focuses purely on how learning occurs in situated activity settings.

This attempt to open up the SLA research agenda to include social aspects of learning thus augurs well for teachers and researchers interested in collaborative learning. By investigating CL we are trying to clarify which aspects of the social context may support learning (in this case L2 acquisition). Interpersonal factors regularly discussed in connection with successful CL such as trust, interdependency, and the role learners assume in group work thus appear to be very relevant to the investigation of core cognitive processes, such as noticing and input. So, too, are other contextual factors, such as the complexity of the task, which are seen as crucial to successful CL. The importance of problem-solving talk for L2 acquisition embodied in Swain's languaging concept is also, of course, central to CL, and is one of the major mediums through which learning can take place.

These developments in SLA theory are exciting, and suggest new ways of investigating CL. For example, in theorizing the connection between CL and language learning, we could say that, in introducing CL into their classrooms, teachers are attempting to create the most favourable conditions for input to become intake. When a learner is actively listening to an interlocutor, and actively engaging with the topic of discussion, one might assume that the chances of input becoming intake are heightened. The type of classroom learning we are calling CL can help to reduce anxiety, can increase self-confidence, self-esteem and motivation, as well as increase opportunities for learners to listen to and produce language (Crandall, 1999). It seems likely, therefore, that the conditions created in a CL classroom are conducive to L2 acquisition. These micro-level affective factors, which may change over relatively short periods of time, have not yet fully been investigated. Affective characteristics not only seem to be vitally important for language learning, they may also be more amenable to intervention and change than factors such as memory or aptitude. CL's role in encouraging positive affect then has a connection to SLA theory. By identifying instances of acquisition of language features in a supportive and motivating CL context through detailed analysis we can begin to tie the social and cognitive aspects of language learning together.

### Conclusion

The four theoretical areas discussed above are intended to help the reader unpack collaborative learning and to see it through a variety of lenses. Ideas from these four areas help us to view CL from different perspectives and to question the underlying nature of collaboration and the learning which may transpire from it. Rather than attempting an all-embracing definition of CL, we leave the reader with this wide array of concepts and conundrums to contemplate as you read the core chapters which follow in the hope that they may enable you to make new connections for yourself.

### References

Atkinson, D. (2010). Extended, embodied cognition and second language acquisition. _Applied Linguistics, 31_ , 599-622.

Atkinson, D. (2011). A sociocognitive approach to Second Language Acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), _Alternative approaches to second language acquisition_ (pp. 143-166). Abingdon: Routledge.

Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (2005) (eds) _Beyond Community of Practice_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Batstone, R. (Ed.). (2010). _Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. _Pschological bulletin, 117_ , 497-529.

Block, D. (2003). _The social turn in second language acquisition_. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds.). (1968). _Group dynamics: Research and theory_ (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Cooker, L., & Benson, P. (Eds.) (2013). The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural approaches to identity, agency and autonomy. Sheffield: Equinox.

Crandall, J. (1999). Cooperative language learning and affective factors. In J. Arnold (Ed.), _Affect in language learning_ (pp. 226-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Daniels, H. (2002). _An introduction to Vygotsky_. London: Taylor & Francis.

De Guerrero, M. C. M. (2004). Early stages of L2 inner speech development: What verbal reports suggest. _International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14_ , 90-112.

Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). The scope of inquiry and the goals of SLA In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), _Handbook of Second Language Acquisition_ (pp. 3-16). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Forsyth, D. (2010). _Group Dynamics_ (5th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.

Haneda, M. (2006). Classrooms as Communities of Practice: A Reevaluation. _TESOL Quarterly 40_ , 807-816.

James, N. (2007). The learning trajectories of old-timers: Academic identities and communities of practice in higher education. In J. Hughes, N. Newson and L. Unwin (Eds), Community of Practice: Critical Perspectives (pp. 131-143). New York: Routledge.

Jewson , N.(2007).Cultivating network analysis: rethinking the concept of community within communities of practice. In J. Hughes, N. Newson and L. Unwin (Eds), Community of Practice:Critical Perspectives (pp. 68-82). New York: Routledge.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). _Sociocultural theory and second language learning_. Oxford: Oxford University Press  
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). _Vygotskyan approaches to second language research_. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). _Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the theory/practice divide_. New York: Routledge.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). _Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). _Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), _Handbook of second language acquisition_ (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.

Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. _Modern Language Journal, 81_ , 318-323.

Mackey, A. (2008). _Conversational interaction in second language acquisition_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. _Psychological Review, 50_ , 370-396.

Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). _Second language learning theories_ (3rd ed.), Taylor & Francis.

Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), _Sociocultural theory and second language learning_ (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ortega, L. (Ed.). (2009). _Understanding second language acquisition_. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the Social Turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), _Alternative approaches to second language acquisition_ (pp. 167-180). Abingdon: Routledge.

Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents' achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. _Psychological bulletin, 134_ , 223-246.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. _American psychologist, 55_ , 68-78.

Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? _Psychological Bulletin, 94_ , 429-445.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. _Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21_ , 43-69.

Son, V., Jackson, B., Grove, J. R., Feltz, D. L. (2011). "I am versus "we are": Effects of distinctive variants of self-talk on efficacy beliefs and motor performance. _Journal of Sports Science, 29,_ 1417-1424.

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. _Language Learning, 52_ , 119-158.

Swain, M. (2000). The _output_ hypothesis and _beyond_ : Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), _Sociocultural theory and second language learning_ (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2010). _Sociocultural theory in second language education_. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Tarone, E. (2011). Social context and cognition in SLA: A variationist perspective. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), _Alternative approaches to second language acquisition_ (pp. 54-72). Abingdon: Routledge.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thorne, S. L. (2000). Second language acquisition theory and the truth(s) about relativity. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), _Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition_ (pp. 219-243). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

van Lier, L. (2004). _The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective_. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). _Thought and language_. (2nd revised ed). Boston, MA: MIT Press

Wenger, E. (1998). _Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. (1985). _Vygotsky and the social formation of mind_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. _Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17_ , 89-100.

### Chapter 3

A Dialogue on the Importance of Trust in Collaborative Learning / 協働学習における「トラスト」の重要性

Steven Paydon & Dexter Da Silva

### Abstract

This chapter explores the concept of trust in the context of Collaborative Learning by means of a dialogue between the two authors. They first focus their discussion on the importance of trust in the classroom, then progress to sharing their ideas on an appropriate definition of Collaborative Learning. Next they describe their respective models of trust which guide their thinking in terms of types and aspects of trust, its dynamism and how it can be developed, maintained and redeveloped in the classroom. The dialogue concludes, perhaps inversely, but naturally with a definition of trust.

本章では二人の著者の間で起こる対話によって、協働学習における「トラスト」の概念について探求します。まずは教室内での「トラスト」の重要性についての議論に焦点を当て、協働学習の定義の元に意見交換の成り行きに注目します。そして彼らにはそれぞれの「トラスト」の模範について説明してもらいます。「トラスト」の模範とはつまり、思考の原理となる典型、「トラスト」の側面、その発展、どのように展開され保持されて再展開されるかについてのことを指します。この対話の結末は正反対なものでしょうが、「トラスト」の定義の元に自然に結論付けられています。

### Introduction

This is an exploratory dialogue about the concept of trust in the context of Collaborative Learning (CL). It aims to illuminate the importance of trust in the communicative classroom, and bring attention especially to the significance of trust in the collaborative learning process. As collaboration involves working with different people in ways that are new or different, trusting attitudes and behaviors become even more important.

Although writing a dialogue for publication is a somewhat artificial process, the dialogue itself has been reconstructed from a number of informal conversations between Steven Paydon and Dexter Da Silva, and accurately expresses our ideas on the importance of trust in second language education. We feel the dialogue format is particularly effective in representing the differences between our understandings of trust and shows how, in collaborating together, our positions have altered slightly as we have listened to each other and been forced to make our own meanings clearer. Indeed, it also spotlights the dialogic nature of academic ideas and educational practice. We hope that readers will find this format engaging, and that it will encourage them to engage in their own dialogues with others.

### The Importance of Trust

Steve (S): It's good to have the opportunity to discuss our mutual interest in trust, Dexter. I've wanted to talk to you about this area in more detail for some time.

Dexter (D): Yes, me too, Steve. I think and express myself best when discussing with someone. So can I start by asking you the basic question: What do you see as the relationship between trust and CL?

S: Well, CL by its very definition necessitates people working together (collaborating) to learn in groups. The more trust within a group, then the better they will collaborate. Therefore, it would seem self-evident that the better the interpersonal relationships within the group, the better the group processes, and the better the group processes, the more might be gained from collaborative learning.

For example, I believe that if students trust each other, they are more willing to take risks, to speak out and to share their opinions. On the other hand, if they don't trust each other, they are less likely to take risks, less likely to speak freely, and they will avoid engagement for fear of being laughed at or somehow shamed. Trust is an important aspect of interpersonal relationships, group processes, and ultimately of group learning. It allows all the participants of a group to be able to predict each other's behaviour. When students can predict behaviour, when the group has high levels of trust, students know they can speak freely without fear of being ridiculed. In this way, trust enhances the interpersonal relationships, and in turn also enhances the group processes, which ultimately leads to optimising learning in collaborative groups. Well, that's what my classroom experience is telling me, anyway.

How about you, Dexter? Why is trust important in your teaching?

D: Well, Steve, I guess first I should say that I see trust as important in all relationships. But we don't really think about it much. By focusing on trust it helps us to transform our understanding and behaviour in these relationships.

S: Yes, the importance of trust in all relationships resonates with me, too. I know from our previous conversations that teacher trust is a critical component in your approach to teaching. Could you elaborate on that a little for me?

D: In my thinking, all teaching starts with a basic level of trust, perhaps based on things such as the society's expectations of the role of the teacher, and the reputation or culture of the school. I first began to realize the importance of trust in the classroom, especially the teacher earning the students' trust, from little things I learnt in my teacher training course—things like keeping promises to students, remembering students' names, treating students equally... These all correspond to different aspects of trust, such as reliability, good intentions, benevolence or fairness, and help the teacher to build on that basic level of trust students bring to the classroom. Traditional teacher-centered teaching can proceed in this way with teachers aiming to build on this basic level of trust. However, teachers who want to demand more from their students have to earn that higher level of trust from the students. The students need to believe that their teacher has competence in the form of knowledge about the subject matter and the skills needed for teaching it. The teacher also needs to make the students feel that she understands their position or needs, or has a willingness to understand them. She needs to show her fairness, openness, and commitment to the class or students. I remember the story of a teacher who was trying to implement Cooperative Learning (CoopL) in his class, and he decided that he needed to gain the students' trust. Before implementing any changes he waited for a period of time when he did not show any anger to the students. Finally, he felt the students trusted his understanding and acceptance of them (Inoue, 1999).

S: That's a very good point you make about needing to earn the students' trust in order to demand more from them. I can see a link here between this idea and learner autonomy. At least, I think trust in the teacher would help facilitate and develop learner autonomy. For example, learner autonomy is quite a change in direction to traditional learning, especially with regards to what the students are used to in the Japanese context. In Japan, the teacher is in control of learning. They generally place themselves at the front of the classroom and feed the students knowledge—lecture style—with learning being centered around the teacher. But learner autonomy places the student at the center of their own learning. Therefore, asking the student to take control of their own learning is a stark shift away from the style of knowledge acquisition they are used to. Without trust in the teacher (the expert), students may not see the value in putting them (the novice) in control of their own learning. However, if they trust in the teacher's competence and knowledge, students may be more willing to let go of their conservative ideas about learning and embrace the idea of taking control of their learning themselves, thus ultimately becoming autonomous as learners.

D: Exactly, Steve. For any change to really happen students need to embrace the change. They have to believe that it is in their best interests, that the teacher can implement and manage it, and that they, the students themselves, are capable of fulfilling their roles. For them to embrace it, they need to have deep trust in the teacher, the ideas, the institution. For them to develop this trust, the person charged with this mission—the teacher—needs to earn their trust.

However, perhaps this is where we need to elaborate on the nature of trust. In one of the most famous experiments in social psychology, Kurt Lewin (Lewin, Lippit, & White, 1939) contrasted three types of leadership styles in the classroom—the autocratic, the _laissez faire_ , and the democratic. With the autocratic style teacher, students "trusted" the teacher in the sense of accepting his authority, his knowledge, and perhaps his skill in imposing discipline. They engaged intensely in their work, but, importantly for the issue of developing autonomy, only when he was present. In the _laissez faire_ group, where the students, I believe, trusted the teacher's benevolence, but not his skill or, perhaps, commitment to teaching, the students didn't engage with the work at all, and there was fighting and chaos. With the democratic style teacher, it seems that the ideal balance of engagement with the work and a positive atmosphere was achieved. And, again importantly, engagement continued when the teacher was not present. This teacher earned the students' trust by treating them fairly, not relying on his authority or status, trusting that they would want to do the work and trusting that they would treat each other fairly. He also earned their trust in his leadership skills.

S: It's interesting how you mention Kurt Lewin. I have a lot of respect for Lewin and for the work he did in establishing group dynamics as a valid subject and area of scientific study. For me, an understanding of group dynamics is not only central to my ideas of teaching, but I think it is also an integral part of CL because collaboration, by definition, happens in groups. Moreover, and to link this back to your original question, I think trust is also an integral element of effective group dynamics and lies at the heart of any functioning group. For example, efficient collaboration requires some degree of constructive conflict. But unless group members trust each other, conflict will generally be avoided. In addition, when there are not sufficient levels of trust, group members waste too much time and energy managing their behaviors and interactions within the group (Lencioni, 2002). That is, they'll strategically avoid interactions with some, seek interactions with others, and be overly protective of exposing their vulnerabilities without sufficient levels of trust. This is time and energy wasted on politicking that would be better utilized on collaboration and focused on classroom tasks.

### Defining CL

D: But to return to the point of autonomy, some researchers (e.g., Agawa, 2013) have argued that the difference between CL and CoopL is the level of autonomy expected from the students. What do you think about this? Or perhaps, for the purposes of this chapter, maybe we should define CL?

S: Good idea. I'm not completely clear on what the differences between CL and CoopL are, but the impression I get is that CL seems to be characterized by a longer, more sustained, or more intense, type of cooperation. Maybe a useful way to define the difference is to compare the two. To my mind, a project would more likely be CL when students are working together over an extended period of time and on a complex task. In comparison, CoopL seems to suggest to me a classroom activity that is finished within a comparatively shorter time—like in one class period. Basically, what I mean is that CL to me implies a longer, more sustained, and more cognitively challenging task than CoopL does.

How about you, Dexter? How do you define CL?

D: I guess I see CL as a more open, negotiated form of learning than CoopL. In CoopL, the teacher usually plans the framework, the stages, the roles of the students, the types of activities, but I see CL as involving the students from the very start in the planning, organising, choosing of tasks, group members, roles. In CL, students would be more autonomous, self-regulating, co-regulating others (Järvellä & Hadwin, 2013) than in CoopL. A recent definition of CL that matches my view sees CL as "a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem" (Fransen, Weinberger & Kirschner, 2013, p. 13). I especially like the key words of "continued," "construct," "maintain," and "shared." Such a process requires more authentic trust than in other classrooms.

S: Right, so maybe in contrast to CoopL, we can say that in CL students are more autonomous, and that it is characterized by a more intense, cognitively challenging form of cooperation.

### Developing Trust

S: Do you think trust is a tendency certain types of students have, or is it something that can be developed?

D: Well, both really. Individual students have a set point or starting point of trust when meeting people for the first time or in a new situation. This varies from individual to individual. So in a new class, or at the start of a semester, the students will be at various levels of openness to trust, or as I like to see it, at different points on an arc of trust (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Dynamics of Trust

S: Hmmm, that looks interesting, but you might need to explain it to me.

D. Well, Steve, I first envisioned the dynamic vulnerability of trust as a pendulum of trust (Da Silva, 2009) rather than a flat continuum in order to emphasize the movement back and forth. However, the pendulum suggested one equilibrium point, the middle point. I see trust as having two equilibrium points, Blind Trust and Distrust, both negative and both unquestioning of one's simple attitude toward the other. An arc suggests the movement between these positions better than a pendulum. So the vertical dimension would represent the degree of reflection, openness, and truthfulness. The top of the arc, representing maximum openness and reflection, symbolizes the continuing energy needed to maintain this position of balance between the easier, default-like equilibrium points. This is a perfect representation of what Authentic Trust, as the ideal form of trust, means to me.

S: So the horizontal dimension represents the balance between trusting and distrusting?

D: That's right. Authentic trust represents that balance between what you know and can rely on and what you don't know and are taking a risk on. So it is fully aware of the dangers involved in trusting.

Getting back to the classroom situation, students' trust will naturally change as the course develops, as students get to know each other and the teacher. And so it can be developed. And the teacher is the one charged with creating the conditions under which willingness to trust, or trusting behaviour, develops, and where all members of the class can exhibit trustworthiness, i.e., showing that they can be trusted. The teacher should focus on three key qualities: 1) reflection—having the students reflect on their own and others' behaviour; 2) truthfulness—especially, as they say in the courts, "the whole truth" and 3) openness—openness to difference.

S: That's an interesting model and your explanation is quite thought-provoking, Dexter. I also see trust as something that can be purposefully developed. I use a simple group development model for developing classroom group performance, and trust is an integral stage of focus in that model (see Figure 2).

At the base of this model is structure. By structure, I mean two things: firstly physical structure, and secondly, social structure. By physical structure, I mean providing the students with proximity, contact and interaction, for example. By social structure, I mean establishing things like classroom rules and behavioural norms. These two forms of structure, as I see it, combine to alleviate anxiety and make it possible for students to predict behaviour. Once they have these basics, then trust can develop. Then, once trust has developed, you can develop group cohesion, and group cohesion will deliver the interpersonal dynamics that are the seat of performance. In other words, once the group has high levels of trust, the interpersonal relationships have been enhanced, and the group has become important to the students, then they will feel an obligation to contribute to the group's success and be a worthwhile member—and these are the dynamics that can be exploited to deliver group performance around a collaborative task or project.

Figure 2. A simple group development model

D: I completely agree with you on the importance of structure, and how you've differentiated between the physical and social. In terms of CL, I guess I have a preference for the students being involved in the setting of some of this structure. For example, students can decide how to move the furniture and where to sit, and be involved in negotiating some of the rules. The way I see it is that the physical structure affects how the students relate to each other and to the teacher. If they are seated in rows, they cannot see each other and are focused on the front—the teacher. For some students, this may actually be the most comfortable and least anxiety-provoking structure. They can "hide" and do not have to contribute anything they don't want to. A physical structure that forces them to look at each other—perhaps small groups or one large group in a circle or rectangle—helps to build genuine trust, by encouraging openness and reflection. For some students, this may continually be associated with anxiety, but the development of genuine trust comes from directly facing their fears or anxiety about, for example, being laughed at or not listened to or not knowing what to say. Ideally, the result should not be that they perceive they have nothing to fear or be anxious about (which would lead to blind trust or simple trust), but that they experience the payoff from taking the risk or being in the anxiety-producing situation. This is where the social structure or rules come into play: rules such as listening to others, not being judgmental, using positive language when disagreeing or stating opposite opinions.

S: Yes, absolutely. In fact, I think structure just provides the framework within which the students can really be free. Irie and Stewart (2012) talk about the tension between freedom and constraint (control) we face as teachers. For example, how we balance learner autonomy needs with institutional norms (p. 4). To me, autonomy exists within this tension between freedom and control. Too much control, and students act without a sense of personal endorsement. They are not positively engaged with their learning and their behaviour is not an expression of their true self. Instead, their true self becomes alienated, and it is this alienation that undermines intrinsic motivation (Deci & Flaste, 1996, p. 2; Little, 2009, p. 148). At the other extreme, too much freedom, and there is chaos, no direction. The students don't know their boundaries and they don't know what they should do. Autonomy is realized within this tension between freedom and control.

Moreover, what you said about the differences in leadership styles also resonates with me because I interpret those differences as being about structure. The autocratic leader (substitute _teacher_ here) gets the work done, but when the teacher is absent, when their overbearing structure is taken away, the students stop working. The _laissez faire_ leader has no structure, and so the students have no boundaries, they do not know what is expected of them or what they should do. But the democratic leader, whose leadership style lies in the tension between autocratic and _laissez faire_ , or control and freedom, develops the structure in negotiation with the students. This leader provides the students with guidance, but also invites input from the students to develop their own structure, outlining the boundaries so that they know what is expected, but also providing enough freedom that the students can take control of their own learning. In this way, the students engage with the structure and it becomes internalized because it is an expression of the students' true self. But the important link to trust here, as I see it, is that structure is the foundation of trust. It creates the environment from within which trust can develop. But I digress. To get back to your point, yes, letting students decide some of the classroom rules, realistically negotiated and re-negotiated with the teacher, creates great buy-in with the students and they will generally police themselves on group-generated rules, thus enforcing a firm structure that they all generally claim ownership of.

### Trust as a Linear vs. Nonlinear Development

S: So Dexter, I see trust as a somewhat linear development. Something that grows out of the structure we develop and the relationships we build in the class. I agree that we enter a classroom with a certain level of societal trust. But then, I see authentic trust, or a stronger trust developing and growing through increased interpersonal investment. But from what you have explained, I don't think you see trust as simply linear. Would you care to explain?

D: Yes, as my Arc of Trust model suggests, I have difficulty seeing trust as purely linear. I accept that there is a linear aspect to trust as a relationship develops. But I believe that there is an optimal level of trust beyond which trust becomes "blind trust" or a form of dependency. I don't believe 100% trust is a good thing, with the possible exception of young children trusting in the important adults in their lives. Also, as trust is a multifaceted relational construct, we need to realise that we often trust people in terms of some aspects of trust but not on others. For example, I believe that currently in my classes I am very trustworthy in terms of my benevolence and competence, but not very in terms of reliability at returning work promptly or following up on promises. The combination of factors may mean that overall trust has declined, but specific aspects, perhaps the most important at the current stage of collaboration, may have increased. So definitely developing trust, especially at the start of a semester, towards an optimal level and based on appropriate criteria for the task may be linear, but beyond that I see trust as more fluid and multidimensional.

### When Things Go Wrong

S: So, we both see trust as an essential element of effective CL. But what about when things go wrong? What strategies can we use to develop or repair trust in a classroom?

D: Important question, because things _will_ go wrong. Perhaps in small ways, but they may be crucial small ways. How may things go wrong? Perhaps in many different ways, but let me suggest three:

Firstly, students may not see the need for collaboration or may prefer to study on their own. At the very start, we need to show the relevance or importance for CL, not only to those students but to all students. At the same time, we need to show the importance of trust in CL, as well as the importance of them developing trusting skills—trust as a form of social intelligence (Yamagishi, 1998). By this, I mean the skills of deciding who, when, how, how much to trust and with what. Some examples may be picking up on cues of untrustworthiness, not being blinded by flattery, evaluating the situation and deciding what to disclose or offer.

A second potential problem is that students may lose or never gain the sense that others are benevolent, open, or honest. They may feel betrayed by something someone else has said or done (perceived lack of benevolence or good intentions). When students and young people in general are encouraged to be open and honest, it is easier for words or comments to be hurtful. This may be because the speaker intends to be personally critical and now feels they have the permission to do so, or because the listener is too sensitive or the speaker lacks the required skill to be open, honest and direct while showing good intentions "to play the ball and not the person." This is hard, because teachers don't have control over these interpersonal factors. One possibility is for the teacher to insist benevolence is one of her classroom rules (social structure) and that lack of benevolence would not be tolerated.

A third difficulty can be when students do not trust the others' competence and reliability, for example, when others do not complete their part of the task on time, do not come to class regularly, or what they produce or perform is not good enough. The best strategies here would be to help students to display their competence and reliability to each other. The teacher's role here would be to find out the reasons for the (perceived) lack of competence and reliability, and work out ways to help the students become more reliable and competent by, for example, involving others to help or working with the students to improve their self-regulation skills (time management, planning), getting help to wake up, or addressing whatever the problems are. It would be also necessary for the students to demonstrate their individual efforts at developing their competence and reliability.

What strategies do you propose, Steven?

S: Right. Well, to be honest, I think the best cure for trust-based problems is to head them off before they happen. No two groups of people will react exactly the same way all of the time because we are just so diverse in our thinking and our personalities. However, if we can develop the group so that it becomes supportive and important to the students, then I think we can avoid many potential problems. This is why I think that developing the social structure is so important. One thing we have discussed already is involving the students in negotiating some of the rules. This is important because including the students in establishing rules is an effective way to advance a social structure. If we can establish rules of classroom behavior in conjunction with our students' input, then they will feel invested in the group, and this will help generate a group that is both supportive and that promotes its own rules. For example, early on in a course, if we can elicit basic rules of communication like "be proactive", "encourage others", and "participate equally", then these rules become the basis of all interaction and guide classroom behavior. Because of these student-generated rules, everyone knows what to expect from each other; thus a social structure forms that is supportive, that promotes trust, and that is conducive to learning.

### Defining Trust

D: Steven, we haven't really defined trust, have we? We've hinted at some of its characteristics, its multidimensionality, its ubiquity, and its similarity to security. Do you have a definition, either your own or one that you've found, that you work with?

S: Yes, the word _predictability_ is salient for me when defining trust. I think trust is predominantly about being able to predict behaviour. To that end, there are two definitions of trust I refer to. The first is a simple definition from Lencioni (2002):

Trust is the confidence among team members that their peers' intentions are good, and that there is no reason to be protective or careful around the group (p. 195).

The second one, from MacLennon and Dies (1992), goes a bit deeper and defines trust as being a willingness to risk self-exposure:

Trust implies expectation. When two people trust each other, they make demands on the other to respond in a particular way. One has confidence in the predictability of the other, and anticipation that the other will respond in terms of what is needed, an expectation that the other will not inflict hurt, and a belief in the other's consistency (p. 19).

So I guess I would define trust as having confidence in the predictability of a person's behavior. This idea of predictability is the key to trust for me. In the classroom, if the students won't speak out, I don't think it's because they don't want to. I think it's through fear of being ridiculed. But again, if we can develop a supportive environment where the students know that they can speak out, and know that they will not be ridiculed for doing so, then this greatly increases their willingness to engage.

How about you, Dexter? I'm really curious to know how you define trust.

D: Well, Steven, I think this is where our ideas may seem to diverge most, but perhaps it's more a case of our foci being different. I tend to focus on trust as an act, as a verb, whereas perhaps your focus is more on trust as a state to be achieved, as a noun.

So I may seem to focus more on the risk aspect of trusting. You seem to focus more on the achievement of confidence and trustworthiness. In this, I have been strongly influenced by Solomon and Flores' (2001) idea of authentic trust. They contrast authentic trust with simple trust, and see simple trust as "focused optimism" (p. 92), and authentic trust as

_self-_ confident rather than simply optimistic. Its focus is on one's own responsibilities in trusting. Authentic trust is trust that is well aware of the risks, dangers, and liabilities of trust, but maintains the self-confidence to trust nevertheless (p. 92).

S: That sounds really interesting, Dexter. I find it challenging and a little confronting, but it also forces me to open my mind and rethink how I conceive of my own ideas of trust. Could you clarify this a little more?

D: Well, perhaps I should give examples in the classroom. Simple trust in the classroom is where students are optimistic or confident that no one will betray or hurt them based on habit or expectations. They haven't been mistreated before, don't think about it, and don't expect to be mistreated. Authentic trust is where they are aware of the risks, but confident in their resilience to bounce back from a breach of their trust. Unfortunately, most people seem to develop authentic trust _after_ a breach of trust. By focusing on trust and by implementing CL, we are helping students develop authentic trust without the experience of breach of trust. Does that make sense?

S: Yes, I think so. What you seem to be saying is that trust is usually naïve until tested, and then trusting after that is a more authentic trust because the person trusting is more conscious of the risk involved. Is that right?

D: Yes, Steve, you've put it well. Going back to thinking of what we mean by trust, perhaps amongst the wealth of literature on trust, the definition most applicable to education, and in particular CL, is "one's willingness to be vulnerable to another based on the confidence that the other is benevolent, honest, open, reliable and competent" (Tschannen-Moran, 2004, p. 17). This definition includes both of our foci (your emphasis on predictability and my emphasis on openness, vulnerability and being ready to take risks) and helps us not only to understand the multifaceted nature of trust, but also that of CL. Vulnerability is an integral aspect of CL, where the participants are dependent on others in order for their needs to be met or the task to be achieved.

S: Yes, and I like this Tschannen-Moran (2004) definition as well. I think our interpretations might differ in some of the details, but there is still a lot we agree on, especially the important role trust plays in collaborative learning. It's been a good learning experience discussing trust with you, Dexter. I feel you have helped me develop my understanding of trust, and that has been advanced through our own collaboration writing this paper.

D: Thanks, Steve. It's been a great collaborative, learning experience.

### Conclusion

To summarise, in this dialogue, we have reproduced several of our discussions on the significance of trust in the context of CL. In more detail, we have attempted to define CL in contrast to CoopL, talked about developing trust in the communicative classroom, offered some insight into repair strategies when faced with problems of maintaining or realizing trust, and we finally tendered our own interpretations of trust in the context of CL. We hope that this dialogue was an engaging way to present our ideas on trust, and we hope that it may inspire readers to engage in their own dialogues, with others or even just reflectively. We further hope that the reader might find the ideas useful for their own collaborative classes.

### References

Agawa, T. (2013). Cooperative and collaborative learning: Definitions and applications in Japanese universities. _Keisen University Bulletin, 25_ , 93-110.

Da Silva, D. (2009). Towards a pedagogy of trust. _Keisen University Bulletin, 21_ , 85-101.

Deci, E., & Flaste, R. (1996). _Why we do what we do_. New York: Penguin Group.

Fransen, J., Weinberger, A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. _Educational Psychologist, 48_ , 9-24.

Inoue, T. (1999). Implementation of Buzz Learning to English language education in a junior high school. In D. Kluge, S. McGuire, D. Johnson, & R. Johnson (Eds.), _Cooperative learning_ (pp. 153-162). Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching.

Irie, K., & Stewart, A. (2012). _Realizing autonomy: Practice and reflection in language education_. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Järvellä, S., & Hadwin, A.F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. _Educational Psychologist, 48_ , 25-39.

Lencioni, P. (2002). _The five dysfunctions of a team_. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. _Journal of Social Psychology, 10_ , 271-301

MacLennon, B., & Dies, K. (1992). _Group counseling and psychotherapy with adolescents_ (2nd ed.). New York: Colombia University Press.

Solomon, R. C., & Flores, F. (2001). _Building trust in business, politics, relationships, and life_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). _Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools_. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yamagishi, T. (1998). _The structure of trust: An evolutionary game of mind and society_. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.

### Chapter 4

Collaborative Learning Activities and the Motivation for Learning English: An Exploration of the Relationship between the Two in a University EFL Classroom / 協働学習活動と英語学習動機づけの関係:大学の英語の授業における探求

Etsuko Shimo

### Abstract

This paper discusses the relationship between the use of Collaborative Learning (CL) activities and six motivational factors, based on a study conducted among 24 first-year university students attending an English-as-a-foreign-language class. The six factors included _fulfillment_ , _training_ , _practicality_ , _relation_ , _self-respect_ , and _reward_ _orientations_ (Ichikawa, 2001). Data was collected by means of (a) teacher's records that show students' actual engagement in learning activities, (b) a teacher log which kept a record of the use of collaborative learning activities in the class, and (c) questionnaires about students' motivation for learning English at the beginning and at the end of the semester and a questionnaire survey about their perceptions regarding CL activities. In the analysis, two groups were compared: students who received low grades (low achievers, n = 8) and students who received high grades (high achievers, n = 8) for this particular English class. The study indicated that student motivation patterns for learning English might be rather static over a period of four months. It also revealed that high achievers had a higher _self-respect orientation_ and that low achievers seemed to be more _relation-orientated_ than the other group.

本稿では、協働学習の使用および6つの動機づけ要因の関連性に関する研究結果を報告する。研究は、英語の授業に出席する24人の大学1年生を対象に行ったもので、動機づけ要因は充実・訓練・実践・関係・自尊・報酬志向(市川, 2001)の6つを使用した。研究データは(1)学生の学習活動への実際の取り組みを教員が記録したもの, (2)授業内で利用した協働学習の内容を教員が記録したもの, 及び(3)学生の動機づけに関する質問紙調査(学期の初めと終わりに実施)と協働学習についての学生の意識に関する質問紙調査により収集した。分析では授業の成績の上位者と下位者(それぞれ8名)の2グループを比較した。それによると、学生の英語学習に関する動機づけのパタンについては、4か月間の間に大きな変化は見られなかった。また、成績上位者は自尊志向が下位者よりも強いこと、並びに、成績下位者は上位者よりも関係志向性が強いという傾向が示される結果となった。

### Study Background and Questions

The use of the terminologies _collaborative learning_ and _cooperative learning_ has remained far from clear-cut in previous studies and literature in the field of education. With some researchers making a clear distinction between the two types of learning activities and others using the two terms interchangeably (Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2005), I will use the term _collaborative learning_ in this chapter to describe the group-formed learning designed for my class, by following Barkley et al. (2005), who "follow[ed] the growing practice of using the term _collaborative learning_ to refer to interactive learning groups in higher education, from structured to unstructured" (p. 7). However, I will use the term _cooperative learning_ when it was used in the original literature.

My first encounter with cooperative learning activities was when I participated in Dr. George Jacobs' seminar in Tokyo for teachers and graduate students in 2003. I was then using many group activities in my English classes but had never heard of cooperative learning principles. I was inspired by Dr. Jacob's explanation that "group activities are not necessarily cooperative learning activities." Dörnyei (1997) similarly pointed out in his article about cooperative learning that "the small group format is not the essence of C[ooperative] L[earning]" (p. 483) and group activities are not cooperative when they "underutilize C[ooperative] L[earning] principles" (p. 483).

Since my participation in the seminar, I began to apply the following principles in designing collaborative learning (CL) activities for my classes: heterogeneous grouping, simultaneous interaction, equal participation, individual accountability, and positive interdependence (Jacobs, Power, & Inn, 2002). In CL activities, students with different backgrounds (e.g., different genders, proficiency levels, and learning interests) can or are often even encouraged to work together as a group. All learners work on a certain task at the same time without leaving anyone being unengaged with the task, and they all participate in the task by contributing an equal amount of work. The activities are designed so individual learners should fulfill specific roles. All group members work together and help each other in order to achieve a common goal; the goal will not be achieved unless all members cooperate.

CL has gained trust among educational researchers and practitioners at different levels and in different areas of education especially as educational approaches have shifted from teacher-centered to student-centered and learner-initiated learning in the last twenty to thirty years. A large number of reports and papers which support and emphasize the positive effects of CL in general education as well as in language education have been published so far (e.g., Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2005; Dörnyei, 1997; Jacobs, Power, & Loh, 2002; Macaro, 1997; McCafferty, Jacobs, & Iddings, 2006; Nunan, 1992). In particular, Dörnyei (1997), Macaro (1997), Murphy, (2001), and Murphy and Jacobs (2000) theorized that collaborative learning could facilitate learner autonomy and motivation. Erikawa (2012) and Sato (2006, 2010) stated that CL could promote learner centeredness or learner initiation which allows authentic learning to occur.

In Japan, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has started to promote CL use in elementary and secondary school curriculums in recent years (Erikawa, 2012; MEXT, 2011). For example, "the period of integrated studies," which was implemented in the school curriculums in 2000, aims to enhance attitudes and abilities necessary for problem-solving through interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and exploratory learning processes, and one of the subject goals is to promote cooperative attitudes (MEXT, n. d.(a), n.d.(b), and 2009). Interest in CL is definitely developing in elementary and secondary education in Japan (e.g., Erikawa, 2012; Sato, 2006) even though using CL may not be the most frequently adopted teaching technique yet.

CL can play a significant role in tertiary-level education, as well. Universities in Japan have begun to place a special emphasis on first-year education in the last ten to fifteen years (Yamada, 2008). Helping students make connections and friends with classmates is often considered very important, if not a major goal, in the first-year education. Students can feel secure in their new learning environment by developing a relationship with other students, and building a sense of security in an unfamiliar place is an essential process especially at the beginning of their new academic life. The degree of adjustment to their new university lives is likely to influence individual students' decisions and choices during their college experience. CL activities can provide these students with optimal opportunities to build basic social foundations that support their academic lives on campus (Kawai-Juku, 2010).

I concur that collaborative learning has a great potential to contribute positively to learner development and motivation. Dörnyei (1997) referred to the motivational subsystem at two levels: the learner level and the learning situation level, and he argued that the cooperative learning process had been found to work positively at both levels. For example, students' satisfaction, which is a learning-situation-level motivational subsystem, could be enhanced by their shared collaborative experiences, and it could empower the students' self-esteem, self-efficacy, and confidence, which are learner-level motivational subsystems. Dörnyei (1997) concluded that "the C[ooperative] L[earning] process generates a specific motivational system that energizes learning" (p. 490).

On the other hand, Ichikawa (2001) is rather cautious about the positive effects that cooperative learning could have. In this paper, I will address this different set of relationships between motivation and learning outcomes proposed by Ichikawa (2001). Ichikawa's theory implies that motivation derived from a cooperative learning process might not necessarily lead to enhanced learning outcomes. In this investigation, I seek to put Ichikawa's view to the test to shed some light on the relationship between CL activities and motivation.

Ichikawa (2001) explained student orientations towards learning by using six motivational factors: _fulfillment_ , _training_ , _practicality_ , _relation_ , _self-respect_ , and _reward orientations_. The first factor, _fulfillment orientation_ , means that one learns in order to satisfy one's intellectual curiosity and to experience the joy of improving knowledge. A _training-oriented_ student learns in order to acquire skills and views necessary for analyzing and discussing problems and issues. A _practicality-oriented_ student learns because he or she thinks what is learned is useful in his or her life. Studying something because it will be useful in one's future career is an example of having a _practicality orientation_. These three factors, _fulfillment_ , _training_ , and _practicality orientations_ , are related directly to the learning content. The other three, _relation_ , _self-respect_ , and _reward orientations_ , are not directly related to the learning content. The _relation orientation_ means that one is motivated to learn in order to build or strengthen his or her relationships with others. The _self-respect orientation_ means that one learns because one can feel confident and positive about oneself by doing so. The _reward orientation_ means that one learns because of wanting to gain additional consequences other than the direct outcome of learning (e.g., improving knowledge and acquiring certain skills). The additional consequences can be physical objects (e.g., allowance and presents) or social reputation and credits (e.g., status as a college student, jobs, course grades, and test scores). Ichikawa (2001) claimed that students who are strongly oriented in _relation_ , _self-respect_ , and _reward_ do not necessarily use effective meta-cognitive learning strategies and that these motivational factors did not correlate with behaviors to help improve the quality of learning, such as examining learning methods and materials for more effective learning.

CL advocates may argue that CL activities can help to motivate students to learn because they allow students to develop a comfortable relationship with their peers and to find roles that individual students can fulfill and therefore gain higher self-esteem and self-respect. Apple (2011) and Apple, Falout, and Hill (2013) revealed that students' perceptions about the classroom atmosphere were positively linked to their self-confidence in speaking the English language and their desire to communicate or to form international friendships. These studies indicated that students' perceptions about their classroom atmosphere or their relation with their classmates could make a significant difference in their motivation. It seems safe to theorize that when CL activities are utilized to create a positive group or classroom atmosphere, they will help to enhance students' motivation. However, will this kind of enhanced motivation help to improve their actual learning outcomes? There are various kinds of motivation, and the relationships between the kinds of motivation (or motivational factors) and learning outcomes have to be investigated more carefully; it may be an impetuous judgment to conclude that the particular kind of motivation enhanced by the use of CL activities is the one that directly helps students gain better learning outcomes. There may be other motivational factors that help students more directly to improve their actual knowledge and abilities. The current study is an exploratory study which is only a first step to explore this complicated issue involving various motivational factors.

For the current study, I set two research questions in order to explore the relationship between learner motivation and the use of CL activities.

  * Do students' motivations for learning English change over a semester in a class where numerous collaborative learning activities are implemented?

  * Are there any relationships between the use of CL activities, changes in student motivation, and students' actual engagement in learning activities?

### Study Methodology

Data Collection

This study was conducted during one semester at a university in western Japan. Data was collected using the following methods: teacher's records that show students' actual engagement in learning activities, a teacher log which kept a record of the use of collaborative learning activities in the class, and questionnaires about students' motivation for learning English at the beginning and at the end of the semester and a questionnaire survey about their perceptions regarding CL activities.

The teacher recorded students' submissions of assignments and participation in class in an Excel spread sheet. Students' engagement in learning activities was measured by assessing their reactions to chapters in the textbook and performance on four-to-five-paragraph essays about given topics. Portfolios containing students' writings, presentation materials, and end-of-course reflections were also assessed. Students' work recorded in a booklet called "My Can-Do Handbook" was also another data source. The booklet provided guidelines and activities for setting goals and evaluating learning processes, methods, and materials. In addition to these meta-cognitive strategy-related activities, students kept a record of their graded reader activity in this booklet. The teacher also kept a log about the kinds of CL activities used in class and her reactions about them in a simple diary format. The questionnaires will be explained in the section _Questionnaire Design_.

In this study, I compared student motivation between two groups: a group of students who received high grades and a group of students who received low grades for this particular English course. Moreover, correlations between motivation and learning performance were examined in making interpretations of student responses to the questionnaire.

The Study Context

The study was conducted in a general English course for university first-year social science majors (psychology and environmental studies) taught by the author, a Japanese native speaker teacher of English. The course goal was to promote basic, comprehensive English language competence, and various activities to foster all four language skills including listening, speaking, reading, and writing were provided. Students had two class meetings a week for this course, thirty times over a period of approximately four months (from April to July), for 90 minutes each time. Twenty-four students were enrolled and numerous collaborative learning activities were utilized in this course.

The class met twice a week: once in a regular classroom and once in a computer room. In the regular classroom, the first thing students did in every class meeting was to set up the tables and chairs for group-formed activities—done in groups of four members in principle. It was relatively easy to make groups in the computer room, too. Students sat close together with home group members and simply turned or moved their chairs to make groups when necessary.

For the first four weeks, I used only ad-hoc groups. These were groups in which students worked temporarily in order to build a collaborative atmosphere by having opportunities to talk and work with as many classmates as possible. Once the students were assigned home groups—groups in which they worked regularly—in the 9th class meeting (in the fifth week), they usually started their class with their home group members. I kept utilizing ad-hoc groups as well in order to create positive group dynamics across the whole class while trying to keep a balance with set routines and procedures (Figure 1). I expected that the use of ad-hoc groups would help to keep a fresh class atmosphere by creating changes in it.

The students taking this English course were also required to take another English course taught by an English native speaker teacher, which was also a 90-minute, twice-a-week course. In other words, these students met four days a week. I considered it important for them to feel comfortable in a group that met almost every day. With many opportunities to work in home groups, students were expected to develop a close bond with those members. In addition, by occasionally being mixed with members from other groups and working in different groups, students were expected to interact with more classmates, and learn about and from each other. For such ad-hoc group activities, the jigsaw technique was often used. That is, a new group was formed with one member from each of the home groups, and the students contributed to a certain task in this ad-hoc group by sharing information and knowledge that they had gained from the task they had previously done in their home groups.

CL activities used in this course included (a) vocabulary building activities, (b) sharing each other's writing, and (c) group presentations, in addition to exercises related to textbook readings. In (a) vocabulary building activities, students checked the pronunciations and meanings of words in the Coxhead (2000) academic word list and created sample sentences together in groups. For (b), students were required to write on various occasions in this class; they wrote reactions to graded readers they read, reactions to chapters in their textbook1, and essays using a writing evaluation software called Criterion® (Educational Testing Service). They shared these reactions and essays by using summarizing and shadowing techniques. Finally for (c), students started to work on group presentations at the mid-semester, by which time they had come to know each other better and felt more comfortable. They made poster presentations in their home groups about a topic of their choice related to one of the topics covered in their textbook. They collected related information and each student contributed a two-minute oral explanation to make about a 12-minute group presentation with a question and answer session included. The presentation guidelines were provided in the 21st class meeting, and students had about two weeks to prepare. They rehearsed their presentations in the 25th class meeting, and made final presentations in the following weeks.

The poster presentation was the final major group project with CL elements. I had students change their home groups in the 19th class meeting in order to refresh their learning environment, and so they worked on this final project in new home groups. Students had worked with many other classmates through ad-hoc group activities by then, and also they continued doing the above CL activities, (a) and (b), in their new home groups. Since the class routines were established to encourage students to work collaboratively with their classmates, and they had already had many opportunities to get to know each other, they seemed to have little trouble adjusting themselves when they were instructed to work with new group members for their poster presentations.

The Two Student Groups

In this study, I compared two groups, students who received low grades (low achievers) and students who received high grades (high achievers), which were decided based on their final course scores received as their course grades when the semester was over. The 24 students in the study were grouped into three levels, low, middle, and high, by their scores, and the low grade group (Group A: low achievers) and the high grade group (Group B: high achievers), with eight students each, were compared. Course scores (100%), which were calculated based on course assignments (40%), essay tests (20%), and other kinds of quizzes and exams (40%) and which reflected individual students' abilities and capacities in integrated English skills, were used to identify these groups. The mean end-of-course scores were 66.2% for Group A, and 85.5% for Group B.

Evaluations of course assignments included those of graded reader related activities, essay writing activities, and presentation assignments. Essay test evaluation was from four-to-five paragraph essay writing activities that students completed using Criterion®. Quizzes and exams used for grades tested students' writing skills, vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension abilities. Thus, the total score (100%) reflected students' integrated abilities to use English communication skills and the effort put into learning activities to improve such abilities.

All the 24 students had taken a standardized English proficiency test at the beginning of the semester. The test included listening, vocabulary and grammar, and reading comprehension sections. The students' equivalent TOEIC scores based on their test results ranged from 440 to 470, and thus their abilities for reading and listening were considered to be very similar to each other. However, as their final course grades indicated, their writing, speaking, and presentation skills as well as the individual effort put into English learning activities were quite different.

Questionnaire Design

A questionnaire about motivational factors (Appendix) was created based on Ichikawa (2001). The original questionnaire items were designed to explore motivation in learning in general by using the six learner orientations (six motivational factors) described above: _fulfillment_ , _training_ , _practicality_ , _relation_ , _self-respect_ , and _reward_. For my study, Ichikawa's items were modified so that they would cover student motivations for learning English. For most items, Ichikawa's original wording was adopted, but for some, different expressions were used or different statements were created so that they would fit into their respective factor categories about learning English. Students responded to questions using a Likert scale from "1" (I totally disagree) to "6" (I strongly agree). Questionnaires were administered at the beginning and at the end of the semester during class time.

An additional questionnaire was given to the students at the end of the semester specifically about CL activities. The survey used the same Likert scale with four questions: 1) CL activities were fun, 2) CL activities were useful for English learning, 3) CL activities motivated me to attend the class, and 4) CL activities encouraged me to study English. In addition, there was an open space for students to write comments about CL activities.

### Study Results and Discussion

From Surveys about Motivational Factors

Each motivational factor in the surveys about motivation had five statements with a Likert scale from "1" to "6." The responses to the five items were added, with a maximum possible composite score of 30 points for each factor, and mean scores were calculated for each group (Table 1).

The most interesting finding from the questionnaire surveys was that students' motivational patterns were similar at the beginning and the end of the semester. The comparison in the whole group of 24 students showed that in descending order of mean motivation level the six orientations were: _reward_ , _practicality_ , _fulfillment_ , _training_ , _self-respect_ , and _relation orientations_ , both in April and in July (Table 1).

It seems that the new experiences that the students had in their English classes did not lead to drastic changes as illustrated by the descriptive statistics. Students often commented that required activities in their university English classes were very different from what was expected in their high school classes. In their university classes, students had to use productive abilities such as writing and speaking extensively. The most common experience in their high school English classes was rather teacher-centered, and so CL activities in English classes seemed fairly refreshing to them. Despite these new experiences, the patterns of student motivation as a whole group did not change.

It is interesting that the _reward orientation_ (i.e., learning because of the additional outcome as a result of learning activities, such as a special allowance or social status or credits) remained highest among the six factors. It is generally believed that university entrance exams are one of the most influential factors on students' motivation to study English at high school (Berwick & Ross, 1989). Students' responses in the April survey indicated their high _reward orientation_. The author suspected that it might go down once students entered university, but the data indicated that the students had little difficulty in finding alternatives to the entrance exams resulting in their continued high level of _reward orientation_. It stayed highest even at the end of the semester.

On the other hand, the comparison between low achievers (Group A) and high achievers (Group B) revealed a few possible differences in their motivational factors (Figure 2 and Table 2). Group B's _self-respect orientation_ (i.e., learning because they feel confident and positive about themselves) had a higher numerical figure than that of Group A. In fact, the _self-respect orientation_ ranked fifth among the six factors in April and the lowest in July for Group A, while it was the fourth for Group B both times (Table 2). Many CL activities in the course were performance-based and students who had higher self-esteem and stronger self-confidence probably benefited from their positive attitudes and were able to receive higher grades in the end. It is also possible that students with higher self-esteem were able to adapt to the social learning context of CL without much difficulty. According to the argument by Ichikawa (2001), motivational factors which are indirectly related to learning content (e.g., _relation_ , _self-respect_ , and _reward orientations_ ) do not correlate with effective learning processes or better learning outcomes, and thus the phenomena indicated by the current motivation surveys that high achievers showed higher _self-respect orientation_ did not support his argument in this case.

Another possible difference between Group A and Group B is about their _relation orientation_ (e.g., learning because they want to develop relationships with others). It was the lowest ranking motivational factor for both Group A and Group B in April, and still remained low in July. For Group A, it became the second lowest, and for Group B, it stayed as the lowest in July. However, it is intriguing that the numerical figure of Group A's _relation orientation_ went up in July, replacing the lowest factor with _self-respect orientation_ , and Group B's _relation orientation_ went down in July (Figure 2 & Table 2). There is not enough data to discuss the relationship between the _relation orientation_ and academic performance, but perhaps, low achievers like those in Group A, tend to hold a stronger _relation orientation_ than high achievers (Table 1 & Figure 2), and that it is possible that a stronger _relation orientation_ is not necessarily an indicator of better academic performance. The figures for the _relation orientation_ did not contradict Ichikawa's hypothesis that learners' _relation orientation_ does not correlate with their use of more effective learning strategies that relate to higher academic achievement.

From a Survey about CL Activities

As students' responses to the CL survey (Table 3) show, students generally had a positive attitude towards CL activities. For Q1 "CL activities were fun," all students but one responded with either "4," "5," or "6," meaning "I (somewhat / strongly) agree." Even the only one student who responded with a negative response "2" meaning that "I don't agree with the statement," wrote the comment, "I am not good at talking with others, so [doing CL activities] was hard, but I think it was a good learning experience in the end."

In fact, half of the students wrote comments about group or pair activities in the survey, and the comments were all in favor of CL activities. The comments included the following:

  * I enjoyed them very much. I felt nervous but it was a good experience.

  * I've realized while talking in pairs that I cannot apply grammar knowledge in speaking, which I can in writing. I want to be able to have conversations of higher quality by learning English more.

  * It was good to be able to do difficult tasks with others, such as checking the meaning of words and making a summary of some text.

  * I want to do more [CL activities]; it was fun.

It is interesting that students in general shared this positive reaction to CL activities, and yet, in the survey regarding the six orientations towards learning, they attributed their English learning motivations more to other factors than _relation orientation_. As was reported in the previous section, _reward orientation_ , _practicality orientation_ , and _fulfillment orientation_ were the top three both for Group A and B, both at the beginning and at the end of the semester. In other words, the students' responses on the motivation surveys indicated that their tendency to learn English because they want to develop their relationships with others such as their classmates was not as strong. Instead, the survey results indicated the students' stronger tendency to learn English because they think it is useful in their lives ( _practicality orientation_ ), because they want to satisfy their intellectual curiosity ( _fulfillment orientation_ ), or because they appreciate additional consequences they gain as a result of learning it ( _reward orientation_ ). When it comes to assessing their own English learning orientations or reasons for learning English, the students might not have found direct connections between their reasons and CL activities, even though they appreciated the fun and useful part of CL in learning English. It is possible that they may have perceived their English learning processes separately from the use of CL activities, or that they did not consider English language abilities to be very much connected to CL skills and techniques.

The comparison between Group A and Group B (Table 3), however, indicated another point that is worth paying attention to. The small sample size will not allow more than a speculative analysis of the data, but it is possible that Group A had a stronger tendency to be positively affected by CL activities. The averages of Group A's responses to Q1, Q3, and Q4 were higher than those of Group B's. Since students in Group B had already found other reasons and motivations for learning English, they might have considered it inappropriate to agree that CL activities were the motivators in their class participation and in their English learning. These figures imply the possibility that low achievers might benefit more from CL activities; however, it might also mean that low achievers might remain as they are without improving their English abilities as much unless they find other reasons to learn English than their relationship with their classmates.

Correlation between Survey responses and course grades

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated using the data of 24 students to see if there were any statistically significant correlations among motivational factors. Interestingly, student responses to motivational factors at the beginning of the semester (April) and those at the end (July) had strong correlation between the same factors all at the p < .05 significant level (Table 4): _fulfillment_ in April and _fulfillment_ in July ( _r_ = .70), _training_ in April and in July ( _r_ = .71), _practicality_ in April and in July ( _r_ = .67), _relationship_ in April and in July ( _r_ = .51), _self-respect_ in April and in July ( _r_ = .67), and _reward_ in April and in July ( _r_ = .56) (A and B, C and D, E and F, G and H, I and J, K and L respectively on Table 4). These correlations indicate that students were fairly consistent in how they assessed their own motivational orientations at the beginning and at the end of the semester. Their motivation patterns did not change very much between the beginning and end of the course. Four months may be too short a time to create changes in motivational patterns of a group of students as a whole.

Additionally, correlation coefficients were calculated between students' motivational factors from the July survey, CL survey responses, and course grades (Table 5). Interestingly, course grades had a statistically significant correlation only with _self-respect orientation_ ( _r_ = .47; medium correction, _p_ < .05) (J and M on Table 5). This correlation implies a relationship between students' self-esteem and confidence and their performances and achievement in the course. It is safe to assume that students who had high self-esteem and stronger confidence were able to perform and achieve better, and as a result, they received better grades. At the same time, their better contribution to performance-based CL activities in class probably added to their self-esteem and confidence and created a virtuous cycle in their learning.

Regarding student responses on the survey about CL activities, there is no statistically significant correlation found with the six motivational factors (N, O, P, Q and B, D, F, H, J, L on Table 5). The responses to the four questions about CL activities showed strong correlation only among themselves at the statistically significant level ( _r_ =.54 ~ .73, _p_ < .05). The strongest correlation ( _r_ = .73, _p_ < 0.05) was found between Q1 (CL activities were fun: N on Table 5) and Q3 (CL activities motivated me to attend the class: P on Table 5). These results suggest that CL activities can help students feel positive about participating in class activities even though CL activities may not make immediate changes in students' motivational patterns for learning English.

### Summary and Future Directions

I set two research questions for this study:

  * Do students' motivations for learning English change over a semester in a class where numerous collaborative learning activities are implemented?

  * Are there any relationships between the use of CL activities, changes in student motivation, and students' actual engagement in learning activities?

This study was conducted with a small group of students and therefore generalizing the results to a larger student population is not possible. Despite its small scale, it provided several interesting suggestions and implications for future investigation.

In response to the first question, the study suggested that student motivation patterns for learning English might be rather static and not very fluid even in a situation where novel and supportive classroom activities are used if it is observed over a short period of time, such as four months. More dynamic changes may be observed at the individual student level but not at the whole class level. However, this study does not preclude the possibility that changes could occur in students' motivational patterns when they are exposed to CL learning activities for a longer period of time.

Moreover, there might have been an issue in the questionnaire format. The format probably helped the respondents to subconsciously compare different types of motivational factors or different reasons for learning English (even though the factors were not specified in the statements on the questionnaire) while allowing them only to respond within the provided, limited Likert scale framework. Therefore it is likely that their responses on motivational factors became somewhat relative among themselves. Other formats of questionnaire surveys may provide different views of changes in learner motivation levels and this point should be kept in mind in future research.

Nevertheless, the current study has revealed possible relationships between students' motivation patterns and their achievement in class, which relates to the second question.

One finding was that students who achieved higher grades in this class showed a higher _self-respect orientation_. CL activities used in this class were performance-based, requiring students to write essays and presentation manuscripts, make presentations, and speak with classmates while using what they know and what they have learned. Students who had higher self-esteem and self-confidence were able to experience success in such self-initiated activities. Students who had low self-esteem might not have benefited from such CL activities as much.

On the other hand, the role of self-respect remains rather unclear in the current study. The individual's self-respect level and _self-respect orientation_ for learning (wanting to learn because of self-respect related reasons) may correlate to a certain degree, but these are two separate entities: it is quite possible that learners who have a high self-respect claim that they are learning not because they want to have a higher self-respect but because of other reasons. _Self-respect orientation_ could be playing a more important role in CL-based classrooms than it does in traditional types of classrooms because students' personal identities can be constantly reinforced through social interactions in CL activities, but further investigation will be necessary before we reach such a conclusion. It is important to clarify the relationship between learners' self-respect level, _self-respect orientation_ for learning, and the use of CL activities.

Another finding was that students who ended up receiving low grades seemed to be more _relation-oriented_ than the opposite group. CL activities can probably work effectively as a trigger for such students to feel positive about participating in class, but _relation orientation_ may not be an indicator of prospective higher academic achievement as Ichikawa (2001) claimed. The current study only provided a tentative description that high achievers tended not to attribute their English learning motivations to their relationship with classmates. It is possible that low achievers have a stronger tendency to do so; if this tendency is true, will there be a threshold regarding _relation orientation_ that these low achievers have to go over in order to become high achievers? Whether low achievers should refrain from attributing their learning to their relation with others at some point or not will be an interesting issue to investigate in future research.

In investigating this issue, attribution theory may provide useful theoretical foundations. Learners who attribute their learning outcomes to their learning environment tend not to achieve as high academic performance as those who attribute the outcomes to the factors over which they themselves have control or factors that have emerged from within themselves (Dörnyei, 2001; Weiner, 1986). CL activities can be useful and helpful for teachers in designing and creating a comfortable classroom atmosphere, but the current study may be indicating that if students want to improve their English language skills, they should not depend extensively on the type of classroom activities for a reason to learn English.

Motivation patterns explored in this study was based on the students' self-report on questionnaire surveys. Thus, it is more precise to claim that their attribution patterns (factors that students think are the causes of their actions) rather than motivation patterns (factors that actually motivated them to learn) did not change. The distinctions between motivation and attribution should be made clearer in future research.

Finally, further investigation is necessary to explore complicated relationships between the use of CL activities, students' learning motivation, and their attribution of learning English. I would intuitively and empirically agree with Ichikawa (2011) on the importance of _practicality_ and _fulfillment orientations_. It would be ideal to design CL activities that can provide the content from which students can find practical reasons for learning English ( _practicality orientation_ ) and with which they can fulfill their intellectual curiosity ( _fulfillment orientation_ ), but the roles of these orientations should be investigated further in various learning contexts including CL contexts. So should be the role of _reward orientation_. The current study has indicated a high level of _reward orientation_ among high achievers as well as low. This orientation could be utilized for effective language learning because it means that _reward-oriented_ students do have clear and concrete goals, which very often they aim to meet in the near future. It might prove its positive effect especially when it exists with _fulfillment_ and _practicality orientations_. Such relationships between learning orientations and CL activities should be among many issues to be explored in future research.

### References

Apple, M. (2011). _The Big Five personality traits and foreign language speaking confidence among Japanese EFL students_ (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3457819.)

Apple, M., Falout, J., & Hill, G. (2013). Exploring classroom-based constructs of EFL motivation for science and engineering students in Japan. In M. Apple, T. Fellner, & D. Da Silva (Eds.), _Foreign language motivation in Japan_ (pp. 54-74). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., Major, C. H. (2005). _Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty_. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.

Berwick, R., & Ross, S. (1989). Motivation after matriculation: Are Japanese learners of English still alive after exam hell? _JALT Journal, 11_ , 193-210.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. _TESOL Quarterly, 34_ , 213-238.

Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group dynamics and motivation. _The Modern Language Journal, 81_ , 482-493.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Erikawa, H. (Ed.) (2012). 協働学習を取り入れた英語授業のすすめ [English classes with collaborative learning incorporated] . Tokyo: Taishukan.

Ichikawa, S. (2001). 学ぶ意欲の心理学[The Psychology of Willingness to Learn]. Tokyo: PHP.

Jacobs, G., Power, M. P., & Loh, W. I., (2002). _The teacher's resourcebook for Cooperative Learning: Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently asked questions_. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kawai-Juku (2010). 初年次教育でなぜ学生が成長するのか:全国大学調査からみえてきたこと [Why do students grow through first-year education?: Findings from surveys among universities all over the country]. Tokyo: Toshindo.

Macaro, E. (1997). _Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy_. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

McCafferty, S. G., Jacobs, G. M., & Iddings, A. C. D. (2006). _Cooperative learning and second language teaching_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) (n.d.a). 新学習指導要領・生きる力 [The new course of study: A zest for life]. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/syo/sougou.htm

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) (n.d.b). 新学習指導要領・生きる力 [The new course of study: A zest for life]. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/chu/sougou.htm

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) (2009). 第4章 総合的な学習の時間 [Chapter 4 Integrated Period of Study]. In MEXT, 高等学校学習指導要領 [Upper secondary schools: The course of study] (pp.292-293). Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/kou/kou.pdf

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT), (2011). 教育の情報化ビジョン~21世紀にふさわしい学びと学校の創造を目指して~ [Visions of computerization in education: To create learning and schools appropriate for the 21st century]. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/23/04/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/ 2011/04/28/1305484_01_1.pdf

Murphey, T. (2001). Tools of recursion, intermental zones of proximal development, and critical collaborative autonomy. _JALT Journal, 23_ , 130-150.

Murphey, T. & Jacobs, G. (2000). Encouraging critical collaborative autonomy. _JALT Journal, 22_ , 228-244.

Nunan, D. (1992). _Collaborative language learning and teaching_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sato, M. (2006). 学校の挑戦:学びの共同体を創る [Challenges by schools: Creating communities for learning]. Tokyo: Shogakukan.

Sato, M. (2010). 教育の方法 [Education methodology]. Tokyo: Sayusha.

Weiner, B. (1986). _An attributional theory of motivation and emotion_. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Yamada, R. (2008). 初年次教育の歴史と理論 [History and theories of first-year education]. 大学と学生 [University and student], 16-23. Retrieved from http://www.jasso.go.jp/gakusei_plan/documents/daigaku528_06.pdf

### Notes

There were 18 sections of this English course and they were taught by different teachers. Individual teachers were allowed to choose a textbook for their sections, for the purpose of meeting common learning goals and objectives set by the Faculty. I chose _Reading Explore 2_ (Douglas & Macintyre, 2006, Cengage Learning). This textbook covered interesting topics including social, historical, and cultural issues with many visual attractions such as pictures and video clips from _National Geographic_ , which I expected students majoring in social sciences to find fascinating. I also found this textbook suitable for designing class activities to promote students' four skills, listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

Students took the Assessment of Communicative English (A.C.E.) Placement Test created by "Eigo Unyo Noryoku Hyoka Kokai (English Language Proficiency Assessment: ELPA)." Equivalent TOIEC scores were provided by the ELPA.

Students wrote comments in Japanese. Their comments in this paper were translated by the author with special attention paid to conveying the original meaning in the translation.

### Appendix: Questionnaire about learning English*

* The order of the question items was scrambled for the actual survey.

Fulfillment

  * 新しいことを知りたいと思う気持ちから英語を学習します。

  * いろいろな知識を身につけた人になりたいから英語を学習します。

  * すぐに役立たないにしても、英語を学習すること自体が面白いから英語を学習します。

  * 英語ができるようになっていくことが楽しいから英語を学習します。

  * 英語を学習すると充実感を感じるから学習します。

Training

  * 英語を学習することは頭の訓練になるから英語を学習します。

  * 英語の学習をすることで、学習の仕方を身につけることができるので、英語を学習します。

  * いろいろな面から物事が考えられるようになるため英語を学習します。

  * 英語の学習をすることで、筋道だった考え方を身につける練習になるので英語を学習します。

  * 英語を学習しないと頭のはたらきがおとろえてしまうから英語を学習します。

Practicality

  * 英語の学習で学んだことを、将来の仕事に生かしたいから英語を学習します。

  * 英語の学習で学んだことは、将来仕事や生活の場面で役に立つから英語を学習します。

  * 知識や技能を使う喜びを味わいたいから英語を学習します。

  * 英語を学習しないと将来就職活動や仕事の上で困るから、英語を学習します。

  * 仕事で必要になってからあわてて英語の学習をしたのでは間に合わないから、英語を学習します。

Relation

  * みんながやるからなんとなくあたりまえと思って英語を学習します。

  * 友達といっしょに何かをするのが楽しいから英語を学習します。

  * クラスメートや友達に認めてもらいたいから英語を学習します。

  * みんながすることをやらないとよくないと思うので、英語を学習します。

  * 英語の学習をしないと、クラスメートや友達に悪いような気がして、英語を学習します。

Self-respect

  * 英語ができると、周りの人から尊敬されると思うから、英語を学習します。

  * ライバルに負けたくないから英語を学習します。

  * 英語ができると自分に自信がつくので英語を学習します。

  * 英語が人並みにできないと、くやしいから英語を学習します。

  * 英語が人並みにできないと、自信がなくなってしまいそうで英語を学習します。

Reward

  * 英語の授業でよい成績をとりたいから、英語の学習をします。

  * 英語ができると、社会人になって経済的に良い生活ができると思うから英語を学習します。

  * 英語ができると、社会に出てから得なことが多いと思うから英語を学習します。

  * 英語の授業の単位をとりたいから、英語を学習します。

  * 英語の試験(入試や授業の試験・資格試験など)があるから、英語を学習します。

### Chapter 5

Investigating the Role of Collaborative Pre-Listening Tasks in University Listening Classes /大学英語リスニングクラスにおける「協働的プレ・タスク」の効果について

Hiromi Tsuda

### Abstract

This chapter aims to show how collaborative pre-tasks introduced into the researcher's university listening classes played a crucial role in encouraging learners to study proactively. The research was conducted with 40 freshmen in the low-intermediate proficiency level of English; however, most of them intended to study abroad in the near future. Data was collected mainly through the brief comments written by the students at the end of each class and the semester-end feedback written by them. In addition, a questionnaire was administered to gauge the students' evaluation of the collaborative pre-listening task for each unit. A follow-up interview was also conducted with one of the participants at the end of the school year. Research has shown that collaborative pre-listening tasks increase students' engagement and motivation, and also help facilitate their identification of near-peer role models. Moreover, it shows how helpful these tasks are even for students with little confidence to strengthen their "self-efficacy" in learning English. This paper further corroborates these findings by demonstrating the effectiveness of these collaborative tasks. In sum, though collaborative pre-listening tasks may not always have immediate benefits, the potential for these tasks to motivate students remains strong.

本章では、大学のリスニングクラスに導入された協働的なプレ・タスクが積極的な学習態度を引き出すのにどれほど効果的であるか検証する。調査協力者は中級レベルの1年生40名で、その多くは留学を希望している。調査の中心は、学生が毎授業の終わりに書いた短い振り返りと学期末のコメントに基づく質的調査だが、各ユニットの終わりには質問紙により協働的なプレ・タスクに対する学生の評価を調査した。加えて、学年末には調査協力者にインタビューし、学習プロセスの変化の様子を探った。調査の結果、協働的なプレ・タスクが学生たちの学習への意欲や積極性を高めることが明らかにされた。しかも、このようなタスクは英語力の低い学生に対しても効果的に働き、他の学習者と共に学ぶことにより互いに影響し合い、学習への動機づけが高まる様子が確認された。協働的なプレ・タスクは、短期的に学力を向上させるものではないとしても、学習への動機付けを高める効果は充分に期待できると考えられる。

### Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to show how collaborative learning activities introduced into the researcher's university listening classes played a crucial role in encouraging learners, even those with low proficiency levels, to study proactively. Research has shown how collaborative learning (CL)-style pre-listening tasks increases students' engagement in and motivation to understand lectures given in English and also helps facilitate their identification of near-peer role models (Tsuda, 2012; Ushioda, 2013). This paper further corroborates these findings by demonstrating the effectiveness of these collaborative tasks.

The importance of cultivating an autonomous learning attitude and of motivating students is as important as ever in foreign language education (Ushioda, 2013). In this connection, Macaro (1997) has pointed out that collaboration in learning is essential to cultivate autonomy in language learning because it creates a greater awareness of the learning process. Igoudin suggests that "the interaction between the learner and his or her peers also affects their motivation," adding, "Motivation initiates the student's actions in the class and is influenced by the feedback and behaviors of others in the classroom" (2013, p. 194). These remarks underline the importance of the role of peer learners.

Collaborative learning provides learners with opportunities to interact with other learners and to also find near-peer role models, who can enhance their learning motivation. Learners can reflect on their own learning processes by listening to peer learners' points of view, and develop a deeper understanding of the lecture they have listened to by learning from each other (Tsuda, 2013). As Dörnyei (2005, p. 116) argues, since _Ideal L2 Selves_ or _Possible L2 Selves_ are "dependent on the learner's ability to develop a salient vision of oneself as _an attractive, competent, and successful L2 user_ " (emphasized by the author), it is difficult for low-proficiency learners to identify their Ideal L2 Selves. On the other hand, "a near-peer role model" is outside "a self framework" (Igoudin, 2013, p. 107), and therefore, it is possible for even low-proficiency learners to find "near-peer role models" beside them, who can inspire them to be "proactive" (Littlewood, 1999), showing them how to be engaged in classes and how to enjoy learning. This study demonstrates the role of CL style pre-listening tasks in helping students identify near-peer role models, and, consequently, in increasing their motivation.

This study draws on the sociocultural approach to learning (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001; Vygotsky, 1996), where learning is not considered as an individual activity but as a social event. Igoudin (2013, p. 194) states that "learning is inseparable from the sociocultural context in which it takes place," and therefore, it is necessary that the integrated contexts of both the process of learning and the learning environment including interaction with others should be taken into consideration to show the learning process more precisely (Gao, 2013; Macaro, 2006; Takeuchi, Griffiths, & Coyle, 2007).

### Definition of Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning is defined here as a mode of learning in which students share or exchange ideas in pairs or in small groups with the purpose of deepening each others' understanding. In CL, learners interact with others, relieved from any strict social hierarchy, such as in traditional teacher-learner relations. Learners can learn from each other by receiving others' opinions as an "internally persuasive voice", which has a deep influence on them. It also enables them to "retell a text in one's own words, with one's own accents, gestures, modifications" (Bakhtin, 1968). In this perspective, CL is a kind of "carnival" where everyone is allowed to speak freely and equally (Bakhtin, 1996), free from authoritative influences and able to reflect critically on their own learning (Bakhtin, 1981; Freire, 1979).

Vygotsky (1996) claims in his theory of zone of proximal development (ZPD) that learners can learn more with support or mediation from others than they can by themselves. If a task is easy enough for a learner to complete by themselves, it is not necessary for learners to help each other to solve the problem or to deepen their understanding, and in this case, there is no need for collaborative activities. In the case where the teacher knows that the tasks will be more challenging for the learners, CL-style tasks are likely to be appropriate.

### Purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to report on an investigation into how CL-style activities, especially those designed for use in a pre-listening phase prior to a lecture, contributed to promoting learners' interest in and motivation toward the lecture in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes at a university in Japan. To reveal the learning process in CL, this paper concentrates especially on data concerning the learners' attitudes and behavior in the listening classes that was collected by means of questionnaires, feedback reports, and class observation.

### Participants

The research was conducted with 40 freshmen in three university listening classes. There were 14 male students and 26 female students including four foreign female students from other Asian countries. In the fall semester, another male student and another female student joined our listening classes. Students were divided into groups of four and members of the groups were shuffled by lot every month so that students would have the chance to collaborate with various people in each class. The proficiency level of the students was low intermediate, with TOEFL ITP scores ranging from 350 to 460. Most students intended to study abroad in the near future. This listening course is a required class held twice a week and English is used exclusively in the classroom. The course aims at promoting note-taking skills using a DVD of simulated lectures given at a university in the US.

### Method

The investigation was carried out during the school year from April, 2012 to February, 2013. In this research, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. Two kinds of questionnaire with five-level Likert scales were conducted on the students. Quantitative data collected by these questionnaires was used to show general tendencies in the way the students' attitudes towards CL-style listening classes changed. Qualitative data collected in the form of written reports by students was used to clarify their impressions of CL pre-tasks and to reveal how they collaborated in learning. In addition, some analysis was done based on observation of the students during classes.

Data was collected in three stages: First, at the beginning of each semester students set their own goals for the class and put them at the top of a feedback sheet. Students spent about five minutes writing brief reflective comments in English on their own learning at the end of each class (See Appendix A). Next, at the end of each unit (two or two-and-a-half classes for each unit), a questionnaire (A) was administered to gauge the students' evaluation of the pre-listening task they had experienced in the introduction of each unit (See Appendix B). Finally, at the end of each semester, another questionnaire (B) was delivered to identify helpful practices and difficulties in their listening tasks (See Appendix C). In this way, learners were repeatedly given opportunities to reflect on their own learning at the end of each class, each unit, and each semester. Through these opportunities for reflection, the students were encouraged to use more metacognitive strategies and to increase metacognitive awareness. The results of Questionnaire (B) are reported elsewhere (Tsuda, 2012).

### Procedure

The procedure for each listening class was as follows:

Eight units were covered each semester and an appropriate collaborative pre-listening task was introduced for each unit as is shown in Table 2.

The collaborative pre-listening tasks helped students to engage with the subject matter of the unit. To take an example, for the first unit of work in each semester, the pre-listening task consisted of focusing on numbers or signal words/phrases in the lecture on DVD, such as _first_ , _after_ , _the first_ , _the second_. These signal words and phrases helped students not only to know the structure of the unit lecture, but also to learn how to take better notes or memos while watching a DVD. They compared the notes they had taken with other group members and later shared their opinions about the topic prior to listening to the lecture. Such CL-style pre-listening tasks raised students' motivation to listen to the lecture attentively.

In Unit 2 in the spring semester, students focused on the differences between two learners, one young, the other old. In the second unit of the fall semester, they discussed the differences between teams and groups and considered the benefits of teams. Through such discussion of key words students were provided with essential vocabulary for each unit.

Personalizing the themes also appeared to help students prepare for listening to the lectures. Students were able to share their personal experiences in order to deepen their understanding of the topic. For example, in the unit on "Sleep", they compared how many hours they usually slept and what time they had gone to bed the night before. In the fall semester, they exchanged their opinions about how to learn new grammar, how to memorize new vocabulary, and so on. Students eagerly listened to their classmates' personal life stories and past experiences, and this seemed to be effective in preparing them for listening to the unit lecture.

In Unit 5 in the spring semester, they looked at photos of robots in the textbook. Each group argued about what kinds of robots they would like to own and then shared their opinions in the class. In Unit 5 in the fall semester, they had a discussion based on photos of architecture designed by Frank Gehry. Here, the students discussed what they found attractive about Gehry's buildings and compared them with Japanese traditional buildings. The photos acted as strong prompts to inspire the students to develop their discussion.

For Unit 6 ("Genetically Modified Food"), students conducted research on the Internet at home and then shared the information they had gotten with group members during the next class. In the fall semester, each group gave PowerPoint presentations on "The Silk Road". The students collaborated in doing research, preparing slides for the presentation, making handouts, and presenting their information in front of the class. Each group member took responsibility for a part of the group presentation, and played an important role in their group presentation.

They also discussed the title and made predictions about the content of the unit lecture. For example, the title "Extraterrestrial Intelligence" was attractive enough by itself to stimulate students' interest. In this lesson, the students enjoyed exchanging their opinions or individual experiences, such as, "a UFO once flew right in front of me, but nobody believed me." In the fall semester, they made a guess at the content of the lecture based on the title "Global English" and exchanged their opinions.

As Unit 8 in the spring semester ("Shackleton: A History of a Trip to Antarctica") was rather difficult for students to understand, the teacher acted as a facilitator to activate discussion. In the fall semester, "Phobia" was so interesting that the students exchanged their personal experiences and asked questions of each other without any help or prompting from the teacher.

Thus, various kinds of collaborative pre-listening tasks were introduced for each unit after students had checked new vocabulary. Activities were designed to increase students' interest in the topic or to help them understand the unit lecture. In addition, these collaborative pre-listening tasks helped the students to deepen mutual understanding through their sharing of personal experiences.

At the end of each unit, the students took a comprehension test to confirm their understanding. After the test, a questionnaire (A) was given to clarify the effects of each collaborative pre-listening activity in terms of the following points:

1) if it helped the student to make predictions about the content of the lecture

2) if it made the student interested in the lecture they were about to listen to

3) if it was effective for helping the student to internalize the topic or for helping the student to think about the topic in a personalized way

4) if it made the student motivated to listen to the lecture

5) if it helped the student to understand the lecture

6) if it helped the student to find the main points of the lecture

Finally, at the end of each semester, another questionnaire (B) was given to the students, asking which practices they found effective and what difficulties prevented them from understanding the lecture.

### Results and Discussion

Unit-End Questionnaire (A)

A unit-end questionnaire (A) was delivered to clarify how effective each collaborative pre-listening task was in terms of the six descriptors mentioned in the previous section. Tables 3-a and 3-b show the results of questionnaire (A) reflecting the students' responses.

In the spring semester, it can be assumed that the collaborative pre-listening tasks were most effective for helping students to find the main points and deepen their understanding of the topics, as well as for attracting students' interest. It is also noted that, among several kinds of collaborative pre-listening tasks, personalization followed by group discussion and discussion based on their individual research were perceived as the most effective pre-listening tasks, with mean scores of over 3.8 and 3.7 respectively. To personalize the theme of the unit, students exchanged individual experiences. There were some positive comments about personalization followed by group discussion, for example, "Through thinking about my own situation, the topic of the lecture ("Sleep") remained in my memory." Such comments show that group discussion helped students to internalize the new information and to commit it to long-term memory.

Students' comments also showed that doing research individually before class helped them to be more proactively involved in-group discussion. Many positive comments that support group research were given, such as, "Doing research about the topic of the lecture ("Genetically Modified Food" ("GMF")) and sharing some background information motivated me to know more about the topic," or "Doing group discussion based on the research deepened our mutual understanding." Moreover, the students had a good opportunity to become aware of cultural differences in attitudes towards the topic, "GMF", when they shared their experiences and ideas with the students from other Asian countries.

In the fall semester, among six descriptors _interest_ and _understanding_ showed the highest mean scores. _Main points_ had the next highest mean score. These findings repeat in part the results for the spring semester. On the other hand, _personalization_ did not show as such a high score as it had for the spring semester. It can be assumed that collaborative pre-listening tasks worked effectively to help the students get to know each other at the beginning of the school year. However, sharing personal experiences was not as necessary for the students in the fall semester as it was in the spring semester and therefore this function of the CL-style tasks decreased.

Among the seven kinds of collaborative pre-listening tasks, _discussion about photos_ seemed to be most effective. Many students expressed strong interest in the pictures in the textbook. The following comments written by participants are particularly worthy of note: "Pictures gave me a clear image of the content," or "The pictures gave us something to discuss. It was good." Another student wrote, "Photos and key words can provide useful cues for developing group discussion." Photos seem to be helpful for these students, as low-intermediate learners, by giving them specific topics for group discussion.

As a whole, group discussion was viewed very favorably by the students, whose comments included, "We were very active during the class because we did group discussion," and "We learned a lot of related vocabulary through the discussion." These discussions were more than simply exchanging opinions among group members: they provided students with opportunities to learn from one another, to deepen their understanding of the topics, and to make them reflect on their own learning. However, the mean score for _motivation_ , at around 3.2 to 3.3, was slightly lower than for other effects of the pre-listening tasks.

To sum up, it is likely that the collaborative pre-listening tasks were most effective in helping students comprehend the lecture by focusing on the main points, and in raising their interest in the subject of the lecture they were about to listen to.

End-of-Class Feedback Comments

Feedback comments written after each class showed that most students worked hard and overall enjoyed the classes incorporating CL-style pre-listening tasks. They wrote comments such as, "My English skill has improved, comparing myself with when I was a high school student," or "We enjoyed this listening class very much." In addition, students changed their image of listening competence: They used to consider "listening" as a passive skill and their listening classes were boring. As one student wrote, "I didn't like listening classes when I was a high school student" because they just listened to English on CDs during classes. However, after having experienced CL-style pre-listening tasks, they realized that listening could be an active skill.

Moreover, they enjoyed learning from each other, and they wanted to have much more time for learning through interacting with their classmates. One student wrote, "We were prepared for the class by doing some research on the internet at home, so that we could exchange various opinions during the class," while another commented, "It would be better if we could do much more discussion in English." From these comments, it can be assumed that CL-style pre-listening tasks exerted a positive influence on the students.

Furthermore, personalization of the topic worked effectively to raise students' interests: and students often found that sharing experiences with each other was motivating. One of the female students wrote that she was especially interested in the lecture about "Phobia" because she was curious to know about her classmates' experiences, adding, "I want to communicate with many people by using English as a tool to connect people." Her comment indicates that having a goal of interacting with other people in English can enhance students' motivation to learn English. In a sense, the listening classes with CL-style pre-tasks might have given her this goal by providing her with opportunities to practice interacting in English.

In the fall semester, students did presentations in groups. This activity was introduced as a new type of collaborative pre-listening task instead of individual research followed by group discussion. Many of the students wrote positive comments in support of this new collaborative pre-listening task. One of the students wrote, "Although it was very hard to prepare the group presentation, it was fun and we had a very precious experience." Another student wrote, "We were happy to have experienced group presentation." It seems that group presentation was not only enjoyable but also helpful in enabling them to get more detailed information about the topic, as is shown by the following comment, "To collaborate in doing research and group presentation deepened our understanding of the history of the Silk Road." In addition, the students enjoyed the other groups' presentations, saying, "Presentation about the Silk Road was very impressive." Moreover, oral presentation encouraged other classmates to express their opinions leading to lively discussion. As one student observed, "The audience, our classmates, was so kind and cooperative that we felt relaxed during our presentation." These comments indicate that CL-style classes made a deeper impression on students than teacher-centered classes can do. That is because, as Bakhtin (1968) shows, horizontal interaction with peers is more effective for internalizing new information than hierarchical relationships where authorities impose their opinions.

Another interesting finding about the listening classes incorporating collaborative pre-tasks was that students who did not have confidence in their own English ability found support and help among their peers. One student wrote in his class feedback at the end of Unit 6, "I needed some help, especially when I prepared a draft for the presentation in English. My group members were kind enough to help me." This student was inspired by his peers to learn more, while a teacher would have simply told him what to do. The students worked together in groups by distributing the roles among group members, such as making slides, preparing narration, operating the computer, etc. They finally enjoyed not only the result of learning (their presentation) but also the process of learning (the preparation). It can be said that students recognized each other as near-peer role models and learned a lot from each other. Such learning attitudes confirm some of the merits of interactive learning, and, moreover, reveal the strength of classes consisting of various kinds of collaborative pre-listening tasks which provide the students with many opportunities to learn from each other.

It is reasonable to conclude that in such CL-style classes, students are successfully able to manage their own learning, using their social and metacognitive strategies and, importantly, with much less direct support from the teacher.

### Observations About the Effects of Collaborative Learning

Social interaction between the novice learner and the expert interlocutor (Vygotsky, 1978) was observed among group members at certain points in the course as was mentioned above. Some students played the role of instructor in their groups, encouraging their classmates. On the other hand, some students who did not have confidence sometimes depended on other group members.

However, it was also observed that some students increased their motivation to learn English after finding near-peer role models for themselves in their groups. One male student, for example, who had a low level of proficiency in English, depended heavily on his classmates. Some unit lectures were too difficult for him to understand and he could not join the discussion at all. However, after several weeks, at last he learned how to join the discussion and made a lot of progress in his listening proficiency. He described his experiences about English learning in the follow-up interview conducted at the end of the school year as follows:

In the beginning, I compared myself with another group member. She expressed her idea very positively, and I felt ashamed of my low English competence. I didn't have confidence in my English ability at all. I wanted to speak English at least in front of my group members like her.

This appears to be the moment he found his near-peer role model, as a result of which he started to learn English by listening to English CDs and watching English DVDs outside the classroom, hoping to improve his English listening skill. Eventually, he joined the group discussion and enjoyed sharing his own experiences with other group members. Finally, he was able to conclude that "discussion helped me to have self-confidence in listening to English." Another student, an athletics team member, who had little confidence in his English speaking ability, happened to be good with computers. In preparing computer slides for the group presentation, he played an important role in his group and discovered he could be useful to others and achieve goals of his own, i.e., he gained "self-efficacy" (Bandura, 1977). Thereafter, he was much more committed to taking part in the English listening classes.

My contention is that the collaborative pre-listening tasks helped even those students with little confidence to cultivate positive learning attitudes, and, accordingly, to enhance their motivation to learn. That is mainly because the students could easily find near-peer role models to follow among their group members. They were encouraged to participate in the class more positively, and inspired to learn more autonomously by their near-peer role models. Such students started to work harder both inside and outside the class to improve their English competence. It can be assumed that the students learned from each other through a chain of interdependency that was created by the CL-style pre-tasks. Such a learning style is exactly what is described in the concept of ZPD. Thus, this concept can be applied to CL, confirming it as an effective learning style among learners with different proficiency levels. What is notable is that, in such classes with collaborative pre-tasks, learners may learn more, even outside the class, because they receive support or mediation from their classmates, without the intervention of the teacher. In other words, they may thus learn more effectively when they learn through interaction with peers.

However, the listening classes that I have described here may not be effective in every aspect of learning. While they did seem to be effective at engaging the students from the outset of a lesson, no obvious improvement in the vocabulary quiz or comprehension test scores was observed. This is shown in Tables 4-a, 4-b and 4-c, which give the class average scores of vocabulary quizzes, comprehension tests, and term exams respectively.

The lower scores in the unit comprehension test in the fall semester may be partly due to the change in textbook. The textbook for the fall semester (Rost, 2009a) was of a high-intermediate level with slightly more difficult and longer lectures than those in the intermediate book used in the spring semester (Rost, 2009b). In the end, the collaborative pre-listening tasks did not have an immediate impact on students' vocabulary acquisition or listening comprehension, although they had a positive effect on raising student interest in learning as was shown in Tables 3-a and 3-b.

To sum up, although the students seemed to derive various benefits from the different kinds of collaborative pre-listening tasks they experienced, such as exchanging information or sharing individual experiences before listening, no significant changes were observed in their acquisition of English as indicated by the test results of the spring and fall semesters. Nevertheless, these classes with CL-style pre-listening tasks helped even those students with little confidence or low proficiency develop a sense of self-efficacy in learning English. In other words, they derived a great sense of achievement as well as enhanced motivation from interacting in English with their classmates. Although collaborative pre-listening tasks may not always have immediate benefits in terms of acquisition, their potential tasks to motivate students remain strong. In fact, at least three of the athletics students, who were inspired to improve their English by near-peer role models in these classes, have decided to study abroad while they are sophomores.

### Conclusion and Future Issues

This paper has described how collaborative pre-listening tasks were employed in a university listening skills course to increase the students' engagement in listening tasks and their motivation to learn. In future research, classroom ethnography including a text analysis of group discussion in the CL setting could be employed in order to investigate the learning process of CL style classes in greater detail. In addition, an analysis of students' learning logs could help to ascertain what motivated learners actually do outside the classroom.

It can be concluded that some collaborative pre-listening tasks have a positive influence on learning to some extent: deepening learners' understanding, raising interest, and widening their views on a topic. It should also be noted that, through the CL activities, students were able to find near-peer role models who were very influential in cultivating their learning motivation. Even the students with little confidence in their English abilities were inspired to learn harder by near-peer role models. Moreover, their self-efficacy, which is essential to raise motivation to learn, appeared to improve through collaborative learning. Thus, CL-style pre-listening tasks may afford opportunities even for lower-level students to participate actively in the class. Accordingly, it is essential that an appropriate collaborative pre-listening task for each topic should be selected and sufficient time should be allotted to the students to interact with their classmates.

### References

Bakhtin, M. M. (1968). _An essay on Dostoyesvsky: Several problems on writing_. (K. Araya, Trans.) Tokyo: Toju-sha.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). _The dialogic imagination: Four essays_ (M. Holquist, Ed. C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1996). _Language in a story_ (I. Ito, Trans.). Tokyo: Heibon-sha.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. _Psychological Review, 84_ , 191-215.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). _The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition_. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Freire, P. (1979). _Pedagogy for the suppressed people_. (Y. Ozawa, A. Kusuhara, H. Kakinuma, M. Ito, Trans.). Tokyo: Aki-shobo.

Gao, X. (2013). Motivated by visions: Stories from Chinese contexts. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), _International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges_ (pp. 176-191). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Igoudin, L. (2013). Social identity and language learning motivation: Exploring the connection and activating learning. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), _International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges_ (pp. 192-245). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). Second Language Activity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), _Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research_ (pp. 141-158). London: Longman.

Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. _Applied Linguistics, 20_ , 71-94.

Macaro, E. (1997). _Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy_. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revisiting the theoretical framework. _The Modern Language Journal, 90_ , 320-337.

Rost, M. (Ed.). (2009a). _Contemporary Topics 1: Intermediate, Academic listening and note-taking skills_. New York: Pearson Education.

Rost, M. (Ed.). (2009b). _Contemporary Topics 2: High intermediate, Academic listening and note-taking skills_. New York: Pearson Education.

Takeuchi, O., Griffiths, C., & Coyle, D. (2007). Applying strategies to contexts: The role of individual, situational, and group differences. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), _Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice_ (pp. 69-92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tsuda, H. (2012). A pilot study on learner autonomous development through collaborative learning in listening classes at a university in Japan. _Global Japanese Studies Review Meiji University, 4_ , 129-141.

Tsuda, H. (2013). _Investigating the role of collaborative learning in fostering learner autonomy: A case study of EFL classes at a junior high school in Japan_. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.

Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation and ELT: Global issues and local concerns. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), _International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges_ (pp. 176-191). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). _Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1996). Interaction between learning and development. In P. A. Richard-Amato (Ed.), _Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom from theory to practice_ (2nd ed.) (pp. 418-428). New York: Longman.

### Appendix A Feedback Sheet (Given After Each Class)

### Appendix B

Questionnaire (A)

2012 / 4 / 27

Class: S - ( ) F / M

氏名:_____________

効果的なリスニングのために (1)

このユニットの始めに説明したsignal words/signal phrases に注目して講義の構造を理解することは、あなたにとってどのような効果がありましたか?

以下の6つの質問について、5段階のうちあなたに当てはまるものを選んで、番号に○をつけてください。

5段階は、次のように定義します。

1 全く当てはまらない

2 当てはまらない

3 どちらでもない(なんとも言えない)

4 当てはまる

5 非常によく当てはまる

Signal words / Signal phrasesに関して自由に感想を書いてください。

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

### Appendix C

Questionnaire (B)

2012/07/20 English (Listening)

S - ___ Name: _______________________

I. Evaluate each practice / review technique below. (How helpful)

Circle the appropriate number. Each number indicates:

5 Very helpful 4 Somewhat helpful 3 So-so 2 Not so helpful 1 Never helpful

II. What prevented you from understanding the lecture? (Difficulties)

Circle the appropriate number. Each number indicates:

5 Strongly agree 4 Agree 3 So-so 2 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree

Your message:

Thank you!

### Chapter 6

Exploring Collaborative Dialogue in Group Journal Writing / グループジャーナルライティングにおける協働的対話の研究

Chika Hayashi

### Abstract

This case study examines the process through which a group of students collaboratively engaged in group journal writing (GJW) over one academic year and how their writing changed through interaction with group members. As part of an English course at one private university, GJW was introduced as an out-of-class collaborative writing project. The focus of this study is one group of four students who wrote their entries and passed on their group notebook on a regular basis. Through a written form of interaction, the students' entries were gradually transformed from a monologic style of writing in which they hesitantly shared personal information into a collaborative dialogue as they found commonalities with the other members and responded to each other. As entries were added, the students not only related their writing to the other members' entries, but also integrated the strategies the other members used into their own writing. Throughout the whole process, the students became role models for each other and interchanged roles. As they engaged in negotiation and decision-making about the topics to be included and further expanded, the group members interactively co-constructed their own norms of dialogue as they kept the other members in the loop of collaborative dialogue. Disclosing their strengths and weaknesses as well as sharing their personal experiences and emotions, the members showed empathy and communicated with each other at a more intimate level and jointly constructed their own collaborative processes of GJW.

本事例研究は、1年間に亘るグループジャーナルライティングの協働的取り組みのプロセスおよびグループのメンバー同士のインターラクションを通したライティングの変化について検証した。グループジャーナルライティングは、私立大学の英語授業の一環として、授業外活動の位置付けで導入した独自の協働的ライティングプロジェクトである。本研究対象のグループAは4名のメンバーから成り、グループノートへの記入およびノート交換を定期的に行った。グループAの記入初期段階では独白形式で躊躇いがちに個人情報が共有されていたが、記入回数が重なるにつれ、メンバー同士がお互いの共通点を見つけ反応し合いながら、徐々に協働的対話へと変容した。その過程では、他のメンバーの記入内容に自身の経験を関連付け、メンバーが用いたストラテジーを取り入れるなど、お互いがお互いのロールモデルとなっていることが明らかとなった。また、トピック選定のプロセスを共有し、協働的対話の輪にメンバーを参加させながらグループ独自の規範を協働的に創り出した。さらに、個人的な経験や内的感情の共有そして長所や短所を開示しながら、メンバー同士が共感し合い個人的で親密なレベルでのコミュニケーションを図り、グループジャーナルライティングにおけるグループ独自の協働的プロセスを構築した。

### Introduction

From a Vygotskian perspective, learning is a social activity and interaction plays a significant role in the process of learning. However, interaction does not necessarily have to be face-to-face, but can occur in a variety of forms. Keeping a group journal is one example. Through a written form of interaction, teachers and students articulate their thinking and share ideas and experiences as they respond to each other and in so doing create opportunities for their own and their partner's learning.

Journal writing has been used for various purposes regardless of student language proficiency and institutional level. Moon (1999) proposes a number of purposes for journal writing and these can be divided into three main categories according to the concerns and objectives each teacher has. One of these defines journal writing as a tool for students to reflect on the processes of their own learning. The second purpose connects the use of journal writing more closely to the development of student cognition, such as critical thinking and creativity. Unlike the first two purposes which focus on the role of students as learners, the third purpose considers learners to be individuals and emphasizes the use of journal writing as a way to encourage student personal development.

A survey of previous studies on journal writing in a Japanese context indicates that a number of researchers (e.g., Bradley, 2006; Carpenter & Stephenson, 2006; Stephenson, 2006) have employed journal writing solely for educational purposes. In most of these cases, journal writing was introduced as part of in-class activities, especially at a university level, with a view to having students reflect on their own learning processes and behaviors in class. However, as a novice teacher at a secondary school, I introduced journal writing into part of an English writing course with the main purpose of student personal development (Hayashi, 2012). Despite some initial problems, journal writing helped to develop my students' awareness about autonomous learning and transformed their perceptions of English language learning.

My first attempt at using journal writing in class raised two main issues which I wished to explore further. One was the issue of continuity and the other was the possibility of expanding the interchange so that students wrote journals together rather than only corresponding with me, the teacher. Adapting and expanding the journal writing project I carried out in the senior high school writing class, I designed group journal writing (GJW) as a new type of journal that integrated the concepts of collaborative learning into the whole process of the project for university students. This case study examines how one group (Group A) collaboratively engaged in GJW over one academic year and demonstrates how the quality of the group members' writing changed through interaction with each other.

### Group Journal Writing as a Collaborative Activity

The positive effects of cooperative and collaborative learning have been widely acknowledged regardless of differences in academic subject and context (e.g., Kose, Sahin, Ergu, & Geze, 2010; Tsay & Brady, 2010). However, cooperative and collaborative learning have been defined and interpreted differently according to the researchers' philosophical understandings and positions. For instance, Panitz (1996) claims that cooperative learning is more structured and teacher-centered, and emphasizes that the main purpose of interaction is to enable learners to achieve certain goals. Five key components of cooperative learning are identified: positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual and group accountability, social skills, and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). Panitz explains that an activity should be carefully designed with the five components embedded in the procedure of the activity so that students are "forced" to interact with group members to achieve a goal. This goal-oriented view considers students to be objects and their behaviors are regulated within a framework set by a teacher.

On the other hand, Panitz claims that collaborative learning is not only a set of classroom techniques but also a personal philosophy. He explains: "In all situations where people come together in groups, it [collaborative learning] suggests a way of dealing with people which respects and highlights individual group members' abilities and contributions." Here, affective components are emphasized, together with distinctive features of each individual. Unlike cooperative learning, collaborative learning places a great value on group dynamics with a particular emphasis on a learner-centered and process-oriented structure. Moreover, this emphasizes that collaborative learning regards participants not as objects but as subjects, and the activities are characterized as being more dynamic. Therefore, group members value each other and co-construct their thinking and decision-making processes as they interact. Collaborative learning is more spontaneous and flexible in that it entails each member's engagement throughout the whole process.

In light of Panitz's differentiation of cooperative and collaborative learning, I designed GJW as a collaborative activity. Of the three main purposes of journal writing described previously, GJW focused on the personal development of students and was conceived of as an out-of-class writing project. What makes it different from my first attempt (Hayashi, 2012) was that it emphasized the nature of collaboration. The procedures were not highly structured which meant that students had to negotiate with each other and co-construct the process of GJW. As a teacher, I set general rules and procedures but the project itself was initiated and carried out by each group of students. The students negotiated with the other members and interacted with each other through GJW.

### Background and Context

I introduced GJW into one of the English courses I teach at a private university in Tokyo, Japan. College English B, one of the compulsory courses for freshmen, was selected for GJW. In this university, all the freshmen were streamed based on the result of the English placement test they took at the beginning of the new academic year. High achievers were grouped into an advanced class, while the rest were grouped equally into regular classes. The class I chose for GJW was one of the regular classes majoring in Japanese literature. The reason for introducing GJW in this specific class was that reading and writing were the main skills targeted in the course, which corresponded with what students were expected to do in GJW.

The orientation of GJW was conducted at the end of the first class. Without any clear introduction of GJW, I firstly told the students that we needed to make groups of three or four and suggested making the groups by drawing lots. I deliberately kept the instructions quite vague so that the students might understand that GJW was something they were being invited to take control of within their groups. The idea of having three to four members in each group was based on my previous experience using GJW. For instance, when a group consists of four members, each student is supposed to write their entry every four weeks, which would not be a heavy burden on students and the frequency would also be manageable. Moreover, such a small number would make it easier for group members to establish healthy relationships with each other and feel a sense of belonging to the group. Of Johnson and Johnson's (1994) five key components of cooperative learning mentioned above, I considered "positive interdependence" as the most important element to be emphasized especially at the earlier stage of group formation to enhance cohesiveness. Then I distributed one A4 notebook to each group and had the students create a group name for themselves to enhance the group positive interdependence through a shared sense of group identity. The students wrote the name of the group as well as the names of all the members on the front page of the notebook.

Then I gave the students some general guidelines by highlighting three basic premises. The first premise was that both topics and length were free. The students were encouraged to choose any topics they liked and were asked to brainstorm some possible topics with the other members, if necessary. The second was about the procedure of GJW. We made it clear that each member should write about something they chose in the notebook and pass it directly onto the next member the following week. Each member was supposed to receive the notebook every four weeks if the group had four members. The third premise was that GJW would not be an in-class but an exclusively out-of-class activity. The students were told that they would not have time to work on the journal during the class.

A total of 26 students (male: 13, female: 13) were engaged in GJW over one academic year, from April 2010 until January 2011. The students were divided into seven groups, and all the groups consisted of four members except for two groups which had only three members. My involvement in this activity was limited to the first and last classes. What I did in the first class was to explain about the procedure and general guidelines for GJW. In the last class, I simply collected the notebooks from each group and asked the students to answer a questionnaire about their perceptions and experiences of GJW. Each group took full responsibility for running GJW in whatever way they chose within the guidelines. The interaction the students had with the other members and the problems they might have faced were all invisible to me as a teacher throughout the process. The blank notebooks, which I distributed to each group in the first class, were returned to me as completed artifacts in the end. My commitment to GJW was minimized as much as possible to encourage students to gradually realize that GJW was something they were to collaborate on together, creating and negotiating a way of working with each other for mutual achievement.

The seven groups initiated GJW on the same day. However, it became apparent that not all the groups were constantly engaged in GJW. Among the seven, five groups successfully managed to follow the cycle of writing notebook entries without my intervention over one academic year. In those successful groups, the topics they chose at the initial stages were their hobbies and part-time jobs. The excitement and enthusiasm each student had in the first class might have provided a springboard and these positive feelings might have encouraged them to work intensively and closely on GJW. As a result, each member wrote on a regular basis and passed their group notebooks on to the other members on time. On the other hand, the interaction of the two unsuccessful groups was intermittent and resulted in them losing their notebooks. One reason could have been a hesitation to express themselves in English. It might have been intimidating for students who were not very proficient to write something in English and share it with classmates as it would expose their English ability (or lack thereof). A further reason for some groups' failure to keep their journals going may have been that this was not part of the overall coursework requirement, though, in fact, none of the students even checked with me to confirm whether this was the case or not.

### Participants and Methods

Of the five groups that kept their journal exchanges going for the entire year, I chose to analyze the entries of one group which I have called _Group A_. It consisted of four members (male: 2, female: 2) and was selected mainly because it was the most successful group with the largest number of entries in total. All the members contributed to the journal equally and promptly. Together with the number of words the students wrote in each entry, the contents of their writing were analyzed with particular attention to how the pattern of interaction between and among the members changed through the collaboration with the other members as more entries were added.

### Results

In Group A, the notebook was passed among four members (Koji, Yuri, Takeshi, and Mika; pseudonyms) on a regular basis and each member wrote five entries respectively. Table 1 shows the number of words in each entry, together with the average number of words per individual and per entry.

The number of words in each entry varies, but the average length of their entries ranges from a low of 120 to a high of 192 words. Yuri wrote the most in the group with the highest number of 258 words in her second entry, while Takeshi wrote the least (100 words) in his third entry. All of them except for Takeshi wrote the most in their second entries. Regardless of the individual differences, the number of words was gradually decreasing from the third entry onwards; however, all the members consistently wrote more than 100 words in every entry. The diminishing number of words can be interpreted as a sign that they were becoming less motivated; however, the qualitative analysis of GJW demonstrates that the decreasing word count was not necessarily indicative of a lack of motivation.

### Qualitative Analysis

The students were engaged in various forms of co-constructive processes throughout GJW. Two major changes were identified as the group members engaged in regular collaborative interaction over the course of a year. The first was a change in discourse style, from a monologic form of discourse to one which recognized and acknowledged each member's involvement in the group activity. The second major change was in how the four members exchanged roles through dialogue.

### From Monologue to Group Discourse

The first change that was observed was that the monologic discourse style of the early entries was gradually transformed into group discourse through interaction with the other members. In this group, Koji wrote the very first entry in the GJW. Koji does not provide any personal information about himself at all but instead chooses to write a seemingly innocent story about a dog. However, the final line reveals that his intention is that this be read as an allegory about political and social issues in Okinawa. Considering the results of my previous study, that students tend to choose "safe" topics in their first few entries (Hayashi, 2012), it is radical in the sense that he dares to choose such a controversial issue, together with an original metaphor, for his first entry. However, Okinawa might have been a safe topic for Koji especially because he was the first writer and did not know the other group members very well at that point. As he states in lines 1-2, he thinks that he needs to use his imagination in writing about personal experiences in GJW. It is obvious that his first entry has nothing to do with personal information; however, it demonstrates his current interests, revealing his sense of humor, irony and uniqueness.

Figure 1. Koji's First Entry

The next writer, Yuri, started her first entry with a self-introduction. In it, she describes her personality and names her favorite singer, and then uses this as a hook to elicit personal information from her partners. She also responds to Koji's first entry by showing how she admires his imagination and also by trying to find similarities with Koji by asking him if he likes writing stories (ll. 11-12). Then she confesses that her parents' house is close to the U.S. Futenma base in Okinawa. The topic raised by Koji must have come as a shock to Yuri, who is from Okinawa. However, Yuri expresses her opinions about the topic as one of the residents in Okinawa. Before that, the members might have viewed this problem as having nothing to do with them, but their realization that Yuri is from Okinawa would have made an impact on them and led them to consider the problem as relevant to themselves.

Figure 2: Yuri's First Entry

Like Yuri, Takeshi started his first entry with a self-introduction. He also refers to the issue in Okinawa which Koji raised, but simply states that the problem is difficult and defers to the other members immediately. As shown in the last paragraph, he admires both Koji and Yuri for the quality of their writing and then expresses feelings of inferiority with regards to his English ability. The fact that he thinks that his English proficiency level is not so good might be the cause of his reluctance or inability to express his opinions. Whatever the reasons, the closure of his first entry implies that his feelings of inferiority are prompted by his reading of the other members' writings.

Figure 3: Takeshi's First Entry

In the same format and manner as Yuri and Takeshi, Mika starts her first entry with a brief self-introduction in which she names her hobby and favorite singers. She even refers to the club activities she was involved in in her high school days, but the information is very simple and without detailed explanation. Unlike the other members, only Mika can read all the other three members' first entries. She attempts to write her comments in response to two of the members by relating their preferences and experiences to hers. She also adds her opinion about the problem in Okinawa raised by Koji. Like Takeshi, she avoids taking sides on this issue, although, unlike Takeshi, her opinion appears as a moderating summary; she agrees that Futenma is an important problem, but also agrees that the prime minister cannot, indeed should not, hurry to try to solve it. In this way, Mika plays an important role in establishing a norm for the group. Seeing all the others' entries, she chooses which aspects to build on in future entries through her own choice of what to write about herself and what to ask of the others. Given the fact that he did not return to the topic in the later entries, it can be assumed that Koji accepted the norm Mika had started to establish and tacitly agreed not to explore the topic further, which contributed to the construction of the group norm.

Figure 4: Mika's First Entry

Also, a dialogical loop is beginning to emerge as the direct question posed by Mika becomes a prompt for Yuri to write in her second entry. Yuri does not directly answer Mika's question admitting that she has not read any books recently, but she informs Mika that she will read the book she recommended. Then she leaves a message to Takeshi expressing her delight that both of them like the same rock band. She even demonstrates her desire to talk with him about their favorite band face-to-face and tries to find other commonalities with him. As to the controversial political topic of Okinawa raised by Koji, Yuri knows that Koji is interested in it, but she maintains the evolving focus purely on personal experiences and preferences. Compared with her first entry, her writing is more intensified and is devoted to the interactive exchange with each member, which results in her writing most in her second entry (see Table 1).

Figure 5: Yuri's Second Entry

What is interesting in Mika's second entry is that she includes questions that are specifically directed to each member as she tries to find the commonalities between and among them as Yuri has done in her entries. She might have been disappointed to find that only Yuri responded to her question about books (see Appendices for Koji and Takeshi's second entry). However, she still expresses her interest in continuing the dialogue with the members by posing personal questions to each of them. This sends a message about the fact that not only does she read their entries with care but she also values the members of her group and wants to interact with them.

Figure 6: Mika's Second Entry

Moreover, as the interaction continues, Mika more explicitly shows her desire to know more about the members, as can be seen in her third entry. In Mika's third entry, the presence of her partners becomes a more prominent feature. Not only does she devote half the entry to responding to each of them in turn, she also includes portraits of the four group members at the top of the page, a sign of the closeness she feels with all of them. Moreover, Mika responds personally to Koji's account of his experience of climbing up Mt. Fuji by encouraging him to explain his experience in detail. This shows her desire to know more about his personal experience not just at a surface level but at a personal level too. As she changes the form of her interaction patterns, she appears to be inviting Koji to engage in collaborative dialogue. It is as though she has recognized the potential of GJW as a co-constructive process and is encouraging Koji to join in.

Figure 7: Mika's Third Entry

In response to this, Koji elaborates his experience in his next entry. With the photo he took from Mt. Fuji, he explains that the climb was not easy and he and his friends experienced some difficulties, such as hunger and stomachache, on their way to the top of the mountain. This indicates that Koji, who was the most monologic of all the members, is engaging with the other members. Although his style remains more monologic and more idiosyncratic than the others, in this fourth entry he poses a question to the others for the first time. Moreover, in spite of Koji's continuing monologue-style writing, indicative of his strong personality and desire to express his personal opinions and experiences (see Figure 1 and Appendices for his second and third entries), his writing begins to manifest an interactive quality. One possible interpretation of this is that he not only comes to pay attention to the presence of the other members as readers but also he realizes that GJW is something he and the group members collaborate on to create. Although his first entry is a monologue containing his unique ironic style and ideas, his writing style gradually reveals his care and consideration about the other members.

Figure 8: Koji's Fourth Entry

After reading Koji's entry, Mika responds to him with a personal message. She praises the photo he attached and his physical strength (ll. 6-7), which demonstrates that the dialogue is being actively continued. Moreover, this implies that a dialogue is not a "stimulus- response" but a cumulative process. In her fourth entry, Mika intensifies the level of intimacy that has been evolving in the exchanges by disclosing her fears for the future. Mika's fourth entry obviously becomes more personalized with a greater degree of self-disclosure. Unlike her first two entries, which were filled with more positive topics, her fourth entry includes her worry about her own future. This is the first time that she shares her feelings of apprehension with the other members and even asks the others for advice (see the last line). By sharing such sensitive and personal topics, she demonstrates her trust and respect to the others. Moreover, Takeshi's fourth entry about his volleyball team may have been what encouraged her to share negative feelings and experiences (see Appendices for Takeshi's fourth entry), a sequence that Levin and Shanken-Kaye (1996) define as a "parallel process." In this way, the levels of the interchange are gradually shifted from surface to personal levels. The notebook becomes a non-threatening place where Mika and the other group members feel safe and even share both positive and negative feelings as well as experiences. The members are gradually developing their own group discourse as they take aspects of each other's ideas and styles, and disclose their private emotions. The developing discourse also reflects a greater mutual trust among the group members.

Figure 9: Mika's Fourth Entry

### Interactive Role Exchange through Dialogue

The second major change which I think it is possible to identify by closely inspecting the 20 journal entries is that, through the co-constructive process of the group discourse, students interchangeably altered their roles and became role models for each other. It is possible to see the beginnings of this change by first looking at Takeshi's second entry.

Takeshi's second entry remains a monologue filled with personal but factual information. For instance, he relates his experience of commuting when he was a high school student, along with the emotion he had at that time. In his first entry, he hesitantly expressed his inferiority about his English ability (see Figure 3). However, in his second entry, he explicitly states that he is not good at writing (ll. 8-9). After reading all the members' first entries, he might have realized that there are huge differences regarding the quantity and quality of writing between the other members and him, which may have made him feel hesitant and inferior. It will be remembered that all the members except for Takeshi wrote the most in their second entries (see Table 1). As he mentions, his realization about his relative lack of English writing skills forces him to paste a big sticker to cover the space in this entry as well as to disclose his weakness.

Figure 10: Takeshi's Second Entry

After reading Takeshi's entry, Yuri wrote her third entry. What is significant about her third entry is that she chooses to copy the style of Takeshi's second entry (see Figure 10). Takeshi showed his weakness and apprehension about his English writing skills and pasted a sticker in his second entry. However, Yuri does not respond to the shortcomings that he alleges; instead, she pastes an article of her favorite fashion model in the same manner. Her careful and considerate attitude toward Takeshi gives a message that it does not matter whether or not his writing skill is good and that Takeshi can be a source of inspiration for a novel means of self-expression which Yuri might not have thought of by herself. Takeshi becomes a role model for Yuri, which may have enhanced his self-esteem. Similarly, as a facilitator and supporter, Yuri's inclusive manner may enable Takeshi to feel a sense of belonging to the group.

Figure 11: Yuri's Third Entry

In the next entry, Yuri and Takeshi's roles are exchanged. Regardless of the fact that Takeshi's third entry is the shortest of all 20 entries (see Table 1), one of the striking features in this entry is that his writing is transformed from a monologue to a dialogic style. As was seen above, his first two entries were mainly monologic (see Figures 3 & 7) and he seemed unwilling or unable to engage in interaction with the other members. However, in his third entry, he addresses each member by name first and then writes his response to each, which is the same style as Yuri. Although he expressed his inferiority about his English ability in the previous two entries, it seems that he learned some useful expressions and strategies about how to initiate a dialogue through reading Yuri's entries and using them as a model. Peer learning appears to take place naturally as Takeshi integrates what he learned from the other member's entries into his own writing. Unlike his first entry where he does not express his opinions, he comes to expand his writing and continue a dialogue with the members by sharing his preferences and personal experiences.

Figure 12: Takeshi's Third Entry

Role modelling was also observed when Yuri responded directly to Mika's personalized question in her fifth entry. As we saw earlier, Mika expressed a fear about her future in her third entry (see Figure 9). Mika's greater degree of self-disclosure is paralleled by Yuri, who shares her aspirations of becoming an editor for a fashion magazine. Yuri expresses her empathy towards Mika by sharing the additional information that she used to have a dream of becoming a _manga_ artist as depicted at the bottom right corner. Yuri might have experienced the same frustration as Mika, which helps her to express her sympathy and reassure Mika who is still in the process of exploring her own future and is clearly impatient with the situation. In addition, Yuri tries to encourage Mika by pointing out that life at university is not just about study, but is also a great time to explore her potential, emphasizing that they are still growing up.

Figure 13: Yuri's Fifth Entry

Like Yuri, Takeshi also responds to Mika in his fifth entry. As in his second entry (see Figure 7), Takeshi could have ignored Mika's question but this time he chooses to respond to her. He acknowledges that he cannot provide good advice because he has not decided his future dream either; however, he sympathizes with Mika by showing that she is not the only one who is struggling to find what she really wants to do.

Figure 14: Takeshi's Fifth Entry

In her fifth entry, Mika shows her appreciation of Yuri's advice and states that she feels more confident about striving toward her dream (ll. 5-6). Realizing and accepting their differences and weaknesses, both Mika and Yuri respond to each other and share their real emotions and thinking at a much deeper and more personal level. Yuri even demonstrates her willingness to meet and talk (see Figure 13). It is a dynamic process in which one can hear the students' authentic voices and witness the complex interplay of emotions. GJW seems to have helped these students to establish a solid relationship based on mutual trust and sensitivity.

Figure 15: Mika's Fifth Entry

Over the course of a year, the members mutually engaged in GJW as they took on various roles and interchangeably altered these roles. As the analysis shows, Takeshi, who showed his inferiority about his English ability in the initial stages, became a role model for Yuri and she imitated his original style of pasting a sticker of a favorite item. However, on another occasion, Yuri became an advisor or counsellor for Mika when Mika asked for advice about her future. Similarly, Takeshi learned effective strategies for initiating written dialogue from Yuri and Mika, and integrated these strategies into his own writing, with the result that his later entries became interactive. Likewise, Mika encouraged Koji to write more about his personal experiences and got him involved in the loop of dialogical conversation with her. In this way, the members became "near peer role models" (Murphey, 1996) and learned from each other as they supported each other both linguistically and emotionally.

### Discussion

On the basis of the preceding fine-grained analysis, I think it is possible to argue that the writing produced by these four students became more elaborate, detailed, and personal, and was gradually transformed from monologue to collaborative dialogue as they interacted through GJW. Similar to my previous experience of journal writing with second-year high school students (Hayashi, 2012), the four university students chose "safe" topics for their first entries even if they knew that interaction took place only among themselves. However, as has been demonstrated in this series of entries, the members gradually shared their personal experiences and even weaknesses without hiding or pretending behind surface politeness or cynical humor. The intimate relationships the group members established through and beyond GJW enabled them to feel a sense of physical and psychological belonging to the group. They developed close relationships based on mutual trust and respect, and felt comfortable about sharing their personal experiences and emotions.

In the questionnaire distributed at the end of the academic year, Mika wrote: "I would like to continue GJW and know more about the others. Although we sometimes have lunch together and chat a lot, I have found that there are lots of things I still do not know about them." Her comments provide insight into an issue of continuity which I encountered in my earlier journal writing study (Hayashi, 2012). Mika's strong desire to understand the other members better and her realization that GJW enabled her to communicate with them about intimate and private matters worked as a great motivator to get her involved in the project. It may take time for students to come to this realization themselves, but it is important to make students aware of the enjoyment that can be gained by interacting with others and to stimulate their interest in others at the initial stages of the project as this specific moment determines whether or not the project will be a success.

In parallel with the increase in self-disclosure, gradual but dynamic changes were identified in the level of the group members' commitment. Through interaction with the other group members, they gradually increased their degree of self-disclosure and commitment to each other by constantly raising questions and even asking for advice. Then their slightly hesitant but positive manner invited the other members to respond and share more personal information. In the later entries, the exchange Mika had with Koji included her encouragement to reveal more about his personal experiences. This demonstrates not only that she was actively involved in interaction with Koji but also that she contributed to the constructive process of the interaction pattern by inviting him to explore their common experiences further. In this way, the group members gradually explored and co-constructed their own patterns of interaction. The monologue became collaborative dialogue where group members interchanged their personal experiences as well as both positive and negative feelings. As they disclosed their preferences, apprehensions and needs, the members realized the similarities, accepted differences and discovered new aspects of each other.

GJW, designed and implemented with the aim of engendering personal development and collaborative learning, enabled the students to work closely with each other. Although introduced and implemented by me as the teacher, the students took the initiative and co-constructed their original form of GJW as they gradually found commonalities with the other members and connected to each other. Also, they integrated the other members' ways of writing and content into their own writing style and expanded their spiral processes of dialogue. Through constant interchange with the other group members, the members were actively involved in GJW as they played different roles and mutually and interactively changed their roles. Of course, the strong bond they established is not owing only to the GJW given that the class met once a week and the students had a chance to see each other at least every week. As to Group A, moreover, the four students even went out together to see fireworks in the summer (see Figure 7 and Appendix for the members' reflections and comments about this social outing). Thus, besides the GJW, they had social contact and this also assisted them in bonding together.

As has been described previously, not all the groups successfully engaged in GJW. This might have been partly due to the "free" nature of GJW. It was entirely up to every single member of the group to determine whether or not GJW would become a successful experience. If these groups had had members who were willing to work on this free style of activity, or expected to have fun in GJW, their GJW may have been a more positive experience. However, if some members tried to exert strong control over GJW or were reluctant to work with the other members, the group would be more likely to end up losing its way. Moreover, inconsiderate attitudes in some groups may have prevented students from creating trusting relationships with the other members and even resulted in affecting the motivation of the group as a whole.

In order to avoid such negative consequences, the involvement of the teacher is a key factor. In this study, GJW was introduced as a completely out-of-class activity. However, if it had been introduced as part of an in-class activity, this would have worked as a reminder especially for those who tended to forget to bring their notebooks or who did not work seriously on GJW. Another solution is to have students sit together with their group members in the class and talk about the experiences they wrote about in their group journal notebooks. This would be an opportunity for the members to interact with each other face-to-face, as they could ask follow-up questions and get further information which is seldom available only through the written form of interaction. Moreover, this could be further expanded in the form of a newsletter. If the newsletter featured each member's favorite story and was distributed to all the students regularly, they could share their personal and authentic stories not only within the group but also as a whole class. This would require the students' consent in advance; however, it could help to expand the network of friendship between the students.

### Conclusion

GJW became a very dynamic and collaborative project for this group of four students thanks to each member's unique contribution and involvement. Unexpected encounters through written interaction became triggers for dialogue between and among the group members. Their interest in continuing and extending dialogue with the other members became more intensified and resulted in transforming the discourse form from monologue to collaborative dialogue. Playing different roles and interactively supporting each other, the members gradually negotiated topics of interest for the group and also co-constructed the group discourse as they mutually established their shared group norms. Throughout the process, they empowered each other, kept all the members involved in the spiral pattern of collaborative dialogue, and took joint control over their own GJW as a mutually constructed product.

### References

Bloom, B. S. (1956). _Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain_. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Bradley, A. (2006). Developing learner and teacher autonomy through student journaling. In E. M. Skier & M. Kohyama (Eds.), _More autonomy you ask!_ (pp. 185-202). Tokyo: Japan Association of Language Teacher (JALT) Learner Development SIG.

Carpenter, C., & Stephenson, J. (2006). Reflection and dialogue: Supporting autonomy with reflective journals. _Dokkyo University Foreign Language Research Center, Studies in Foreign Language Teaching, 24_ , 133-164.

Hayashi, C. (2012). Transformative learning in action: Insights from the practice of journal writing. In K. Irie & A. Stewart (Eds.), _Realizing autonomy: Practice and reflection in language education contexts_ (pp. 94-106). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). _Learning together and alone, cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning_. Needham Heights, MA: Prentice-Hall.

Kose, S., Sahin, A., Ergu, A., & Gezer, K. (2010). The effects of cooperative learning experience on eight grade students' achievement and attitude toward science. _Education, 131_ , 169-180.

Levin, L., & Shanken-Kaye, J. L. (1996). _The self-control classroom: Understanding and managing the disruptive behavior of all students_. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Moon, J. A. (1999). _Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice_. London: Kogan Page.

Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative vs cooperative learning. http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm

Stephenson, J. (2006). Critical reflection: Developing teacher and learner autonomy through journals and newsletters. In E. M. Skier & M. Kohyama (Eds.), _More autonomy you ask!_ (pp. 185-202). Tokyo: Japan Association of Language Teacher (JALT) Learner Development SIG.

Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? _Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10_ , 78-89.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). _Mind in society_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

### Appendix

Koji's 2nd entry

Koji's 3rd entry

Yuri's 4th entry

Takeshi's 4th entry

Koji's 5th entry

### Chapter 7

The Role of Collaboration in a Learner Autonomy Programme /学習者の自律を高める授業での協働的作業の役割

Chris Fitzgerald & Martin Mullen

### Abstract

The role that collaborative learning (CL) can play in helping students develop a capacity for autonomy has been underrepresented in research related to CL. While learner autonomy was traditionally viewed as an individual learning behavior, the last three decades have seen the emergence of the belief that autonomy is a capacity for independent learning that, while inherently individual, can still be fostered through working with others. From the research, it was evident to the authors that there existed a significant overlap between the learning skills developed through CL and the characteristics needed to be more autonomous learners. This paper details the attempts by the researchers to implement CL projects in a Learner Autonomy course, in the belief that the behaviours and outcomes of CL activities would be beneficial to the students in terms of their development as autonomous learners. Including aspects of CL in the course proved to be both a challenging and rewarding task for all participants. The design and outcomes of the projects are described and analysed from the perspectives of both the teachers and the students. It was observed that, as a result of engaging in these projects, students benefitted from being exposed to different approaches to learning in terms of developing a wider range of learning resources and strategies, consequently improving their ability to make appropriate selections to meet a particular learning need.

学生の自律性を高めるための協働学習(CL)の役割は協働学習(CL)の研究分野では過小評価されている。学習者の自律性は従来一人で学習することだとみなされてきたが、ここ二,三十年、学習者の自律性は、本質的に個々だが、他と学習することによっても培われる能力であるという考えが出た。この研究から、協働学習(CL)を通し高めた学習能力とより自律性のある学習者になるための特性には重要な共通点があるということが本稿で明らかになった。本稿では、協働学習(CL)の活動により得た成果は学生がより自律性のある学習者になるためにも有益であるという考えのもとに、自立学習の授業に協働学習(CL)のプロジェクトを取り入れた試みである。全ての学生にとって、簡単なものではないが成果のある課題でもあった協働学習(CL)の側面についても述べている。この試みの計画と結果については教師と学生両方の視点から説明、分析されている。このようなプロジェクトを通し、学生たちはより多くの情報を得て、新しい勉強方法にふれ、結果として自分が学びたい内容をどのような勉強方法を通し学ぶのかを選び取る能力を高めることができたと言える。

### Introduction

Research into collaborative learning (CL) has been conducted across a variety of educational contexts, and the recorded merits include increased levels of intellectual performance (Vygotsky, 1978), higher levels of thought and information retention (Johnson & Johnson, 1986), and more stimulated thinking processes (Gokhale, 1995). However, research into the role that CL can play in fostering learner autonomy is scarce. This paper will outline the use of CL tasks in a Learner Autonomy course at Meisei University in Tokyo and, through analysis of our students' performance with and reflections on the tasks, will examine the effectiveness of the tasks in helping our students become more autonomous.

### The Relationship between Collaboration and Autonomy

Research indicates that learning while collaborating with others has a number of advantages over learning alone, and enhances various aspects of learners' abilities to learn. Some of these advantages include developing critical thinking (Totten, Sills, Digby, & Russ, 1991), performance at higher intellectual levels (Vygotsky, 1978; Johnson & Johnson, 1986), reduced anxiety when solving problems (Gokhale, 1995), and higher levels of information retention (Johnson & Johnson, 1986). Particularly significant was Bruner's claim that working together can help to improve problem-solving strategies, as the students are confronted with different interpretations of the situation (Bruner, 1985). Based on research such as this, we believe that collaborative learning can be effective in fostering students' development as autonomous learners.

Autonomy is defined as "the capacity to control or take charge of one's learning" (Benson, 2011, p. 14). This includes the capacity to make appropriate decisions over the management of one's own learning, and also the ability to find and select the learning strategies and resources which best support one's learning efforts. Traditionally, however, language learning classrooms have not placed significant value on either fostering the development of these capacities, or allowing autonomous students meaningful opportunities to exercise that autonomy.

Indeed, given the necessity for the student to be free from the control or direction of others, emphasis was placed on the importance of the student working on their own. By the late 1980's, autonomy in language learning suffered what Benson (2011, p. 14) termed "a crisis of identity", with researchers divided between those who considered autonomy as situational behavior, such as Riley and Zoppis (1985) and Dickinson (1987) who argued that autonomy was characterized by individual and independent study, versus those who viewed autonomy as a capacity rather than a behaviour (Holec, 1985). Other research which questioned the idea that autonomy is something developed primarily in isolation includes Rowsell and Libben, who argue that "learning in isolation is a poor way to acquire a language" (1994, p. 668), and Little (2000), who contends that if language learners are working by themselves and social interaction plays no role in their learning, the likelihood of developing their capacity for autonomy or even improving their language proficiency, is significantly reduced. We have come to believe that, although autonomy is inherently different for each individual, it can still be achieved through collaborative activity.

As teachers responsible for helping our students become more autonomous in their learning, we asked ourselves what approaches would best facilitate our learners in their development. A frequently cited quote from Gokhale (1995, p. 29) argues that, for CL to be effective, the teacher "must view teaching as a process of developing and enhancing students' ability to learn." We found that Gokhale's position on teaching in CL closely mirrors our perception of our role as teachers on the autonomy course, and that there is often a significant overlap in the skills that the teacher is trying to promote among the learners in both CL and in facilitating learners' autonomous development. Consequently, we were interested in applying a collaborative approach to the learner autonomy course we have been teaching for three years and investigating the potential benefits this approach would have for our learners.

### The Context of the Study

This study was carried out within the context of the two-year "Learner Autonomy" course, which is compulsory for students who are enrolled in the International Studies Department at Meisei University. The degree aims to "improve our students' language and communication skills and enrich their understanding of different cultures" (Meisei University, 2013). Students take a variety of courses such as Literature, Cultural Anthropology, and International Relations. Our positions involve overseeing both English language classes and the Learner Autonomy course.

The course aims to foster autonomy among the students by helping them develop their capacities to make more active and informed choices about how to learn more effectively. As all the students share a common goal of English language learning, we use their language studies as an example of how they can practically apply the skills they will develop during the course. It is important to stress to our students that the course is not explicitly an English language course, and the skills they will develop in the course are applicable to any part of their studies. To emphasize this, as each resource is introduced, students are encouraged to regularly discuss how these skills and resources such as note-taking, time management and reviewing can be effectively applied to the other subjects they study at Meisei University, and we reinforce this message frequently. Students are encouraged to experiment with and reflect on their experiences with these resources in terms of their appropriateness for the student's individual learning needs and goals.

In class discussions and also on blogs set up specifically for the purpose, students reflect on their class performance each week, and, in addition make periodic comments on their overall impressions of and engagement with the course. Through this process of experimentation and reflection, the intention is that the students will develop a deeper understanding of their own learning and become better equipped to make decisions regarding the management of their learning. As course designers and teachers we believe that collaborative projects and activities are crucial in helping the students develop as autonomous learners by developing, reinforcing and expanding upon the skills they acquire during the course.

Given our students' varied and often limited proficiency in English, we allow our students to use Japanese when working together in their groups. This allows every student to participate fully in all aspects of the group's work, and ensures that they are not hindered in their development of the skills each project is designed to foster. It also helps the teachers to avoid inadvertently assessing students on their English ability rather than on their performance in-group work. At the completion of each project, each group delivers a presentation to the other groups in the class, resulting in every group being exposed to different resources and a variety of perspectives on each task. To link the content of the course with the students' English studies in other classes, the presentations are delivered in English. Each class has a paid teaching assistant who has previously completed the Learner Autonomy course as a student, and their responsibilities include assisting teachers with the monitoring of Japanese language discussions. Particularly for teachers whose Japanese proficiency might not enable them to satisfactorily assess students' individual contributions, the teaching assistant's role can be vital in providing feedback to teachers on the performance of individual students in each group during these discussions, and on the progress each group is making regarding the development of the skills the projects are designed to foster.

Early in the first semester of the first year, all students spend one class designing a study plan to help them manage their learning more effectively. We want them to think about the resources and facilities and time available to them. We ask our students to do this to help them understand that making decisions regarding their own learning is an integral element of the course, and also to allow us to measure our students' existing awareness of learning resources and capacity to manage their own studies. These study plans tend be limited in the range of materials used, often over-reliant on a small number of resources, and designed without much thought as to how time can be allocated appropriately. However, we can use these plans to help us identify individual students' predispositions towards what constitutes effective learning.

Over the next five to seven weeks, students are exposed to a number of reading and listening resources. These include resources such as BBC's Words in the News and One Stop English, as well as authentic resources like the Japan Times website and podcasts covering a range of topics which are available from websites such as www.npr.org. At the same time, through having our students complete a modified version of Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1990), we introduce our students to different language learning strategies, and ask them to apply these strategies as they explore the new resource. Their weekly reflections focus on the appropriateness of these resources and strategies for their own learning styles.

Each semester of the course includes one collaborative project. These projects take three to four classes to complete and consolidate the first six to seven weeks of experimentation with resources. They are designed to help students evaluate the resources they have been exposed to, and maximise the learning potential of these resources. These projects give students an opportunity for meaningful use of the resources and strategies in a controlled environment, which benefits the students when they reach the final stage of each semester, in which students design and implement a three-week individual study plan. In the remainder of this paper, we will outline the aims and structures of two of the collaborative projects we have implemented in the course. We will describe how data was collected from students, teachers, and teaching assistants, and explain how our analysis of the data leads us to believe that these projects have been successful in helping our students take a more informed and active role in their own learning.

### Project 1: Design a Worksheet

After the students have experimented with the resources mentioned above in the first part of the course, we introduce a project designed to help them gain a more in-depth knowledge of how the learning potential of a resource can be maximised. The project asks students to select a resource from those introduced earlier in the semester, and design an English language worksheet which will help other students to use that resource successfully. We explain to the students that collaborating on this project will allow them to be exposed to a variety of learning resources and will improve their ability to evaluate the effectiveness of these resources, while completing each other's worksheets at the end of their project will raise their awareness of different learning styles.

We ask the students to create a list of three resources they have an initial preference for using, and we then use these preferences to make groups of students with similar preferences. Once these groups have formed, we allow them a few minutes to discuss their preferences and find further areas of agreement. It is made clear to each group that its members have a shared goal of producing a worksheet, and that members must work together to ensure that it is appealing, well designed, and contains material that other students will learn from.

As the students continue to discuss the project, both the teacher and assistant speak with the groups, encouraging them to select a specific resource such as a particular graded reader, podcast, or an article on the BBC website. We highlight the importance of having a good understanding of whatever resource they have chosen to help them create a suitable and useful worksheet.

Once the students have begun to design the actual worksheet, our role is to observe and monitor their discussions and progress. We are looking for evidence that our students are collaborating to actively find and share resources in their groups, evaluate these resources, and come to an agreement on which is most suitable for the task. From this point, we measure the effectiveness of the collaborative aspect of the project by evaluating the extent to which group members are suggesting activities, assessing the merits of these activities, and negotiating the overall design of the worksheet.

We direct the members of each group to individually find resources to be shared with and evaluated by the group regarding their suitability. We also advise them to examine the way material has been presented in the resources they have seen in both the Learner Autonomy course and their other courses and textbooks (such as vocabulary matching activities, listening comprehension exercises, or discussion tasks, etc.) in terms of how the activities relate to, reinforce, or expand upon the language points of a particular topic. We ask them to consider incorporating these into their worksheet. Finally, we check the worksheets to ensure that they will be comprehensible to the other students (See Appendix A for an example of a finished worksheet which includes an explicit focus on target grammar, speaking activities to practice the grammar, appropriate use of engaging online material, and an interesting extension activity).

A copy of each worksheet is distributed to the other groups in the class, who complete a brief written evaluation of it. Each group member also uses their blog to reflect on the quality of their contributions to discussions and the suitability of their worksheet for the class members. These blog posts are completed in class to ensure that all students take time to reflect on all aspects of the project.

### Project 2: Study Management

In the second year of the course, we continue to expose our students to a range of resources, which will help them to build up a bank of study options. These options include learning strategies and useful learning resources, both online and offline, which are applicable to a range of learning situations. Later in the first semester, when we believe that our students are equipped to make meaningful decisions regarding learning challenges, they collaborate on a project which aims to improve the students' ability to manage their own learning more effectively. In this project, the students are presented with the profile of a fictitious student at their university, named Daisuke, with his own interests, learning needs and goals. The students work together to create a study plan which manages time efficiently and uses learning resources which are appropriate for Daisuke's needs. We make it clear to the students that completing this project will involve suggesting suitable resources, evaluating these resources, and appropriately matching resources with Daisuke's learning needs and the time available to him. We explain that the resources they will be exposed to and the focus on time management will improve their capacity to plan and manage their own learning.

To help us to create effective groups, Daisuke's learner profile and university schedule are first distributed to each student individually, and the general aim of the project is explained to the class. After giving students some time to jot down some of their initial suggestions on paper, the teacher then uses these ideas to create groups consisting of students with a range of different ideas and perspectives on the problem. Once these groups have been formed, the teacher then gives the groups a more detailed handout with information on how long they have to complete the study management plan, and how their plan will be evaluated. The handout also explains that each group will present their plan to the other groups in the class, and every group will present and receive feedback from their peers.

The collaborative aspect of the project begins at this point. The students collaborate to analyse Daisuke's learning needs, time limitations, and his likes and dislikes. Based on this analysis, group members work together to select materials which will be appropriate for Daisuke. We have found that in the early stages of the project, groups tend to select resources based mainly on Daisuke's learning needs, without enough consideration as to whether this resource is something he will have the time, facilities, and desire to use. Consequently, once each group has selected resources, either the teacher or the assistant will join the group and spend some time encouraging them to justify their selections in terms of their appropriateness for the learner profile. Rather than just matching resources with Daisuke's learning needs, we believe it is important that the students are engaged in collaborative organization of the materials into a coherent and feasible study plan. This intervention ensures that group members spend the necessary amount of time thinking critically about appropriate time management. This intervention by the teacher or assistant helps us to gauge their individual and collective engagement with the project, but more importantly, serves as an example of the depth of analysis and justification the teacher expects from the group for each resource selected. The teacher and assistant continue to monitor the groups to evaluate each student's engagement in and contribution to collaborative analysis of Daisuke's needs and selection and organisation of learning materials. Examples of contributions which demonstrate engagement with the project include appropriate reference to aspects of Daisuke's profile, selection of suitable materials, and judicious use of his available time. In assessing the collaborative project, teachers and teaching assistants looked for concrete contributions from individuals, examples of which include suggesting specific materials or activities, valid appraisals of these suggestions, and input regarding the layout of the worksheet. The teachers' interventions help to make clear how collaborative activity can facilitate deeper analysis and selection of materials for a particular student's needs.

Prior to their presentations, we encourage students to focus on the language and skills necessary for them to ensure the content of their presentation will be clearly understood by the other groups. After the presentations, each student uses their blog to comment on their ability to analyze and evaluate the appropriateness of resources, and the quality of their contributions to discussions. Having completed this project and received both peer and teacher feedback, students spend the following weeks designing or redesigning their own study management plans, applying the skills which they developed during the collaborative project.

### Data Analysis and Findings

The data comprised of teacher and teaching assistant observations of group performance during each project, as well as students' reflections on the project, and their responses to an end-of-semester survey (see Appendix B). In addition, teachers collected peer feedback sheets, and also students' comments in counseling periods, which the students were free to complete in Japanese or English. These sources of student feedback, as well as the teachers' observations, are used to investigate the effectiveness of the project in facilitating our students' improvement in the skills the course promotes.

Project 1: From examination of the end of semester survey which gauged students' impressions of the different aspects of the course, we found out that, of the 97 first-year students in our classes, 73 students (75%) had a favorable impression of the group project they completed, in comparison with the 58 students (60%) who had a positive impression of the self-study period of the course. Some of the positive feedback received about the collaborative project indicated that students enjoyed the creative element of the project and valued sharing ideas and negotiating the content of the worksheet. Some comments from students' blog reflections offered further insight into their impressions of the project. Two students commented that they didn't feel they had enough exposure to materials to help them design a good worksheet, which reinforced the teacher's observation that some students needed more time analyzing different learning materials before they felt confident enough to develop their own.

The aim of the observations was to measure the extent to which group members were suggesting activities, assessing the merits of these activities, and negotiating the overall design of the worksheet. The teachers observed that at each stage of the project, 85-91 of the 97 students (87-93%) made concrete contributions, examples of which included suggesting specific materials or activities, valid appraisals of these suggestions, and input regarding the layout of the worksheet.

A number of students wrote about what they considered to be positive points of the project. One student commented, "I learned from my partner a better way to organize vocabulary," while another wrote, "It helped me to think about how I can get more from a resource." One student reflected, "Doing the other worksheets helped me find new ways to think about my learning." Comments such as these lead us to believe that this collaborative project is benefitting the students by helping them to better understand their own learning styles and develop a more critical standpoint when assessing materials for their learning potential.

Project 2: The same data collection method as the first project was used by the teachers to examine the effectiveness of the study management project. Question three on the end of semester survey asked: "Did you prefer the individual or group aspects of the course? Why?" Sixty-seven out of 86 (78%) second-year students (over two years) preferred the group aspect. One reason given was that the project "helped me to understand how to use resources in different ways." Another student commented that through group discussions, she "got a better understanding of how to manage time more effectively." One frequent comment was that watching the presentations allowed students to both discover new resources and see familiar resources being utilized in different ways.

On the other hand, of the 19 students who preferred the individual aspects of the course, most enjoyed the freedom to work by themselves and have greater control over the decisions which concerned them. One significant comment was, "I didn't feel confident enough to be critical of other people's contributions." This matched the observations of group discussions by the teachers, who noted that, despite encouragement, levels of contribution varied significantly at times, even with students whose performance in other classes and courses was generally of a high standard. One of the positive observations involved students identifying parallels between Daisuke's needs and their own, and consequently becoming more interested in the material, with one student explaining, "The material we found to help Daisuke with his writing will help me too." Another student stated, "I found a better website for practicing my listening than before", revealing that students were becoming more capable of discounting materials as unsuitable for a particular learning need or goal. Crucially, the comments also indicate that the students were aware of the positive impact the project had had on their ability to select and evaluate materials.

In their end-of-semester reflection, students were asked to comment on the differences between their recently completed study plan and the plan they had created early in their first year. All students felt that their recent study plan was an improvement on their first plan. Reasons given and comments made regarding this improvement lead us to conclude that by collaborating with and learning from other members of their groups, students improved their capacity to manage their own study time. These reasons and comments included feeling that their plans were more appropriate, and that collaborating on the project had helped them develop a wider range of resources from which to choose when making their own plan. An interesting comment from one student was that, as a result of hearing students' ideas about time management, "my plan is smarter and less cluttered." Another student wrote, "We found some useful website when doing the Daisuke project." From comments such as these, and from our comparison of both sets of study plans, we concluded that students had a better understanding of what is actually achievable in their available study time, resulting in study plans that they felt they were more likely to actually follow.

### Discussion and Conclusions

As mentioned, the Learner Autonomy course at Meisei University aims to develop our students' ability to think critically about their learning, and enable them to make appropriate decisions regarding their own studies. In previous years, both teachers and students had found the course challenging. For language teachers who were generally not familiar with facilitating autonomous learning, the aims of the course, while admirable, were vague and difficult for us to realize in the classroom. Similarly, for students whose previous exposure to the concept of autonomy is limited, the aims were rather abstract and the benefits of the course were not always immediately apparent to them. The consequence of this mutual struggle was a course lacking in energy and cohesion.

By the end of our first semester teaching the course, both of us had agreed that we wanted to change the way we delivered the course. As teachers, we wanted to develop an approach to help the students identify with the course aims, to make the content more relevant, and to make the classes more interactive. Having observed our students respond positively to collaborative tasks in other classes, we believed that introducing elements of collaborative learning into the autonomy course would help to address these issues. Based on the data provided by our students as well as our own observations and those of the teaching assistants, we are convinced that the collaborative tasks we have introduced have been effective in helping us improve both our and our students' performances. Feedback from the students indicates they feel that what they learned about time management and material selection during the collaborative projects has improved their capacity to make decisions regarding their own learning, particularly in relation to choosing suitable study resources. We have observed that the students are more willing to participate, and are more engaged with the skills we want them to develop than they previously were. From our perspective as teachers, the extent to which students have started to see each other as sources of information has encouraged us to continue to develop the collaborative aspect of the course.

Although we are satisfied that the implementation of the collaborative tasks has alleviated some of the existing issues with the course, we have also encountered some of the concerns associated with collaborative learning. While many students have benefitted from the supportive environment of group discussions, some students, perhaps due to a lack of either confidence or motivation, were reluctant to participate in group tasks. As well as affecting the dynamic of discussions even among members who are willing to participate, the group may feel obliged to accept a lower standard of contribution to accommodate the reluctant students. From a teaching perspective, we have concerns that the extent to which students are willing to criticize, negotiate and compromise, will be negatively affected. Linked to this concern is our worry that we have not yet developed an appropriate system for evaluating individual students based on their contributions to the collaborative projects. We will continue to work with our assistants to arrive at an accurate grade, but in the future we are considering revisiting the projects' evaluation criteria to combine both group and peer-assessment at the end of group projects. By doing this, we will be able to base our evaluation on both "the quality or quantity of a change in a group as a whole" as well as "the quality or quantity of a change in a student" (Johnson & Johnson, 2004, p. 2), and place greater emphasis on individual accountability within the group performance.

In this paper, we have outlined how we have implemented aspects of collaborative learning in our teaching context, and have described how this approach has resulted in both positive and negative changes to the dynamics of the classroom. While we will continue to refine the way we deliver the course and assess the effectiveness of its different elements, we are satisfied that the introduction of collaborative learning has been a success evident both to us and the students themselves, and it will continue to play a central role in the Learner Autonomy course in the future.

### References

Benson, P. (2011). _Teaching and researching autonomy_ (2nd ed.). London: Longman.

Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: An historical conceptual perspective. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), _Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives_ (pp. 21-34). London: Cambridge University Press.

Dickinson, L. (1987). _Self-instruction in language learning_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), _Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches_ (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. _Journal of Technology Education, 7_ , 22-30.

Holec, H. (1981). _Autonomy in foreign language learning_. Oxford: Pergamon.

Holec, H. (1985). On autonomy: Some elementary concepts. In P. Riley (Ed.), _Discourse and learning_ (pp. 173-90). London: Longman

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. _Science and Children, 24_ , 31-32.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Assessing students in groups: Promoting group responsibility and individual accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Little, D. (2000). Strategies, counselling and cultural difference: Why we need an anthropological understanding of learner autonomy. In R. Ribe (Ed.), _Developing learner autonomy in foreign language learning_ (pp. 17-33). Barcelona: University of Barcelona.

Meisei University (2013). Retrieved from: http://www.meiseiu.ac.jp/english/academics/ hum/int.html

Oxford, R. (1990). _Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know_. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Riley, P., & Zoppis, C. (1985). The sound and video library. In P. Riley (Ed.), _Discourse and learning_ (pp. 296-98). London: Longman.

Rowsell, L. V., & Libben, G. (1994). The sound of one hand clapping: How to succeed in independent language learning. _Canadian Modern Language Review, 50_ , 668-88.

Slavin, R. E. (1985). Team-assisted individualization: Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction in mathematics. In R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), _Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn_ (pp.177-209). New York: Plenum.

Slavin, R. E. (1989). Research on cooperative learning: An international perspective. _Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33_ , 231-243.

Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). _Cooperative learning: A guide to research_. New York: Garland.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds), _Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes_ (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

### Appendix A: Project 1 Worksheet

**Thursday 4th period Ic** Momoko, Kumi, and Hiro

On a scale of 1-10, please decide how good/honest a person you are. Tell your group your answer.

__________________________________________________

**Grammar** \- Conditional sentences (条件) using I will / I would

1. If it rains tomorrow I _________________ buy an umbrella. (real situation)

2. If I won the lottery, I __________________ go on a long vacation. (unreal situation)

**Speaking** — please ask and answer questions with your classmates.

What would you do if __________________________________________________?

-You found a wallet full of money on the street?

-You knew a classmate was cheating in an exam?

-You__________________________________________________

**Watching** \- Please watch the **youtube** clips.

1. If this was me, I would__________________________________________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmOrRbVXwbk

2. If this happened to me__________________________________________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aEup05wygw

3. If I was in this situation, __________________________________________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p8VpDGAY_U

**Speaking** \- Can you think of a funny situation like this for the TV show? Please talk with your group and create an idea together.

### Appendix B: End-of-semester Survey

Meisei University

**Name:** _______________________

**C class - self-evaluation survey.** 自己評価アンケート

Over the first 10 weeks, many different resources were introduced in the class. These ranged from graded readers, to blogging, to using music to help you study, and a personal project.  
10週がたち、この授業ではグレイデッドリーダーズ、ブログ、音楽を使用した学習、個人による学習計画といった多様で沢山の異なる教材が紹介されました。

  1. Which of the activities in the course did you find most beneficial? Why?

授業で、どの学習活動が一番役に立ちましたか?何故でしょうか?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Do you think that the reflection time after the class activities has helped you understand more about the way you like to study? How did it help?

授業の最後の時間に、設けるリフレクションタイムは自分にあった学習法を理解するのに役に立ったと思いますか?どのように役に立ちましたか?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Did you prefer the individual or group aspects of the course? Why?  
授業では、個人で学習する機会とグループで学習する機会がありました。どちらのほうが好きでしたか。また、それは何故でしょうか。

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Which of the resources in the course did you choose not to use in your self-study periods? Why not?  
今まで紹介された教材の中で、どの教材が自己学習において選択されなかったでしょうか?それは何故でしょうか?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Outside the classroom, do you use any of the activities/websites introduced in class? Which ones?  
教室以外で、授業で紹介されたウェブサイトを使いましたか?どのウェブサイトを使いましたか__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

**(This question is to be answered by second-year students only)**  
6. Compare your study plan with the plan you made in the first year of the course. What changes, if any, do you notice? Why do you think your plan has changed like this?  
今の学習計画と、一年目に作った学習計画を見比べてみてください。変化はありますか。どのような変化ですか。どうしてこのように変化したと思いますか。

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Any other comments in Japanese (voluntary) その他コメントがあったら日本語で書いてください(任意):

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

### Chapter 8

Evaluating In-House Materials for Collaborative Learning / 協働学習を育成する教材開発とその評価

Mathew Porter

### Abstract

This action research study assesses the effectiveness of in-house materials called Study Bundles, designed for use in collaborative learning communities and comprised of activities introducing items and strategies to prepare for the Test of English for International Communication. The study consisted of a student-based evaluation of in-house materials to determine if the materials met students' needs and a results-based evaluation aimed at identifying whether the Study Bundles successfully supported collaborative learning. Participants in the study were 33 first-year students and 29 third-year students from the same department at a women's university in western Japan who were participating in collaborative learning communities as a regular course requirement. The student-based evaluation relied on multiple surveys and focus groups, and it revealed discord between student needs and materials designers' intentions. The results-based evaluation was based on an analysis of three video-recorded sessions which showed that the Study Bundles were not very successful at creating opportunities for interaction supportive of collaborative learning. A uniform activity was introduced at the end of all in-house materials to respond to student needs and to support opportunities for collaborative learning in the sessions. Concrete steps informed by both evaluations can also be taken to revise activities in the Study Bundles.

このアクションリサーチは 協働学習コミュニティにおける使用を目的として作られ、TOEICを受験する為の戦略を導入する反復練習を取り入れた、"Study Bundles"と呼ばれる自主開発教材の有効性を評価するものである。この研究は教材が学生の必要性と一致しているかを決める自主開発教材の学生の評価とStudy Bundlesが協働学習に上手く適応できているかを確認する事を目的とされた結果評価から成り立つものである。この研究の参加者は必修教科として協働学習に参加している西日本の女子大の同じ学部の33人の一年生と29人の三年生である。学生評価は複数の調査とグループに焦点をあてたものであったが、学生の必要性と教材作成者の意図と一致しないことを露呈した。結果に基づいた評価は3つのビデオの分析に基づいているが、これは"Study Bundles"が協働学習の支えとなるやり取りの機会を作り出すという点においては成功したとは言えなかった。期間中、学生の必要性に反応し、協働学習の機会を支えていくように統一のアクティビティが自主開発教材の最後に導入された。また、両方の評価でわかった具体的なステップが"Study Bundles"のアクティビティを見直すためには必要である。

### Introduction

The Global Communication Department (GCD) is a new department at our university focusing on English communication and basic business and IT skills. The department uses the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) to assess students' English ability once they are admitted to the program and requires students to achieve a minimum score before graduation. Students, particularly in their first and second years, spend considerable time in English-only language classes and are expected to make use of our English-only Self-Access Learning Center (SALC). Throughout their four years, students will take the TOEIC as many as four times a year to measure their English progress. Some students see considerable gains over these years, but many students often do not and it can be a source of stress and demotivation. This has been a concern for teaching and advising staff at our center.

These staff members were impressed when they heard about a peer tutoring program introduced by Manning (2011) at Shimane Prefectural University, in which trained peer or near-peer tutors worked with remedial, non-major English language learners to pass a make-up TOEIC preparation class. The staff members adapted the program (Porter, Rose, & Schmidt, 2014) to provide first-year GCD students with an opportunity to participate in collaborative learning communities with third-year students. The development team, made up of three teachers and a learning advisor, believed that if students of different ages and abilities engaged in language learning activities together, this would result in improved study skills, higher motivation, and an increased sense of camaraderie, making it easier for students across the cohorts to see each other as potential learning resources. We believed that younger students would benefit from the guidance of older students, who would play a mentoring role, and older students would benefit from reinforcing existing knowledge and finding ways to help the younger students understand. Most importantly, the development team hoped that these communities would benefit those lower proficiency students who in the past had been more likely to display low levels of engagement, be chronically absent, or drop out from the program altogether.

Collectively called the Collaborative Learning Project (CLP), these learning communities used in-house materials called Study Bundles so that the groups would have a goal to work towards during each session and so that participation in the CLP, which was mandatory, could be assessed fairly. Each Study Bundle was a collection of activities designed to introduce skills and strategies for the TOEIC Listening and Reading test.

### Study Bundles

The development team created three Study Bundle categories: Reading, Listening, and Other, with four bundles in each category, totaling 12 bundles (Table 1). The 3-5 page Study Bundles included activities meant to raise awareness of strategies and language features for TOEIC study similar to those found in Trew (2008). An additional introductory bundle in the Other category, which focused on discussing previous experiences studying for the TOEIC, was used to introduce the project to all students.

The motivation for this action research study was the fear that students might end up working on the Study Bundles in silence and then just checking answers with little or no meaningful interaction. The aim of this study was to gather and analyze data that would show how well the materials supported collaborative learning in order to suggest ways they could be improved for the next implementation of the project. It sought to answer the following questions:

(1) What do our students want to study in groups?

(2) Do our materials support collaborative learning in our context?

### Collaborative Learning

In order to evaluate whether our materials encouraged collaborative learning (CL), we first need to define CL so that we would recognize it in action. However, as other chapters in this collection show, defining collaborative learning is not an easy task. Oxford (1997) examined three "communication strands" found in the language learning classroom: cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction, and showed how each is different in terms of their intellectual antecedents, purpose, degree of structure, relationships, prescriptiveness of activities, key concepts, and applications in the classroom. Of collaborative learning, she says it is undertaken to "acculturate learners into a learning community" where they will "engage with 'more capable others' [...] who provide assistance and guidance" as opposed to cooperative learning which "enhances cognitive skills via a set of known techniques" (p. 444). In listing key terms used when talking about the three communication strands, Oxford (1997) includes _positive interdependence_ , _accountability_ , and _cooperative learning structures_ under cooperative learning and Vygotsky's _zone of proximal development_ (ZPD), _scaffolding_ , and _reflective inquiry_ under collaborative learning.

The development team's understanding of the ZPD played a significant role in the initial planning phase. Vygotsky (1978) defined the ZPD as "the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers" (p. 33). The team imagined that more successful (in terms of TOEIC score and English ability) students could aid less successful students to make discoveries about the strategies, skills, and study methods for TOEIC introduced in our materials.

In reality, however, TOEIC scores (and English ability) varied widely among first- and third-year students, and it was difficult to organize groups so that one "expert" older student was placed in charge of a group of same-age and younger students of lower ability. However, as English is a dynamic and complicated system and each learner is unique with diverse domain-specific experience, knowledge, and mastery, each group member can play a different role in contributing to the construction of a learning community supportive of collaboration depending on the activity and context. Smith and MacGregor (1997) explain that:

collaborative learning produces intellectual synergy of many minds coming to bear on a problem, and the social stimulation of mutual engagement in a common endeavor. This mutual exploration, meaning-making, and feedback often leads to better understanding on the part of students, and to the creation of new understandings for all of us (p. 10).

Within this community, the creation of new, individual understanding can originate in the reconciliation of newly encountered beliefs and one's own previously held beliefs, a process called equilibrium (Forman & Kraker, 1985). It can also happen through a process of convergence, in which conversational interaction helps the members of a learning community co-construct an entirely new understanding (Rochelle, 1992). In the analysis below, identifying instances of scaffolding, equilibrium, and convergence was crucial in providing evidence that our materials supported collaborative learning.

### Designing Materials

The development team had at least some idea of materials development, that is, "all the processes made use of by practitioners who produce and/or use materials for language learning, including materials evaluation, their adaptation, design, production, exploitation and research" (Tomlinson, 2012, p. 143), but lacked experience creating materials to encourage collaborative learning or, with the exception of the learning advisor, for use in a self-access setting. Self-access learning is unique due to the absence of a teacher who can provide immediate support, and this means materials must be easy to use and free of mistakes to prevent demotivating students (Gardner & Miller, 1999).

Tomlinson (2010) emphasizes three principles that need to be considered by materials designers: universal principles of language acquisition and development, delivery-specific principles unique to the learning situation, and local principles specific to the learners' needs and wants. The team's understanding of the mechanisms of collaborative learning is an example of one universal principle. In the initial stages of materials design, the ZPD was the dominant paradigm for the interaction sought by the development team.

Self-directed learning plays an important role in our center's philosophy, and this constitutes one of the delivery-specific principles that needed to be considered. Self-directed learning is concerned with learners taking control of their own learning, especially through establishing learning goals, identifying appropriate materials, deciding on appropriate learning methods, and evaluating their own progress and making adjustments using regular reflection (Brookfield, 1995). Designing in-house materials that help students to develop self-directed learning skills is seen as crucial to students becoming able to effectively use our self-access center for their learning.

Finally, in-house materials can be tailor-made to satisfy local principles specific to the learners. They can be designed to fit the learning context, culture, interests, needs, and level of the students better than a generic text designed for use in any English language learning classroom (Howard & Major, 2005). Also, unlike commercial textbooks, which might not see major revisions for a few years, in-house materials can be evaluated in action within the target context and the results be used to quickly inform revisions for use within that same context. These three principles helped to guide the evaluation.

### Evaluating Materials

An important part of designing materials is evaluating their effectiveness and making adjustments when needed. Ellis (1997) explains how retrospective evaluations of course materials can be especially valuable to a teacher. He says:

Such an evaluation provides the teacher with information which can be used to determine whether it is worthwhile using the materials again, which activities "work" and which do not, and how to modify the materials to make them more effective for future use. A retrospective evaluation also serves as a means of "testing" the validity of a predictive evaluation, and may point to ways in which the predictive instruments can be improved for future use. (p. 37)

Ellis claims that identifying what to evaluate is essential and defines three types of evaluation based on purpose: student-based evaluations which examine student attitudes towards the materials, response-based evaluations which are concerned with achieving predicted outcomes in terms of products and processes, and learning-based evaluations which look for evidence of new learning. The present study follows Ellis, but does not look at learning-based evaluations.

### Methodology

The evaluations in this study are both student-based and response-based. A grounded-theory-inspired approach similar to that described in Mynard and Almarzouqi (2006), was used to conduct the student-based evaluation looking into student attitudes about the materials. In Grounded Theory, data is collected through a variety of methods without reliance on a theoretical framework and then a theory is proposed based on categories that arise from the data. For the student-based observation part of this study, data was collected using surveys without any pre-existing framework in mind, allowing emergent themes to be identified and then explored further through an additional questionnaire and focus group. The response-based evaluation, examining whether the materials supported collaborative learning, used video-recorded sessions which were examined for evidence of (i) teaching-like behavior between peers or near-peers of differing ability (scaffolding), (ii) discussions of conflicting interpretations (equilibrium), and (iii) displays of cooperation as two or more participants interacted to create new understandings (convergence). The study was carried out in four stages over a 15-week semester and is summarized in Table 2.

### Participants

All first- (n= 33) and third-year (n=29) GCD students participated in the study. The students formed their own study groups under the leadership of a third-year student, chose their own meeting times, and selected their own bundles for study. There were no requirements placed on size or make-up of the groups, but students usually met in groups of 4-5 and continued to meet with the same group members. Groups had to have at least one third-year student, but some groups had as many as three. Each student had to complete six Study Bundles over a period of seven weeks. Participation in the CLP was mandatory and partially satisfied a homework requirement in a required GCD course.

### Findings

A large amount of data was collected during the semester, but only data relevant to the student-based and review-based evaluations is analyzed here.

What do our Students Want to Study Collaboratively?

Initially, a two-part question (Appendix A) asking students to explain in detail what they had "noticed" during the first session and how it came to their attention was piloted with the introductory bundle, and then revised and included at the end of each Study Bundle (Appendix A). Each week, student responses to this survey were collected and entered into a Google spreadsheet document organized by student, bundle category, and letter. Responses were categorized manually and a dominant theme was identified among the key words. Students reported noticing their lack of familiarity or mastery of items introduced in the Study Bundles and a desire to study them in more detail. There were 13 such items: (1) reading long passages, (2) increasing vocabulary, (3) improving reading speed, (4) improving reading comprehension, (5) scanning, (6) previewing questions, (7) understanding gerunds and infinitives, (8) understanding listening questions, (9) understanding parts of speech, (10) identifying time phrases, (11) brainstorming, (12) shadowing, and (13) understanding phrasal verbs. These items were the subject of a follow-up questionnaire.

In the follow-up questionnaire (Appendix B), students were asked if and how they wanted to study the 13 items from the following options: (1) no desire to study, (2) no preference, (3) in a group, and (4) alone. Students who responded "in a group" and "no preference" on each item were interpreted as "willing" to study in a group and combined. Although this might seem arbitrary, no preference can be understood to mean that students were not opposed to studying in a group. Students reporting a preference for solitary study were interpreted as "unwilling" to study in a group. Students with no desire to study the item were excluded. Final counts were expressed as a percentage of students, and these percentages were used to create the ranking shown in Table 3.

Students were also asked to rank on a 4-point Likert scale the importance of the item and their intent to study the item further. These results appear in Table 4, ranked from highest to lowest using means. It is notable that the top four items on both the importance and intention to study lists appear at the bottom of the ranking in Table 3, meaning students are least willing to study these items in a group. This will be discussed further below.

Two focus groups (a first-year group and a third-year group) were then formed and asked to discuss three questions (Appendix C) about the materials in Japanese. Students for the focus groups were chosen randomly from a list of first- and third-year student and then contacted through their classroom teacher. Five students from each year participated. The purpose of the focus group was explained and all students were given the opportunity to refuse participation. Both groups were given the questions in advance to think about and then discuss in the focus group. On the day of the focus group, students were provided with a digital voice recorder and a mini HD camcorder. They met in a multipurpose room in the SALC, where only students were present during the conversation.

All students in both groups felt that the materials and sessions did not explore the topic deeply enough and were not memorable. Many of the topics were too easy and groups finished within 20 minutes. One third-year student suggested that future bundles should allow opportunities to consolidate and reinforce what students had studied in previous bundles. First-year students were interested in hearing about the older students' study experiences, including what they study on their own, how much time they study outside of class, and how they approach solving certain TOEIC questions. Third-year students were solely concerned with TOEIC. They reported it was hard to see how the bundles were related to TOEIC and suggested clarifying exactly what strategy was being introduced and showing examples of how it could be used. Both groups suggested using additional or supplementary materials found in the SALC during study sessions, including TOEIC practice tests and storybooks.

Do our Materials Encourage Collaborative Learning in our Context?

Digital video-recorded observations of the Study Bundles in action were analyzed for evidence of interaction that supported collaborative learning, namely, scaffolding, equilibrium, and convergence. Recording all of the groups (15) completing six bundles each was impossible logistically, but three sessions of three different groups using different materials were recorded and examined. The three groups were selected based on willingness to be recorded and scheduling availability. Table 5 summarizes the three sessions.

Session lengths varied, as did group atmospheres due to the unique blend of group leader, group members, and materials. A defining characteristic to describe the resulting interaction was identified in each session resulting in the headings below.

The Good Leaders

The Reading D (RD) Study Bundle was made up of two related texts and four tasks. In Tasks 1 and 2, students were supposed to circle key words in both texts and discuss their choices with group members, and then in Task 3 discuss in which text an answer could be found. Finally, in Task 4, they answered the TOEIC sample questions. There was very little discussion in this group and almost all explanation and interpretations were given by the leader. For example, students volunteered key words one at a time, with no rationales given for their selections. After all key words were given, the group leader offered her interpretation of the text (an email to a potential landlord). One other third-year group member added a word to the leader's interpretation, but beyond all other students nodding in agreement, there was no further interaction. This same third-year student tried to help explain a problem that occurred in Task 3, when one of the first-year students misunderstood the difference between answering a question and identifying where in a text an answer could be found, but her attempt was not successful. The group leader picked up on this and effectively communicated the difference using examples. This interaction seems to exemplify the type of collaboration originally envisioned by the development team, that of stronger students helping weaker ones; however, this interaction did not appear to be the result of our materials, which were intended to provoke discussions about why students identified certain words as key words.

The Checkers

The Listening D (LD) Study Bundle was made up of five tasks and used three tracks from a CD accompanying a TOEIC practice test. In Task 1, students listened to an example of the question type. In Tasks 2-5, students completed a gap-fill activity that had progressively more words missing from the sentences until, in Task 5, they had to write down entire sentences. Additionally, the answer choices (a-c) for all of the questions in Tasks 2-5 were blank and students were supposed to write down key words they had heard and discuss these with their group members. However, the focus was strictly on trying to hear the correct answers. Interaction, of which there was little, focused on checking answers. There were no disagreements between students as they did this. When students weren't checking answers, they were silent on task or listening to the CD tracks. On two occasions (for a total of about four minutes), the leader did not know a correct answer and there was disagreement about the answer. In the first occurrence, the other third-year student gave a different answer, to which the first-year students agreed, and then reminded the leader of what was said on the CD. In the second occurrence, they consulted the answers in the TOEIC book without any discussion. Although the focus of the bundle was on note taking, it was apparent that the group members were only concerned with answering the questions once they had written down the missing words in the questions. This observation showed students focused on outcomes and ignoring instructions to discuss the key words, exactly what the development team had feared.

The Negotiators

The Listening A (LA) Study Bundle was made up of six tasks. In all of the tasks, students read a set of three questions related to the same TOEIC listening track. Then they were asked to make predictions based on the questions to identify who and where the speakers were and what transaction was taking place. During each task, students discussed their predictions and provided support for their answers. This sometimes called for negotiating and analysis of information provided in the questions. For example, a first-year student thought that a task would take place in a clothing store. The leader asked for a reason, and the student pointed out that the word "size" appeared in one of the questions. The leader said she agreed and added that it might take place in a shoe store, to which the other third-year student voiced her agreement. During their discussions, the students would express agreement, disagreement, and understanding by back channeling. Although there were periods of silence, these allowed students time to prepare for the discussion and the length was predetermined by the leader who asked how much time everyone thought they needed. Overall, the group negotiated their way through the tasks, each expressing their opinion about the discussion questions and providing evidence while contributing to the creation of a supportive environment.

### Discussion

Results of the Student-based Evaluation

The student-based evaluation consisted of examining student attitudes about the materials, including willingness to study in a group, the perceived importance of identified items, and the intention to study those items. A surprising finding was that items students were more willing to study in a group were those that had ranked lower in terms of perceived importance and intent to study, such as _brainstorming_ , _scanning_ , _understanding time phrases_ , and _shadowing_. All of the items related to Part 7 of the TOEIC, the long reading passage, reflect this pattern. This suggests that many students do not think the CLP is a valuable way of preparing for the TOEIC, especially third-year students whose focus group corroborates this. A substantial task will be improving the Study Bundles so students see the value of using them in TOEIC study.

Students may have declared they preferred to study certain items in a group because they have struggled with them on their own, or, especially in the case of the first-year students, were unfamiliar with them. The first-year focus group suggests this possibility. This points to the existence of other factors influencing what students want to study in groups, such as item interest, familiarity, and self-efficacy, particularly if students are confident that they can study the item effectively on their own. Additionally, low scores for group study preference may have been influenced by the clarity and difficulty of materials, as well as students feeling that the design of those materials had not actually supported meaningful interaction. Survey tools can be designed to examine these issues and included in future Study Bundles.

Results of the Response-based Evaluation

The response-based evaluation, which sought to establish whether our materials were achieving our desired goal of creating opportunities for collaborative learning during CLP group sessions, was carried out using the video-recorded session observations, which were examined for evidence of scaffolding, equilibrium, or convergence. Dillenbourg (1999) says:

The words "collaborative learning" describe a situation in which particular forms of interaction among people are expected to occur, which would trigger learning mechanisms, but there is no guarantee that the expected interactions will actually occur. Hence, a general concern is to develop ways to increase the probability that some types of interaction occur. (p. 5)

As both the Good Leader session and the Checkers session show, not all of our materials were successful at promoting interaction that gave rise to opportunities for scaffolding, equilibrium, or convergence.

The Negotiators session was identified as the most successful group session because of the quality of interaction observed as students shared their predictions and rationales. As the example showed, the students in the Negotiators group offered their interpretation of listening questions and negotiated their understanding of the situation with other group members based on available information, which could be considered manifestations of equilibrium and convergence. Argumentation and negotiation were identified by Dillenbourg (1996) as two types of interaction that supported collaborative learning, and they are not dissimilar from the concepts of equilibrium and convergence discussed in this study. Furthermore, the terms are more transparent, making it quite clear what kind of interaction materials designers should strive to inspire with their activities.

Revisiting Tomlinson's principles of materials creation, Tomlinson emphasized the importance of materials designers sharing and clarifying their beliefs about language teaching and learning before creating materials. These beliefs are used to create universal principles which will form the foundation for delivery-specific and local principles. Looking at the evolution of the CLP, our project was initially influenced by the peer-tutoring communities established in a different context. Manning's goal was to create active learners who noticed gaps in their understanding and filled them under expert guidance. When we created the Study Bundles, we had imagined our learning communities forming novice-expert relationships where the expert helped the novice work within her ZPD, but during the semester we had begun using different language to describe the students' roles in the group, which signaled a change in our universal principles. This change makes a review of all of the Study Bundles a necessity and the analysis of the observations gives us a clear indication of the direction revisions can take. More importantly, this can be done without the need to immediately record and observe additional student interaction, which, although fruitful, is hard to carry out with busy teaching schedules.

Finally, group dynamics must also be taken into consideration. The Negotiators session could have been successful not because of the materials but because the group had clearly defined roles and expectations that they had developed on their own in their group during the semester. In this session, the group leader set time limits for preparing answers and all group members actively participated in the conversation. Soller (2001) studied online collaborative learning teams and identified five characteristics of effective collaborative learning interaction: participation, social grounding, active learning conversation skills, performance analysis and group processing, and promotive interaction (verbal support that promotes the success of each team member). The development team could review these five characteristics and try to introduce them to students during CLP workshops and the orientation session. Because the sessions are supposed to be conducted in English, improved language support for using active learning conversation skills in particular might be helpful.

### Conclusion

The evaluation of the study bundles suggest that our activities most likely do not support the creation of opportunities for collaborative learning, particularly meaningful interaction made up of acts of scaffolding, equilibrium, or convergence. Although the observed sessions showed that our students were working together to some degree, meaningful interaction was often lacking. The failure to achieve meaningful interaction in the groups could be influenced by factors students bring with them, such as their interest in the content or willingness to study in a group. However, it is just as likely to be caused by materials that were not designed with these goals for interaction in mind. Therefore, the development team needs to return to the beginning of the design process, redefine their universal principles in light of the characteristics of meaningful interaction, and then go through existing materials and evaluate whether each activity intends to create those types of opportunities for interaction.

As Dillenbourg (1999) has warned, some tasks may not inspire interaction supportive of collaborative learning, and even those tasks that seem likely to do so, may not result in collaborative learning. It will take time to identify activities in need of revision and create those revisions. While preparing this chapter, I realized we could create a uniform activity that would enhance opportunities for meaningful interaction. In this activity, a self-directed study plan created by the group, students finish an existing bundle and work together to brainstorm activities for further study of the item that was introduced, identify and select supporting materials from the SALC, create steps for their study plan, and then try to carry it out before ending the session. A reflection activity at the very end asks students to rate how well the study plan matched their personal needs and learning style and asks them how likely they would be to continue working on mastering the study item on their own. An example appears in Appendix D.

Taking Tomlinson's (2010) principles of materials design into consideration, this activity aims at fulfilling students' desire to study items more deeply and use more materials in the SALC, as was mentioned in the focus groups. It also supports students in their independent, continuing study for the TOEIC. Moreover, it works to fulfill SALC goals as well by recycling, consolidating, and reinforcing self-directed learning skills, which are ultimately valued more highly by the center than TOEIC skills. Since it appeared that only the materials used in the Negotiators Session, in which students appeared to be sharing their knowledge and co-creating new knowledge, were successful at supporting an opportunity for collaborative learning, an activity like this can ensure that each session ends with a uniform opportunity to experience interaction in which scaffolding, equilibrium, and convergence can occur.

### References

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O'Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), _Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science_ (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Elsevier.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by "collaborative learning"? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), _Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches_ (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.

Forman, E. A., & Kraker, M. J. (1985). The social origins of logic: The contributions of Piaget and Vygotsky. In M. W. Berkowitz (Ed.), _Peer conflict and psychological growth_ (pp. 23-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. _ELT Journal, 51_ , 36-42.

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). _Establishing self-access: From theory to practice_. London: Cambridge University Press.

Howard, J., & Major, J. (2005). Guidelines for designing effective English language teaching materials. In _Proceedings of the 9th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics_ (pp. 101-109). Seoul, South Korea: PAAL9.

Manning, C. (2011). _Peer tutoring for remedial English studies within a Japanese university context_. (Unpublished master's thesis). The University of Birmingham, UK.

Mynard, J., & Almarzouqi, I. (2006). Investigating peer tutoring. _ELT Journal, 60_ , 13-22.

Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. _Modern Language Journal, 81_ , 443-456.

Porter, M., Schmidt, R., & Rose, K. (2014). Collaborative learning: Building English learning communities. _Bulletin of Hiroshima Women's University, 49_ , 95-101.

Rochelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaboration: Convergent conceptual change. _Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2_ , 235-276.

Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. T. MacGregor (Eds.), _Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education_ (pp. 10-30). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment.

Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. _International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12_ , 44-62.

Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles and procedures for self-access materials. _Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1_ , 72-86.

Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. _Language Teaching, 45_ , 143-179.

Trew, G. (2008). _Tactics for TOEIC listening and reading test_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Truscott. J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. _Second language research, 14_ , 103-135.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). _Mind and society_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

### Appendix A: Study Bundle Survey

(Translated from Japanese)

1. Think about the study session you just completed. Explain in detail anything you noticed.

2. How did you notice your response in question 1? Please choose one answer.

  * It was explained to me by an older student or someone who understood better.

  * I noticed it on my own.

  * I noticed it while talking about it in the group.

### Appendix B: Study Item Questionnaire

(originally in Japanese)

Based on your experience with the CLP, answer the four questions about TOEIC below.

Evaluate items a-m in question 1 using the following 4-point scale: (1) disagree, (2) slightly disagree, (3) slightly agree, (4) agree.

I thought this item was important for TOEIC study.

Evaluate items a-m in question 2 using the following 4-point scale: (1) disagree, (2) slightly disagree, (3) slightly agree, (4) agree.

I want to study this item more.

Evaluate items a-m in question 3 using the following 4-point scale: (1) no desire to study, (2) no preference, (3) in a group, and (4) alone.

How do you want to study the items a-m?

4-1. Choose the items that you are currently studying outside of class. (Multiple answers possible).

4-2. Describe in detail what you do to study the item. If you answered multiple items, please write the letter next to your explanation.

### Appendix C: Focus Group Questions

(Translated from Japanese)

What were your CLP sessions like? Talk with everyone about the general flow of the session. Who chose bundles? Did you get along with your group members? How were the Study Bundles?

What do you want to study in the CLP sessions during the next semester? Do you want to study the same things from this semester in more detail? If you'd like to study something different, please explain in detail.

Up until now, the sessions have been used to introduce skills and strategies. What would you think if you had to create a plan for further study of skills and strategies with your group mates in the next semester?

### Appendix D: Self-Directed Study Plan

### Chapter 9

Implementing a Team-Based Learning Approach in Japanese University Seminar Classes / チームベースドラーニングの導入: 大学ゼミにおける試み

Tim Ashwell

### Abstract

Arguably, one cornerstone of collaborative learning is having a firm structure or framework within which groups of students can operate. Without this structure it can be difficult for groups to develop into fully functioning teams. This study evaluates how a team-based learning approach provided structure for collaborative learning in a university seminar class context. First, the reasons for introducing a team-based approach into this particular seminar class are explained before the rationale behind team-based learning itself is described. An examination of the students' weekly class reflections follows. It was found that the students responded positively to the structure and schedule this approach imposed and evaluated the teamwork they engaged in very positively. While this was encouraging, it did not answer directly the question of whether any collaborative learning transpired. A close analysis of three video-recorded team discussions is therefore presented that reveals evidence for concluding that purposeful, problem-solving discussion of the kind supported within this team-based learning approach can provide fertile ground for collaborative learning.

協働学習において、学生が効果的に学習するためにはしっかりした枠組みが基本となる。この枠組みなくしては学生のグループが協働学習を有効に行うことは難しいであろう。本研究は、大学のゼミの授業においてチームベースドアプローチ(team-based learning approach)が、協働学習を実施する上でいかに有効的な枠組みとなりうるか検証するものである。最初に、チームベースドアプローチをゼミの授業で導入した理由を述べ、チームベースドアプローチを使用した理由を説明する。その後、学生たちの毎授業後の振り返りを分析する。その結果、学生たちがこのアプローチや課されたスケジュールに肯定的に反応し、チームとして活動したことをとても高く評価していることが分かった。このような結果はいい励みとはなるが、協働学習によって実際に学生達が何を修得したかは明確にすることができなかった。そのため、さらに詳しく調査するためにビデオ録画(3本)を行い、学生達のディスカッションを文字化し、分析した。その結果、チームベースドアプローチが協働学習に非常に有効であることが明らかになった。

### Introduction

The focus in this chapter is on collaborative learning (CL) in a content-based university seminar course. The theme of the seminar is "Language in use" and the expectation is that students will remain in the class for three years gradually working towards producing a graduation thesis as they learn about linguistics and sociolinguistics. The topic of the graduation thesis needs to be language-related but can connect to any other area of interest the student has. Individuals in the group now entering its final year are working on topics as diverse as "language policy", "language and identity", "second language education" and "miscommunication".

During the first year I taught this course, and particularly once the first seminar group began in earnest to search for thesis topics, two related problems with the class emerged. The first was a communication barrier. My ability to teach the class in Japanese is limited, but so too is the students' ability to engage with the content in English. The course is not offered as part of the Department's English language program even though much of it is conducted in English and even though it attracts students who wish to improve their English. The goal is not to learn English, but rather to learn about linguistics and sociolinguistics. The subject matter is difficult, even in a first language, and this presents a second problem: a content barrier. Students encounter concepts which are new to them and the language of the texts in which these concepts are presented is unfamiliar. Without a great deal of support, students would struggle to fully understand these concepts through English.

The solution to these problems seemed quite clear: students should help each other to understand the content by discussing it in Japanese. Last year, I sought to introduce collaborative learning into the class by setting up support groups which would meet once a week for students to discuss their individual research topics and to help each other with class and homework assignments. I decided on the membership of each group after carefully considering each student's strengths and weaknesses and seeking to create a mix of personality types and abilities in each group. Based on my experience teaching them the previous year, I felt I knew who was shy, who was confident, who seemed to understand class content quickly and accurately, and who needed more help. Every third week a group would meet with me for a tutorial while the other groups met independently at a time mutually convenient to the group members. One different group member each week would report back to me on how the meeting went.

Although the students met and reported back regularly, it was difficult to identify any real benefits the students were getting from the groups and there was no sense of the groups gelling together. Problems with one group, in particular, began to surface as individuals were unable to resolve personal differences and by the beginning of the second semester the support group idea had lost momentum and faded away.

One reason for this unsuccessful attempt to implement CL may have been a lack of structure to the activities and procedures used. Several books on collaborative/cooperative learning emphasize that the key to successful CL is structure. In order to establish and develop the five essential components of CL (positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual accountability, interpersonal and small group skills, and group processing (= reflection and evaluation)), Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1990) repeatedly stress the importance of structuring the learning environment, with the teacher taking on a planning, managing and monitoring role. This concern with structure could be because they are principally considering CL with younger learners in mind. It is quite understandable that children and adolescents may need a lot of direction if CL is to be successful. However, even in the Team-Based Learning (T-BL) approach (Michaelsen, Bauman Knight, & Fink, 2004), which is aimed primarily at students in higher education, there is a strong emphasis on structure. A fixed procedure is advocated for pre-class and in-class activities in order to ensure that collaboration develops within the student groups. CL is highly unlikely to spring up spontaneously, these authors argue; the teacher has to carefully design an environment in which collaboration can develop effectively.

The question arises, however, how much direction older learners can take and how they might react to this highly structured approach. I have always assumed that young adult learners might resent having too much structure imposed on them because they may feel they are being manipulated and treated like children. That is why I did not impose a tight structure last year. It also seems to go against the spirit of collaboration for the teacher to impose too rigid a framework. Surely, older learners know how to work together in groups, don't they? They do not need to be prodded and cajoled into collaborating for the benefit of the teacher. Even though they may have lacked opportunities to engage in collaborative group work at junior and senior high school, I assumed they would not need much help in recalling what they had practised regularly at elementary school.

How to introduce CL to sophisticated young adult learners so that they "buy into" the project was a methodological problem I needed to solve for my seminar classes to run more smoothly. CL seemed to offer a way of overcoming the language and content barriers encountered in this course, but I had little notion of how to implement it. While searching for ideas, I heard about the Team-Based Learning (T-BL) approach described by Michaelsen and colleagues and, after last year's unpromising attempt, decided to try implementing CL "by the book" following the recommendations Michaelsen and colleagues make. This chapter reports this implementation and the evaluation provided by weekly learner reflections and responses to an end of term survey. In addition, it reports on what was found through an examination of transcripts of team discussions.

### Collaborative Learning

The situation discussed in this chapter is not one where the primary goal is language learning. The goal of the seminar class investigated in this study is for students to increase their understanding of content matter, in this case, introductory linguistics and sociolinguistics. The emphasis here is not on how learning in groups may facilitate language learning through interaction and opportunities for negotiation of meaning as promoted normally in SLA theory (Long, 1996; Long & Robinson, 1998), for example, but on collaborative learning of content material.

Definitions of collaborative learning seem to range from relatively straightforward formulations such as "students working in pairs or small groups to achieve shared learning goals" (Barkley, Cross & Major, 2005) to more complex renditions of collaborative learning as a transformative or transitional experience in which learners reacculturate and assume a new identity as they move towards joining the community of scholars which shares expertise in the field of study. For example, in discussing the similarities between collaborative and cooperative learning, Bruffee (1999) states that proponents of both types of learning believe that "students learn by joining transition communities in which people construct knowledge as they talk together and reach consensus" (p.84). Teachers set up conditions in which students can learn together by organizing students into "transition communities for reacculturative conversation". This entails profound changes in the ways in which classroom authority is enacted, in student and teacher roles, and in the ways in which knowledge itself is conceived. Learning is seen as a transformative experience in which learners develop their ability to use the language of a new community represented by the community of scholars of the particular discipline. By working through tasks and problems together learners co-construct the knowledge which forms the discipline, not always reaching the same consensus as the target community and sometimes reaching a group consensus where they agree to disagree. However, through "constructive conversation" learners working in groups slowly assume a new identity as they shift towards the culture of the community of scholars who form the academic discipline.

Collaborative learning in this view is therefore a powerful engine for personal change which involves a transition towards acquiring a new (additional) identity as a member of a community which shares a specialized understanding of a particular discipline. The main aim of collaborative learning is "to help students test the quality and value of what they know by trying to make sense of it to other people like themselves—their peers" (Bruffee, 1981, p. 745). Collaborative learning "personalizes knowledge by socializing it, providing students with a social context of learning peers with whom they are engaged on conceptual issues" (Bruffee, 1981, p. 745). This process of explaining what you think you know and of transforming what you have read by putting it into your own words turns learning into a social activity by encouraging the learner to rehearse understandings and interpretations in front of other people like themselves who are also engaged in the same attempt to understand the subject matter. Learning becomes a joint, social activity, not a solitary one. This social forum allows learning to proceed in a completely different mode from individual learning and the group can provide a supportive environment which motivates learners in different ways.

This ambitious, emancipatory vision of CL is one I am deeply sympathetic towards and one which seems particularly appropriate in a context where intellectually demanding content is the focus. However, I realize that finding evidence of transition and personal transformation is a tall order. Finding evidence of learning from collaboration is, in itself, already a far from easy task.

### Team-Based Learning

The particular model of CL used in this implementation was Team-Based Learning. Team-Based Learning (T-BL) is a teaching approach developed principally by Larry Michaelsen at the end of the 1970s in his management courses at the University of Oklahoma in order to solve the problem of how to facilitate active learning in large classes (Michaelsen, 1992). It has since been used in many other disciplines and with students at various stages of their university education. T-BL consists of the following main elements:

  * permanent and purposefully heterogeneous work groups,

  * a six-step instructional activity sequence including a readiness assurance procedure and application activities, and

  * peer evaluation (Fink, 2004).

The instructor decides on the groups taking into account individual student's assets and liabilities and seeking to establish groups which are balanced and heterogeneous. A reading is assigned before class and the readiness procedure, consisting of an individual readiness test (IRT) and team readiness test (TRT), is intended to assess how thoroughly individuals have read the materials and prepared for class. It also, however, assesses how well team members can help each other to get ready to use the ideas which have been encountered. Usually in the next class, learners then work as teams to apply the knowledge they have gained by completing carefully designed tasks (Michaelsen & Knight, 2004). In order to encourage all members to contribute to the team, peer evaluation is also built in as part of the procedure. A group size of between five and seven is recommended.

### The Implementation

In order to see whether a more structured approach would be likely to encourage greater CL, I introduced a T-BL framework in my three seminar classes between April and July 2013. The sizes and membership of the three classes are presented in Table 1. Each class met for 90 minutes once a week through the 15-week semester with one session missed due to a holiday. The schedule for the 1a class is provided as an example in Appendix A. This class read sections of the Japanese translation of Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams (trans. Ogata, 2006) by way of a general introduction to linguistics. The other two classes read the first five chapters of the Japanese translation of Trudgill (trans. Tsuchida, 1975) as an introduction to general topics in sociolinguistics. The same basic two-week cycle of activities was repeated five times in all three classes. In the week prior to the first class for each new topic, students were asked to read the relevant section of the textbook. In class they first took the Individual Readiness Test (IRT) and then the Team Readiness Test (TRT). In the next class a week later teams worked on Application Activities. The material for the Application Activities in the first topic cycle for class 1a is presented in Appendix B. They then took a Final Individual Test (example presented in Appendix C) which closely paralleled the content of the Application Activity.

To facilitate timely feedback, the IRT and TRT were presented as multiple-choice tests on a course management system (Moodle). The TRT contained the same questions as were in the

IRT, but a few extra items were added to make discussion between team members more likely. Students took the tests on their own computers in class via the university wireless network. For the team test, one member took responsibility for submitting the team's answers. As results for both tests appeared immediately on students' computers, it was possible for the teacher to gauge quickly both individual and collective understanding. The Final Individual Tests were done on paper and marked by the teacher before the following week's class.

### Evaluation

The following assessment is based mainly on students' weekly reflections on a Moodle blog but additional data is taken from responses to a final end-of-term survey. The main focus is on students' assessment of teamwork. Naturally, there is a danger with this kind of data that learners tell the teacher what they think he wants to hear, but there appear to be some grounds for accepting the comments at face value because positive remarks are often tempered by qualifications.

There were three prompts specifically about teamwork, namely:

1. _What did I gain from working in a team?_

2. _Did you have a good discussion in your team? How did the discussion help you to understand the content?_

3. _Did we have a good team discussion?_

Throughout the semester, there were 227 responses to these questions in Japanese and 23 in English. To get some objective sense of what the responses mainly focused on, the nouns, pronouns and verbs which were used most frequently in the Japanese comments were counted. These are presented in Table 2.

From this data one can observe that teamwork was often evaluated in terms of its effectiveness in helping students with the individual and team tests. The frequently used nouns "problem", "test" and "answer" seem to reflect this focus. It is also noticeable, however, that the nouns "opinion" and "understanding" appear high up the list suggesting that the content of the discussion was also frequently evaluated. The most frequent verbs used also reveal a focus in these reflections about teamwork on enabling, thinking, understanding, listening and sharing.

Reading and re-reading the comments, several common themes emerged. One nexus formed around learners' understandings of the basic advantages of teamwork:

Teamwork is motivating / Teamwork leads to a sense of achievement

  * When it comes to studying individually or in teams, I feel that we want to do it when we collaborate together and share opinions. The way we engage with the task is different.

  * We were disappointed that we only needed one more answer to get full marks. I felt that the sense of pleasure we get when we get an answer right is increased 100% [by working as a team].

Discussion leads to discovery

  * By collaborating we can hear different opinions and this makes it possible to make new discoveries.

Difference is stimulating

  * It was interesting to discover new things by listening to other people's opinions. It was good because the opinions people express are not all necessarily the same, so this acted as a prompt that allowed us to probe more deeply into each other's ideas.

  * I think we were able to have an interesting discussion because there were various opinions flying around which I wouldn't have thought of on my own.

Other comments revealed insights learners had about teamwork and collaboration. For example, several learners noticed how the quality of the discussion improved when the task was difficult and they had to struggle with definitions:

  * We were all quite vague about the definition of "Korean Japanese", but after we found out that it is OK to call Koreans who live in Japan irrespective of the historical background "Korean Japanese", our discussion about that point became quite heated.

One comment was particularly intriguing because it seems to show how interdependency is born. Quite simply, sometimes you help others and sometimes they help you, and this gradually leads to greater mutual reliance and intimacy.

  * This time I didn't do as well as last time, so last time I taught people who couldn't do it and this time I was in the role of being taught. As this type of exchange increases within the team, it becomes easier to express our ideas and form closer bonds with others.

In week 13, a special lesson reflection question was asked: "What counts as 'success' for you when you work together as a team?" One of the commonest responses was that success was when all the team members could reach consensus, summed up in the comment:

  * Success is producing an answer which takes into account everyone's opinion and which everyone can agree to.

Bruffee (1999) discusses "consensus groups" as one form of collaborative learning and stresses that consensus can mean agreeing to disagree. Reaching some kind of conclusion with regard to a problem is not an unnatural way to consider the aim of teamwork, and a conclusion which reflects everyone's opinion and to which everyone can accede is certainly one measure of success. The sense of achievement and satisfaction people feel when they reach a consensus was another commonly held mark of successful teamwork. It was also common for students to honestly acknowledge that getting a good score on the team test was a mark of success for them, but they also recognized that this was not the only criterion of success.

One comment was particularly interesting in that it seems to show that at least one learner was beginning to see his team as a transition community for "reacculturative conversation".

  * I think we had a fairly good team discussion because we are starting to understand Trudgill's concepts. We are really starting to be able to think with the mindset of a linguist.

The student comments are encouraging. They seem to show that many of them understood the rationale for working in teams and could see a number of advantages over working individually. One can argue that, by extension, they also reflect a favourable reaction to the structure imposed by the tight T-BL schedule. Most of the students seem to have accepted that the schedule was part of working together as a team and was an integral part of the T-BL approach. As a form of collaboration, teamwork was highly evaluated by most students.

What the comments do not reveal, however, is what actually went on in the team discussions. Students may have appreciated the general intention of T-BL and may have been able to propose advantages for teamwork when prompted, but unless it is possible to identify instances of collaborative learning as the teams worked together, the comments are no more than circumstantial evidence that the T-BL approach supported CL. To find out what was happening, video recordings of three team discussions were transcribed and the following section discusses what was found.

### Examining the Discussion Transcripts

Details of the three discussions which were video-recorded are presented in Table 3. One team from each of the three seminar classes was recorded. The second- and third-year groups engaged in two different Application Activities while the fourth-year group looked at the questions in the Team Readiness Test (TRT) without the multiple-choice answers in preparation for the TRT which would immediately follow.

Limitations of space prevent a detailed discussion of the transcripts. All that can be offered here are some general observations. The first observation, one which may sound rather obvious, is that discussion, as a multipartnered conversation, is an intricate co-construction which is in itself a highly collaborative act. In order to have a discussion, participants have to understand conversational conventions and have to respect others so that the talk is coherent and moves forward in some way. It also often means that roles will naturally be assumed. It is therefore tempting to see collaborative learning everywhere when we put learners into groups because the learners are collaborating together in talk. However, whether anything is learned as a result of collaboration is another matter.

It is extremely important to keep this distinction between collaboration and learning in mind, I think, when looking at CL. Just because learners are working closely together does not mean that learning necessarily transpires. Identifying examples of learning within collaborative discussion is, in fact, an extremely difficult task.

One way to identify CL would be to look for instances of learners teaching other learners within the group discussion. In the 43 minutes of transcript examined here, there may have been two instances of this kind. In the fourth-year discussion (see the transcript extract below), one learner (L2) reminded the other two about an example that was given in the textbook which helped to illuminate a particular term they were discussing. And in the second-year discussion, one learner looked up some information in the textbook in order to be able to define a term while the others digressed. She then reported back on what she had found out. One might claim that this type of peer teaching led to some learning and that this is a form of CL.

Extract from Fourth-year Discussion Transcript:

L1:What is "register"?

L2:Register is...

L3:Register?

L2:A soccer player's...

L3:Ah, there was something [in the textbook about that].

L2:Ordinary people's vocabulary is different [from soccer players'].

L3:Ah, OK, that's register.

L1:What was it? [...] Was it something like vocabulary?

L2:Yeah, yeah that's it.

What the second instance above also illustrates is that in a group discussion certain individuals may have the "space" to be able to think about a problem connected to a task while the discussion goes on around them. They can then contribute something which really helps the group to move forward. A further example of this kind of "off-line thinking" was apparent in the second-year discussion where one individual was able to make a connection between an expression in a question on the worksheet and an example in a separate table while the "chairperson" read out the question. Her contribution met with a round of appreciative "Ahs" from the other group members and helped the group to move on. One wonders whether the individual who made this contribution would have made the same connection had she been working alone. She may have, but then the other group members would not have benefitted from her insight. Also, perhaps the discussion stimulated her to make the connection she did. One can only speculate that CL occurred at this point as others made the same connection she had.

At the micro level, there were several examples, even in this small corpus, of an individual supportively completing another person's idea or of adding to and correcting another person's idea. This close collaboration is in addition to the large amount of concurring which went on with members accepting each others' contributions with appreciative noises. This made a mutually supportive environment in which people were even ready to risk losing face by declaring that they did not fully understand something. This declaration in turn made it possible for the group to explore an idea in more depth and to make learning more likely.

One further observation is that the nature of the task strongly influences the quality of the discussion. The second-year task involved understanding quite complex terms and the need to define terms led to some lively purposeful discussion. The third-year task was easier and did not require learners to search for definitions. The resulting discussion was exploratory, but it did not appear to be so stimulating for the group. The fourth-year task was the least interesting in that they had to discuss the questions in the upcoming Team Readiness Test. As they had already seen the majority of these questions in the Individual Readiness Test, the discussion was reduced to a memory exercise where the learners asked each other which of the m/c answers they had chosen. The new items in the TRT engendered a little more involved discussion, but as the students knew they would be given the m/c answers in the actual TRT, they were not particularly engaged and did not discuss the questions in depth. In summary, the observation here is that a carefully designed, challenging task is likely to bring about more engaged discussion. One can argue that this kind of discussion is much more likely to lead to some kind of learning. Tasks in which the actual terms of the question are in doubt seem to be particularly useful.

Finally, to return to the initial observation, discussion is an intricately woven co-construction. Through this collaborative process, groups collectively make new connections and fill out each others' understandings. One may construe this process itself as learning, or one may see it as a way to stimulate learning either immediately or in some delayed fashion. Personally, I would like some firmer evidence that learning had occurred as the result of joint collaborative activity, learning which would not have occurred had the learners been working individually. The observations on these transcripts suggest that some CL occurred, but it would need a careful follow-up investigation to confirm whether anything was indeed retained.

### Discussion and Conclusion

It is difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions about the success of this CL implementation based on the reflections and responses provided by students. However, the overall impression I have is that the structure provided by the T-BL procedures did begin to nurture collaboration between students and that this collaboration motivated students to study and possibly helped them to retain more than they would had they studied individually. To achieve high-quality collaboration in teams takes time, with some estimates suggesting that it takes as long as 30 hours of working together for a group to transform into a team in which individuals invest themselves in others' learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The teams in my seminar classes have only had between 10 and 15 hours working together in this first semester, so it is rather early to expect major breakthroughs. I am encouraged, however, that students do seem to notice changes in the ways they are working and the benefits of teamwork.

To answer the question raised earlier ("How much direction can older learners take and how might they react to a highly structured approach?"), it seems that these groups of young adult learners were able to "take" the considerable structure T-BL imposes. They did not express resentment at having to prepare for individual and team tests every other week. Rather, they seemed to understand the logic for this as a way of ensuring they were ready to talk about the topic. I am a little concerned that students may simply be acquiescing to my imposition of this structure because they are from a learning culture which vests all authority in the teacher, and there is the worry that students may accept the structure because it provides security and relieves them of taking full responsibility for their own learning. Certainly, it would be nice to think how this highly structured approach might gradually be removed over the three-year span of the seminar so that learners are able to explore their own ideas more as time passes and can engage in collaborative work as and when it pleases them. Perhaps, however, for the first year of the seminar course, this type of approach may be effective. I am convinced that the structure provided by T-BL helped to encourage more collaboration than in the previous year. One comment quoted earlier about beginning to think with the mindset of a linguist suggested that at least one student recognized how group members may have been beginning to assume a new identity as they discussed questions and examination of discussion transcripts revealed that there are grounds for assuming that some collaborative learning transpired.

One measure of success for CL suggested by many students on the Moodle blog was whether team readiness test scores were higher than individual test scores. It is a somewhat crude measure and is questionable here because the individual and team readiness tests were not identical, but it does provide some sense of how working collaboratively may have helped. In 245 comparisons, 88.6% of students scored higher on the team test than on the individual test and the mean score improvement was 1.7 points on a 10-point scale. The result confirms what one may have surmised namely, that team scores were nearly always higher. Falls in scores were often from a high individual test score to a slightly less impressive team test score. It is difficult to conclude, however, that higher test scores were directly the result of CL. They may simply reflect the fact that, collectively, people can cover more bases.

Collaborative learning is complex, and structure is not everything. For example, building trust and rapport both between students and between students and the teacher is, of course, vital for good CL to thrive. However, creating a framework within which students work together may be important scaffolding for learners who are not used to working in this way at university. As they progress and become clearer about their own goals, the scaffolding can be removed and students can work collaboratively when it suits them best. By introducing this method of working, I feel my students and I are beginning to overcome the language and content barriers we face.

### References

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). _Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty_. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bruffee, K. A. (1981). Collaborative learning. _College English, 33_ , 745-747.

Bruffee, K. A. (1999). _Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge_. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Fink, L. D. (2004). Beyond small groups: Harnessing the extraordinary power of learning teams. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. Bauman Knight & L. D. Fink (Eds.), _Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching_ (pp. 3-26). Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). _Cooperation and competition: Theory and research_. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Holubec, E. J. (1990). _Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom_. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), _Handbook of second language acquisition_ (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), _Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition_ (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Michaelsen, L. K. (1992). Team learning: A comprehensive approach for harnessing the power of small groups in education. _To Improve the Academy, 11_ , 107-122.

Michaelsen, L. K., Bauman Knight, A., & Fink, L. D. (Eds.) (2004). _Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching_. Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub.

Michaelsen, L. K., & Bauman Knight, A. (2004) Creating effective assignments: A key component of team-based learning. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. Bauman Knight, & L. D. Fink (Eds.), _Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching_ (pp. 51-72). Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub.

Ogata, T. (Trans.) (2006). _An introduction to language: Fromkin's linguistics_. Tokyo: Thomson Learning Japan. (緒方孝文(訳)フロムキン, V., ロッドマン, R. & ヒアムズ, N. フロムキンの言語学(第7版)トムソン・ラーニング).

Tsuchida, S. (Trans.) (1975). _Language and society_. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. (土田滋(訳)言語と社会。東京:岩波書店).

### Appendix A: Enshu 1a Schedule 2013

### Appendix B: Topic 1: Knowing More than One Language—Application Activities

L1 interference

Name:__________________________

Group Name:____________________

Exercise 1.

First make a list of the characteristics of English spoken by Japanese L1ers. Which of these characteristics are probably related to L1 interference? Explain as precisely as possible what the influence is and why the English is produced as it is.

Exercise 2.

To help you identify the characteristics of English spoken by Japanese L1ers, ask each group member to read the English passage below aloud. Listen carefully to each person and note down any typically Japanese characteristics. Ask them to read the passage several times, if necessary. [IF YOU CAN RECORD EACH PERSON, THIS IS BETTER!] Immediately after one person has read the passage compare the delivery to the recording of Mr. Ashwell reading the passage. You should be able to notice and note down quite a few differences. Try to explain which differences probably result from the influence of Japanese.

PASSAGE:

Approximately half of the people in the world are native speakers of more than one language. This means that as children they had regular exposure to those languages. In many parts of the world, especially in Africa and Asia, bilingualism (even multilingualism) is the norm. In contrast, many Western countries (though by no means all of them) view themselves as monolingual, even though they may be home to speakers of many languages. In the United States and many European countries, bilingualism is often viewed as a transitory phenomenon associated with immigration.

### Appendix C: Topic 1: Knowing More than One Language—Final Individual Test

Name:______________________

Group name:_____________________

Listen to a recording of Mr. Ashwell reading the passage below in Japanese. Make a list of the characteristics of Japanese spoken by an English L1er. Explain as precisely as possible what the influence is and why the Japanese is produced as it is. Use examples from the recording. Refer to a particular example by using the line number.

PASSAGE:

およそ世界の半分の人が、2言語以上の母語話者である。つまり、子供の頃に、規則的に継続して2言語以上に触れたということである。世界の多くの地域、特にアフリカやアジアでは、2言語使用(さらには多言語使用)が標準である。対照的に多くの西洋の国は(決してすべてではないが)、たとえ多くの言語の話者が住んでいても、国を1言語の国だと考えている。アメリカや多くのヨーロッパの国では、2言語使用は移民に関連する一時的現象だと考えられることがよくある。

### Chapter 10

Cross-Institutional Collaboration: Lessons From an Unsuccessful Project / 大学間の協働学習の試み:失敗に終わったプロジェクトからの教訓

Ken Ikeda

### Abstract

This paper is a reflection on a project in which two seminar teachers at separate universities encouraged students to participate in cross-institutional collaborative (CIC) learning using computer-mediated communication (CMC) to develop topics for their graduation theses. After reviewing the project using Dillenbourg's (1999) definition of collaborative learning, the reasons for the relative failure of the project in the case of the students CIC learning became apparent. However, using the same framework, it was possible to see evidence of CIC learning that occurred between the two teachers. The paper closes with several suggestions for teachers interested in setting up CIC exchanges through CMC.

本論文は、異なる大学でゼミを担当する2名の教師が学生にコンピュータ利用コミュニケーション(CMC)を使った学校間協働(CIC)学習への参加を促したプロジェクトの省察である。このプロジェクトは、学生の卒業論文のテーマ設定をめざしたものであったが、成功には至らなかった。Dillenbourg (1999)の協働学習の定義を用いてこのプロジェクトを再検討した結果、不首尾に終わった原因が明らかにされた。さらに同じ枠組みを用いることによって、2名の教師の間に生じたCIC学習も説明された。本論文は最後で、CMCによるCIC交流に関心を持つ教師のための提言を述べている。

### Introduction

In the undergraduate Japanese university curriculum, the seminar, or _zemi_ as it is called in Japan, is held in special regard. Though increasingly a less common requirement for graduation, it is in the _zemi_ that students in their final year of university submit a graduation thesis or, in Japanese, _sotsugyo rombun_ (usually shortened to _sotsuron_ ). An informal and unpublished survey on _sotsuron_ guidance (Tomei & Nicoll, 2013) revealed that _sotsuron_ guidelines vary considerably between universities but generally, thesis supervision takes one to three years, resulting in a research paper of considerable length. Students usually write the _sotsuron_ in Japanese but are more likely to write in English in _zemis_ supervised by native English speakers. Students are encouraged to seek topic advice from professors and library staff, and consult thesis guides (e.g., Sakai 2007). Nevertheless, the process of researching and writing the _sotsuron_ is usually seen as an individual enterprise, and students do not commonly regard each other as possible sources of assistance for generating thesis topics. For students whose experience of academic writing is limited, even the first step of developing a topic focus can be paralyzing.

_Sotsuron_ guidance is a solitary venture for _zemi_ teachers as well. I am the only teacher in my department, for example, who requires the _sotsuron_ to be written in English. Supervision can be very difficult for English native teachers who are not fluent in Japanese. As I had no prior experience in _sotsuron_ guidance, I asked for help from colleagues, but was simply told that I would learn in time. My Japanese colleagues said that helping students write their synopses in English was taxing enough, so they felt unqualified to advise me on how to guide students to write a complete thesis, especially as my students were writing in English. After several years of _sotsuron_ supervision, I felt at my wits' end and alone.

I floated my concerns about _sotsuron_ writing at the JALT Learner Development SIG Tokyo get-together and sought help from people in other SIGs whose members might be involved in supervising graduation theses. One of the teachers I contacted was Joe Tomei, who emailed back to say that he also experienced difficulties of this kind. He brought up the idea of cross-institutional collaboration (CIC) through computer-mediated communication (CMC) (J. Tomei, personal communication, February 9, 2013), which seemed a very attractive solution to our common problem. It seemed to both of us that CIC would serve two purposes: it would enable our students to work with each other and it would enable us to work with like-minded educators and share ideas on _sotsuron_ supervision.

Admittedly, I only had vague notions of collaborative learning (CL) and the use of CMC before my project with Joe. To me, CL was mostly suited to lower-division university English language programs for task-based group projects. I wondered how CL could be utilized for more specialized academic purposes such as _sotsuron_ writing. I discovered that advocates of CL claim it is suitable for all levels of learner and for most tasks, including advanced forms of writing. Bruffee (1984), for example, argues that CL serves as the context in which "students can experience and practice the kinds of conversation valued by college teachers", and emphasizes writing as the mode of conversation that is most effective (p. 642). Similarly, Barkley, Cross and Major (2005) devote the final section of a handbook on CL techniques to writing, ending with a seminar paper. For the graduate level, Romme and Nijhuis (2002) have developed a framework of "thesis rings", which is directly related to collaboration during the process of thesis writing. They have devised this approach for the purposes of widening the responsibility of thesis supervision, "promoting and facilitating the exchange of knowledge and experience among students" (p. 6).

As for the medium of communication, telecollaboration, defined by Belz as a type of "application of global communication networks in foreign language education (with) distantly-located students embedded in different sociocultural contexts and institutional settings" (2002, p. 61, in Zourou 2009, p. 4), seemed to be a promising way for students to talk to each other and collaborate on their _sotsuron_ research ideas (Zourou 2009, p. 17). Aghaee and Hansson report (2013) that CMC such as Peer Portal 2.0 enables students to peer-critique each other's work thus freeing up supervisory guidance. Inspired by such experiences, we hoped that the use of such technologies would prove to be enjoyable and productive for the _zemi_ students at both our universities.

We assumed that the students would be comfortable using technology and would be motivated to use it for communication with their distant peers. We hoped that the technology would help to create a sense of community and lead to productive collaboration between the two groups of students. Joe suggested (personal communication, February 10, 2013) having students describe their ideas to each other via video conferencing using Skype. Students would write up notes of their conversations and it was hoped that these records would assist them in generating and narrowing down a thesis topic. We also hoped that the students would continue their discussions through use of the technology without our intervention or assistance.

CIC through the use of computer-mediated communication also appealed to Joe and me as a way of bridging our isolation as educators. After years of struggling to guide our students on our own, we thought that it would provide a way for us to discuss problems and share ideas. In my case, I was frustrated with the students' lack of awareness that research should be a methodical and thoughtful process as well as with their inability to find appropriate sources and use persuasive argumentation. Another problem was the gap between the students' experience of writing a five-paragraph essay and the task of researching and writing a much longer _sotsuron_. These were the kinds of issues that I believed I would be able to gain insight on from working with another teacher. Although CMC has been used in many classes as a way of enhancing communication between students (e.g., Hung & Yuen, 2010), we envisioned that our project would help us as teachers to engage with the students' writing process, as well as share ideas and observations with each other.

### The Project

The primary aim of the project was for students to collaborate with each other in choosing topics at the inception of the _sotsuron_ research process. We envisaged that students would collaborate through computer-mediated discussions with each other, as well as through reflective journals that we expected them to upload and share. The overarching research question of our project was: "Can we utilize distant peer-to-peer computer-mediated communication to energize and enrich the process of topic selection for graduation theses?" Our secondary concerns within the research question were with student reactions to using the technological medium, the extent they were able to keep journals for feedback on each other's topics, and evidence that they were collaborating on the development of each other's _sotsuron_.

To this end, we explained to our _zemi_ students that they would have preliminary discussions about their initial ideas for research topics with their counterparts on Skype, since this was familiar to us as a means of face-to-face communication. We decided that the exchange of knowledge and experience would be best supported by having students write journals, which would be put on a Google document that would be accessible to everyone in the project. In addition to enabling students to read each other's reflections, we also wanted to have access to them, as Joe explained, "so we could examine student progress and ideally draw conclusions about their topic development" (personal communication, Oct. 11, 2014). For this reason, as well as to give the students an opportunity to gain practice in English prior to writing up their _sotsuron_ , we asked them to write in English. By having an open journal, we assumed that students would be able to offer each other support and advice as well as draw inspiration from the previous reflections.

The students were informed about the project by email in the spring vacation before classes began. The email asked for their consent to the project and for their Skype addresses. We also arranged technical details, such as sending students a link to the Google document where we expected them to upload their journal entries. As for computers that could be used at mutually convenient times, we assumed the students would have their own laptops. It was important to us to have pairings of students so that partners could respond to the other's journal entries. At the start, I had three students in my _zemi_ , while Joe had four in his. However, two additional students enrolled in Joe's _zemi_ , leaving three of his students without cross-institutional partners.

Joe hosted the first online Skype session (April 11, 2013), in which his six students introduced themselves to my three. The information exchanged during this session amounted to little more than self-introductions and brief descriptions of their possible research topics. But both Joe and I had the impression that the students had tried hard to express their ideas, and this led us to believe that they would participate eagerly in our project. Joe remarked in an email (personal communication, April 13, 2013) that their interaction struck him as being at a stage that usually didn't occur until later in the thesis process. We both felt that having students interact with peers in another institution allowed us to move from center-stage and encouraged the students to be more autonomous.

However, the Skype connection did not run as smoothly as Joe and I had hoped and the poor quality video and audio disappointed the students. A second session between our two seminars that was scheduled four weeks later ended with audio failure (May 10, 2013). This led one of my students to propose setting up a chat group for _sotsuron_ discussions on Line, an instant messaging application for smartphones. It was difficult for us to understand why students felt so strongly about switching from Skype to Line. We were under the initial impression that the primary reason that they wanted to change to Line was due to cultural preferences, as Skype's origin and management is in Europe, whereas Line originated in South Korea and its management is in Japan. We also thought that Line might be more attractive to students as it is a messaging app and a social network. We preferred Skype because it was a platform that we were accustomed to for academic discussions. However, observing students using their smartphones in our _zemi_ classes and on field trips, we concluded that Line would be more in touch with their lifestyle, as it is primarily designed for smartphones, unlike Skype, which is more centered on a desktop with accessibility through mobiles requiring a fee.

The switch to Line seemed to lead to increased interest in collaboration between the two groups. During a chat on Line that took place soon after the switch from Skype (the interaction was recorded on a smartphone by one of Joe's students), one of my students informed her partner that she was thinking of researching the topic of assertive communication at which Joe's student advised her to read a psychology textbook. In another exchange, a student of mine described the aim of her questionnaire that she planned to incorporate into her thesis. These Line exchanges gave us the impression that students were working on their topics and developing them in response to their cross institutional peers' suggestions.

With Line serving as our students' medium of choice in interacting with each other to develop their _sotsuron_ topics, Joe and I were confident that they were happy to continue on their own and so we didn't monitor their exchanges over the summer. But, five months after our project started, a student of Joe's, who had been an active participant in both the Skype and Line sessions, emailed me (personal communication, September 6, 2013):

On line, everyone including me seems to be lazy to me. We, students don't contact on a regular basic. In other words, we rarely talk on line. Even though I try to chat after I was told to do so, I always end up giving up. I'm really worried that students at your university rely on our opinions.

This email indicated that the cross-institutional student collaboration that we hoped would be self-perpetuating had come to a virtual standstill. Joe's student did not mention the major reason for the lapse in their interaction, but the "laziness" he attributed to everyone could probably be explained by their preoccupation with securing job offers prior to their graduation from university. Joe later explained to me that the student who emailed me had not received a job offer. It appeared from reading that student's email that he felt he had let down himself and others for failing to keep up the collaboration, and had adopted an apologetic stance for not interacting with them after being told to do so. This email should have served as a warning to Joe and me that the students felt that we were pressuring them to collaborate and this was not something they were interested in doing voluntarily.

Looking back, the initial Skype meeting in April with my three students and Joe's six students had initially seemed to provide an appropriate impetus for student collaboration. Having introduced the two groups of students online we believed that CL would develop spontaneously as a result, but in fact this was not the case. It seems that students needed to get to know each other before they could even begin to start sharing their ideas and offering suggestions or constructive criticism. Such groundwork for relationship building is very time-consuming. The students' main priority of finding a job undermined the project's goals and the lack of student commitment caused the project to break down. In the end Joe and I finished the year by conducting our _zemi_ s and _sotsuron_ supervision alone, as we had in years past.

### Dillenbourg's Definition of Collaborative Learning

As I pondered over the disappointing results of our project, I turned to Dillenbourg's definition of CL as a way to help me understand why the student collaboration had failed to materialize and to foresee how conditions could be changed to make CIC more successful in future trials of this nature.

Dillenbourg (1999) states that learning consists of four variables: (1) the situation of the learners; (2) interactions between learners; (3) mechanisms or procedures for learning; and (4) effects of learning. With regard to the situation of the learners, Dillenbourg elaborates, "A situation is termed 'collaborative' if peers are more or less at the same level, can perform the same actions, have a common goal, and work together" (p. 7). He goes on to say that the first two of these entail a degree of symmetry in the interaction and identifies three possible forms of symmetry that might exist between learners: _symmetry of action_ , _symmetry of knowledge_ , and _symmetry of status_.

Symmetry of action assumes that learners will be engaged in similar actions, symmetry of knowledge that they will have similar levels of knowledge, and symmetry of status that they will be of similar status, such as year of study and age. Symmetry of knowledge differs from the other two symmetries, since if the level of knowledge is identical, then there will be no possibility of learning. Asymmetry of knowledge is necessary to create the _zone of proximal development_ (ZPD) in which a more knowledgeable peer can help another to learn (Vygotsky, 1978). Indeed, Dillenbourg avers that two people never have identical levels of knowledge. What he implies by symmetry of knowledge in CL is that the learners should be roughly matched in terms of their current level of knowledge regarding the content of what they are supposed to learn. This is illustrated by a study by Heift and Caws (2000) focusing on Canadian students in a French composition class, which found that, when peers of differing knowledge worked together, they collaborated more and with less intervention by the instructor and less off-topic discussion than in equally knowledgeable groups.

Looking back on the project, I could see that, from the outset, Joe and I had taken these symmetries for granted. There was symmetry of action in that both sets of students were obliged to write a graduation thesis by the end of the year. We assumed that all the students would go through a similar process of researching and writing their _sotsuron_. In addition, we assumed there would be symmetry of action in the project itself, since the requirements of the students were identical. All the students were expected to take part in the CIC project, which involved communicating with partners on Skype and later on Line. Similarly, all students were asked to keep reflective journals about their exchanges on the Google document and use these journal entries for dialogue and discussion about their evolving research focuses. Another symmetry of action between the students, and one which did not occur to us at the time of the project, is that they both lost interest in the exchange and placed greater priority on job hunting. In addition to these symmetries, the interaction between the students also revealed some asymmetry. One of Joe's students, for example, was quite forthcoming in giving advice and suggestions to my students; my students, however, failed to reciprocate, creating a situation that was not conducive to mutual interest or a desire to collaborate.

In terms of symmetry of knowledge, we assumed that the students were well matched in that they were all at the first stage of the research process, not having formulated or narrowed down their research focus. We assumed that they would have similar life and study experiences, which could help them to generate topics for research. However, there were also some asymmetries of knowledge apparent even in the limited exchanges that the students had with each other, such as one student's advice to another to search for information on assertiveness in a psychology textbook.

In terms of symmetry of status, all the students were fourth-year students who were hoping to graduate at the end of the academic year. In their senior year, all the students were also under pressure to find jobs after graduation. The student who complained to me about the "laziness" of the other students in his e-mail to me may have felt this way because of a lack of symmetry of status. He was still trying to secure a job while the others had already found work.

Thus, the three symmetries identified by Dillenbourg did exist between the two sets of students, but, clearly, they were not sufficient to motivate or sustain CL. As for the other aspects of CL, there was no clear common goal for the students, since each student had the individual goal of writing a thesis, and the students did not work together, with the exception of the two unsatisfactory meetings on Skype and some exchanges on Line. Despite the apparent symmetries in the students' situation, the two groups of students lacked the two other aspects that Dillenbourg claims are necessary for collaborative learning, which were common goals and working together.

Although this project did not succeed as an example of collaborative learning through CIC between students, it can nevertheless be considered to be successful to some extent when looked at as collaboration between the two teachers involved. Drawing again on Dillenbourg's symmetries, it can be seen that there was symmetry of action as both Joe and I embarked on a project facilitating CIC to help our students write their graduation theses. We agreed on procedures for the project and attempted to implement them.

In terms of symmetry of knowledge, both of us lacked experience of using CIC as a tool for thesis development. So our reason for initiating this project was to gain experience and knowledge through the action research process. On the other hand, there was considerable asymmetry of knowledge in that Joe had more experience and know-how of using technology and collaborative practices than me. Prior to this project, I had never used Skype or Google Chat. So when he suggested we use these (J. Tomei, personal communication, February 10 and 14, 2013), I welcomed the idea, because I could learn how to use them and rely on his knowledge. I was willing to regard him as a mentor so that I could become skilled with these applications. This was a situation in which I was able to learn from a more experienced colleague.

Finally, there was symmetry of status in that both of us are thesis supervisors and both English native speakers in mainly Japanese-speaking teaching environments with little collegiate support. As already mentioned, I had previously failed to elicit support from my colleagues. One reason for their reluctance was that my students write in English whereas theirs write in Japanese, and thus they may have been unwilling to offer advice in a situation which they did not regard as symmetrical with their own. Joe's situation in his department mirrored mine closely, and this may have contributed to the success of our collaboration.

However, unlike the students, we shared a common goal in designing a CIC project that would be mutually beneficial for our students. In addition, at least in the initial stages, we saw this as an action research project that we would write up together. Throughout the project, we worked together extensively, exchanging 48 emails in total, in which we discussed what we would do, how we would monitor the students' exchanges and development, what medium to use, whether or not to allow the students to change to Line, and so on. Compared to the students' minimal contact with each other, our exchanges were frequent and purposeful. It is also relevant that, unlike the students, we already knew each other before starting this project and so the extensive communications between ourselves felt natural and easy. Our experience of CIC between ourselves was motivating and engaging. It therefore came as a surprise and a disappointment that the students were not motivated or engaged enough to keep their own CIC going without prompting from us.

In terms of learning, I feel that I was the one who benefited most from this project. Through the course of our project, I began to read the literature on collaborative learning, and became accustomed to the technological applications. The insights and familiarity gained from working with Joe helped me greatly as a teacher. I gained enough confidence to initiate these computer-mediated approaches with my own students, utilizing Google Drive and Skype to help them complete their theses. This later interaction with my students revealed that they regarded Skype as more suitable for personal/private communication than for academic dialogue. Familiarity with the technology also assisted me in other areas of my work, for example, using Google Drive in the management of a textbook writing project. Lastly, and most personally rewarding, I established a Skype connection with my aging father from late July of that year.

### Recommendations

In this paper, I described a cross-institutional project that relied on computer-mediated technology intended for students to collaborate in developing topics for their graduation theses. In the light of what I have learned through the ups and downs of this experience, I offer some suggestions regarding CIC and the use of technology for engaging students in CL:

Assessment of Feasibility for CL

Dillenbourg's definition of CL should serve as a guide for assessing the feasibility of CIC between two groups and for the design of procedures or tasks to give direction and ensure collaboration. The two groups should be roughly symmetrical with regard to action (what they are expected to do during the exchange) and status (their age or year). With regard to knowledge, the two groups may be matched roughly, but since the purpose of the exchange is learning, there need to be some disparities so that peers can teach each other. Most importantly, in order to avoid the problems that occurred in this study, the two groups need a common goal and opportunities to work together in order to achieve it. In this study, the students had the same goal, in other words, they all had to write a _sotsuron_ in English, but these were individual goals, not shared. In this respect, the CIC between the two teachers was more successful because they worked together on the shared goal of setting up the CIC for their students.

Explicit Instruction to Students

As this account shows, our expectation that students would record their discussions in their journals without prompting was unrealistic. Joe expressed his concern that students needed more scaffolding to make the most of the exchange (personal communication, September 22, 2013). Upon later reflection (October 11, 2014), he stated that we may have been too optimistic about the students' ability and willingness to keep reflective journals online. We were wrong to think that the lure of technology and interaction with distant peers would provide them with a basis for scaffolding and collaboration. Journaling is still a worthwhile activity for students in a CIC exchange, but, as was highlighted by Dillenbourg, a common goal and tasks that entail working together are essential. Barkley, Cross and Major (2005, p. 55) emphasize that the design of CL tasks depends on constructing a learning task that is appropriate to the level of the students' understanding, and providing structured procedures that will keep students actively engaged in the task. For example, if students are to keep dialogue journals, teachers need to delineate the tasks and roles, clarify how and when the exchange should take place, specify the medium of exchange, and provide a structured procedure (Barkley, Cross & Major, 2005, p. 238). As another example, Ashwell (this volume) used a team-based learning framework to facilitate collaboration in order to help them engage with difficult content. Teachers cannot assume students will communicate with each other unprompted; rather, they must plan clear goals and make sure students know what is expected of them and what roles they should play in the exchange.

Technology Training and Support

Joe and I were misguided in thinking the attraction of online technology would suffice to ensure that students would collaborate with each other on their _sotsuron_ s. One major problem was with audio and video reception in the first exchange sessions using Skype. Teachers should be able to offer alternative modes of communication, such as Facebook, Line, email, texting, or even phoning.

In addition, our project would have benefited from at least one training session to familiarize students with writing reflections on their conversations, uploading to the Google Doc and then interacting on the Google Doc with their peers. However, as an alternative to journaling, transcription of chats (audio and written) could be another way for students to keep records of their collaborative interactions and help to develop their thinking about their topics, although obtaining data transcription of Skype and Line applications is rather difficult for legal reasons. Skype allows the recording of phone calls, but not video, as the legality of recording phone calls differs by location, and it is considered illegal to record a phone conversation without obtaining prior permission (Widder, 2014). The two Line exchanges reported above were recorded by Joe, who photographed his student's phone screen. More recently, Line has made it possible to save individual chat messages, but this possibility was unavailable when our project started. Whatever means of CMC are employed, time needs to be spent with the students, ensuring that they know how to use it for communicating with each other and recording their exchanges.

### Epilogue and Conclusion

Our joint project did not succeed in creating a cross-institutional bridge between our students to enable them to collaborate on thesis topic generation and development. Yet the possibility of CIC inspired another educator to try a Skype discussion between her third-year _zemi_ students and one of Joe's students. Emailing after the event, she reported how pleased she was that her normally shy students were so active in the discussion. She added that, because her students did not want to admit to the fourth-year student that they did not have any thesis ideas, they came up with some on the spot. This episode shows us that CL can be successful when students are motivated to share and build on ideas and knowledge. With appropriate scaffolding and support, students can work together collaboratively to further their own individual research goals.

Despite the failure of our project to facilitate CL, experience with the technology inspired the students to work on their theses in ways that were new for them. Concerning Joe's students, three were already working on longer drafts of their paper by mid-September, something which usually did not take place until mid-November. Two of them finished early enough to submit their theses to the university's library seminar contest held at the end of October. As for my students, their involvement in the project made them more open to other ways to develop their thesis writing. I had them post their drafts on Google Drive so that we could edit together in real time using Skype on occasions where we were unable to meet in person. My students made significant progress so that they were able to submit their _sotsuron_ a few days before the deadline.

Our development as _sotsuron_ supervisors and our students' accomplishments have suggested to us that CIC learning through CMC has great potential where there are symmetries of action and of status between the students, and where shared goals are set that ensure that the students, or teachers, are invested in working together. Collaborating with peers in distant institutions can be stimulating in itself, but it can also provide fresh ideas and motivation for collaboration and learning at home.

### Acknowledgement

I express my deepest appreciation to my co-researcher Professor Joseph Tomei of Kumamoto Gakuen University, the editors of this volume, and the students who gave me access to the contents of their communications. I also gratefully acknowledge Associate Professor Linda Kadota of Matsuyama Shinonome College for her useful insights on this paper.

### References

Aghaee, N., & Hansson, H. (2013). Peer portal: Quality enhancement in thesis writing using self-managed peer review on a mass scale. _International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14_. Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/ article/view/1394/2436

Ashwell, T. (in press). Implementing a team-based learning approach in Japanese university seminar classes. In T. Ashwell, M. Miyahara, S. Paydon & A. Stewart (Eds.) _Collaborative Learning in Learner Development_.

Barkley, B. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). _Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty_. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "conversation of mankind". _College English, 46_ , 635-652. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/ 376924?uid=3738328&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104103109171

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). "What do you mean by collaborative learning?" P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) _Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches_ (pp. 1-19) Oxford: Elsevier.

Heift, T., & Caws, C. (2000). Peer feedback in synchronous writing environments: A case study in French. _Educational Technology & Society, 3_. Retrieved from: http://www.ifets.info/journals/3_3/c01.html

Hung, H. T., & Yuen, S. C. Y. (2010). Educational use of social networking technology in higher education. _Teaching in Higher Education, 15_ , 703-714.

Romme, A. G. L., & Nijhuis, J. F. H. (2000). _Collaborative learning in thesis rings_. Groningen, Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Sakai, S. (2007). _Kore kara repoto sotsuron wo kaku wakamono no tame ni_. [ _For young people about to write reports and theses_ ]. Tokyo: Kyoritsu.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). _Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Widder, B. (2014). How to record a Skype call on your PC or Mac. _Digital Trends_. Retrieved from: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-to-record-a-skype-call-on- your-pc-or-mac/#!bMCygn

Zourou, K. (2009). Corrective feedback in telecollaborative L2 learning settings: Reflections on symmetry and interaction. _JALT CALL Journal, 5_ , 3-20.

### Chapter 11

Collaboration: Content-learning, Language Learning and Practicum all Rolled into One / 内容習得・言語習得・実習: 協働的学びへの試み

Ann Mayeda

### Abstract

This study examines the collaborative learning process in learners enrolled in an undergraduate teacher-training course for teaching English to young learners (YL). The disparate learners were identified as either "high" or "low" language proficient, and with either high or low socio-affective teacher dispositions for working with YLs. Mixed-proficiency groups engaged in collaborative learning tasks in an effort to increase L2 competence, to better understand course content and to share in teacher-training tasks and skills. An analysis of audio recordings of the group discussions and video recordings of practice teaching sessions show the contributions of the more capable or knowledgeable peers in terms of language proficiency and teacher dispositions. Learners contributing distinct, individual strengths combined to allow the groups to achieve a higher level of understanding of challenging content and language learning goals. The results suggest a strong possibility of a common, or group zone of proximal development (ZPD) where increased understanding through peer exchange brought about cognitive and social benefit for the entire group and the classroom as a whole.

本研究は、児童英語教員養成コースに在籍する学習者の協働学習(collaborative learning (CL))プロセスについて検討した。まず英語力が「高い」または「低い」学習者に区分し、さらに児童英語に携わる教師に必要と思われる社会情緒的な特性を保持するかどうかで「高い」または「低い」学習者に分けた。次にこの二つの学習者から成り立つ混合グループを作り、そのグループ内でCLタスクを行うことにより、L2能力の向上、コースの内容に対する理解の向上、又、教師養成に必要な技術をどう向上させていたかの3点を計った。方法としてはグループディスカッションの音声録音と教育実習セッションのビデオ記録の分析により、言語能力と教師特性の観点から、学習者がCLタスクの中でどのように貢献しているかを見た。混合グループでは、学習者が個々の能力と特性を発揮することによって、複雑な講義内容と英語学習ゴールの理解をより高いレベルまで達成できることがわかった。この結果 common or group ZPDの可能性が示唆され、つまり、お互いの特性を最大限に利用し、それぞれの学習に足りないものをお互いに補い合い、相乗効果を上げることに寄与していることがわかった。

### Introduction

The impetus for this research stems from my observation of students who have chosen to enroll in an undergraduate program for teachers of English for young learners (TEYLs). The fact that language proficiency is not a factor in selection has resulted in disparate groups of students who enroll in the program, that is, those who have relatively high language proficiency (HLP), relatively high academic achievement but with low teacher dispositions (LTD), and those on the opposite end who have low language proficiency (LLP), are less academically inclined but with high teacher dispositions (HTD). Learners in the former group tend to be interested in teaching English, while those in the latter want to work with young children. The common denominator is their hope for a future career in teaching young learners of English with the stress on either one or the other. Time and again I have been struck by the dichotomy in these learner profiles and have looked for ways to bridge the gap between the two groups. I have seen the need for the students in the former group to understand that children are not "mini adult" language learners and need to be taught with approaches that require an understanding of the developmental needs of young learners; and a need for students in the latter group to improve their L2 proficiency. Both groups would benefit from understanding and sharing their strengths in a collaborative learning environment. This small classroom study reports on this attempt by having learners work together and share knowledge and skills by raising awareness of individual strengths and weaknesses through group discussion and tasks, and subsequently complement each other in the learning process in order to become better, more well-rounded teachers of English for young learners.

### Sociocultural Theory, Group ZPD and Effective Teacher Dispositions

In this study, the concept of collaborative learning has a social constructivist base, which views learning as the construction of knowledge within a social context including the role of authority in the classroom (Matthews, Cooper, Davidson, & Hawkes, 1995) and which therefore encourages acculturation of individuals into a learning community. Collaborative learning by this definition holds that learning is an acculturation or re-acculturation process "that helps students become members of the knowledge communities whose common property is different from the common property of knowledge communities they already belong to" (Bruffee, 1993, p. 3).

Lantolf (2000) stresses learning as socially mediated and as such classes should be designed to support this process. Teachers can facilitate this by encouraging students to learn from each other through collaborative dialogue. The interactions that occur between the learners and a teacher, a mentor or a more knowledgeable peer can help them better understand and manage the steps of a problem or task. In this way, learners can attain a higher level of cognitive performance than they would if they worked alone. This negotiation of meaning and the linguistic assistance are crucial to learners' language development, particularly in a language classroom (Bruner, 1978).

Social constructivists view collective interaction as a necessary precondition for engaging in self-regulation. Self-regulation as a process can be achieved when learners are allowed to find their voice during problem solving or by the use of language. Vygotsky (1978) maintained that this social interaction is a necessary component for learning and cognitive development to occur. That is, knowledge is co-constructed through the collaborative learning process with others. Learning is situated in the zone of proximal development (ZPD), or the area between actual and potential development level as determined through problem-solving under the guidance of more knowledgeable mentors or in collaboration with more capable peers. Thus, within the ZPD, this mutually beneficial social process can lead learners to increased understanding and gain new insights through peer sharing.

Nyikos and Hashimoto (1997) took the scope of the ZPD further and examined collaboration in a teacher development course with a focus on the possibility of a _group zone of proximal development_. While Vygotsky's ZPD refers to an individual learner who reaches a higher level of understanding through the support of others, Nyikos and Hashimoto posit the possibility of a common area of potentiality, i.e., a zone that encompasses a group of learners in the same learning situation and assisted initially by the teacher or more knowledgeable peers within a group. This zone is viewed as increased understanding attained through the sharing of knowledge and perspectives through collaborative tasks resulting in mutual cognitive and social benefit for the group as a whole. In the course of communication, it is hoped that learners will go beyond what can be achieved individually and can arrive at some higher level of understanding of the same goal. That is, the group collectively reaches a level previously unattainable without the negotiated input from members of the group.

While Vygotsky did not define how much more capable or knowledgeable a peer should be, Le (2007) examined how practice and outcome might differ according to a peer's level of capability in a sociocultural study of Vietnamese university students learning English. Le's study suggests that more capable students can contribute substantially to group work. The key word here is _capable_ as this can be taken to mean not only linguistically but also in the more assertive role adopted by a peer to start a discussion or to provide help with the understanding of concepts for other peers as necessary for the assigned group task. According to Katz (1993), the effectiveness of a teacher is dependent upon a combination of knowledge, skills, and personal dispositions. Teachers as learners can increase their knowledge and develop their skills, but personality, or socio-emotional and cognitive characteristics, are more likely to remain fixed. Cantor (1990) further asserts that teachers can have both knowledge and skills but will not go far without the requisite disposition. She makes the important point that _having_ is not the same as _doing_. Thus, by widening the scope of the more capable peer to include the affective skills, knowledge and dispositions of a _good_ teacher of young learners, in addition to the cognitive and linguistic skills, learners can share in a wider domain and make contributions based on the attributes they possess, that is, the individual strengths that they bring to the group.

This paper explores the possibility of a common or group ZPD extending for a group of learners in the same learning situation where the focus is not necessarily on English language learning per se but rather on core course content that by its very nature requires a high level of language proficiency. Can the learners of varying abilities and dispositions attain even higher levels of growth in language, cognition and teaching skills through multiple discussions and creative problem solving? More specifically, by identifying and classifying the language proficiencies and affective attributes of the learners, this study seeks to answer the following questions (see Appendix A for acronyms):

  * What do HLP/LTD combination learners contribute to group tasks? What do LLP/HTD combination learners contribute to group tasks?

  * Do these contributions result in higher group understanding of course content, language, and/or teaching skills? Is there greater overall benefit to the class as a whole, that is, is there a group ZPD?

### Research Setting and Participants

The participants were 19 second-year undergraduate students enrolled in the _Approaches and Methods in TEYLs_ course in the teacher-training program. As the students are language teacher hopefuls and at the same time language learners, the class had two goals: 1) to learn the content, i.e., how children learn language and subsequent approaches to foreign language teaching, and 2) to improve their L2. In order to make sense of the approaches to teaching and to understand child development in both theory and practice, the students were exposed to many language learning experiences and contexts including opportunities to interact with children at a local preschool.

Based on learner profiles submitted at the beginning of the semester, the participants were classified with either high language proficiency (HLP) for a score of over 450 on the TOEIC, or with low language proficiency (LLP) for those below this mark. They were also classified as possessing either high or low teacher dispositions (HTD or LTD) based on self-described qualities (Colker, 2008) on their learner profiles. HTD classification required mention of a majority of the following: 1) passionate about working with children; 2) ability to persevere; 3) willing to take risks; 4) flexible; 5) creative; 6) energetic; 7) sense of humor and 8) ready to lead. In addition, subjective teacher observation of the participants informed the classification process. Of the 19 participants, 5 were identified as HLP/LTD combination learners and 5 were identified as LLP/HTD and at the opposite ends of the spectrum. See Appendix A for a breakdown of participant classification.

It is important to note here that the course is based on content and language-integrated learning (CLIL) principles. CLIL is often described as an educational approach where course content is taught through the medium of a foreign language and promoted as "dual-focused" giving equal attention to both language and content (Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008, p. 9). In this study the teacher uses the target language, or the students' L2, as the medium of instruction with first language, or L1, textbook and materials support. This approach is particularly important in understanding the set-up of the group discussion tasks as described in the next section.

### Classroom Tasks and Interactions

The study focused on the collaborative tasks assigned to 4 groups in the first semester of the 2013 academic year. At the beginning of the semester, students were divided into groups of 4-5. Each group had at least one HLP/LTD student and one LLP/HTD student.

Classroom tasks and interactions comprised of three types: small group discussion focusing on understanding lecture content and writing a summary in a group journal, group preparation sessions focusing on selecting and practicing age-appropriate classroom activities, and presentation of the activities in class and at a local preschool.

Several sessions of the first task type took place during the first half of the semester. The teacher lectured on content related to understanding early language development and approaches to teaching young learners in the students' L2 with L2 slides and L1 literature support. The students were responsible for reading and reviewing the literature before class thereby providing them with the necessary schema knowledge to follow the lectures. Small group discussions followed. Because the lectures took place in their L2, the learners needed the time to discuss and process the information in their L1. This was a vital link for clearly understanding the material. The CLIL environment served as the impetus for discussion, sharing and confirming understanding, and exchanging viewpoints. Cumulative understanding was then recorded in a weekly journal written by an appointed group leader. Three sessions were audio-recorded for a total of 12 recordings (4 groups per session) of which three had to be discarded due to poor audio quality or errors in recording.

The next collaborative task in the second half of the semester involved choosing materials and practicing activities in preparation for the class presentation and teaching practice at the preschool. Each group discussed what activity was appropriate for their age group, gathered the necessary materials, practiced the activity, and finally decided what role each group member would take in teaching the activity. Two of these sessions were audio-recorded.

The final two tasks were performance-based. The first was the presentation of the selected activity by each group one week prior to the preschool visit and the second was the actual preschool teaching visit. Both of these sessions were video-recorded.

All of the recordings were transcribed and analyzed with particular focus on the roles that the HLP/LTD and LLP/HTD students took in the group discussions.

### Methodology

In keeping with a social constructivist perspective, the study was carried out with an interpretive framework with qualitative methods used to collect and interpret the data (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Interactions within the groups were interpreted according to the contributions made by the learners. The HLP, LLP, HTD, LTD labels and combinations were later transposed onto the transcript data to determine if, in fact, the preclassified interlocutors were making wider scope contributions as more capable or knowledgeable peers and if their interactions helped the entire group reach a higher level of understanding of content and language.

Data Collection

The primary source of data are the audio recordings of the group discussions during the journal-writing task, the audio recordings of the group discussions involving the selection and practice of an age-appropriate activity, and the video footage of the presentations and demonstration of the activities at the preschool. Other supplementary data sources include the group journal entries, teacher field notes including observations at the preschool visit, and a post visit reflection assignment.

The recordings were transcribed by the teacher-researcher with the assistance of three Japanese and English proficient undergraduate students. All extracts in this paper are translations by the researcher of transcribed dialog taking place in the students L1. See Appendix B for transcription conventions.

In order to measure more capable peer contributions during group discussions, the audio and video recordings were transcribed then coded according to the following three categories: (a) sequences of language teaching moments; (b) sequences of content teaching moments where language is used to come to higher group understanding of content by constructing and negotiating meaning collectively within the group; and (c) sequences of teaching skills or sharing moments in the presentations and teaching demonstration.

### Analysis

The following transcriptions were selected because they best illustrate the role taken on by the HLP and the HTD learners in each of the group tasks. The data were compared among the groups for similarity in interactions between the categorized learners.

Sequences of Language Teaching Moments

Of the 3.9 hours of recordings of the group discussions and journal writing tasks, there were 146 sequences of communicative acts where a more knowledgeable peer explained language or language-related content such as vocabulary, grammar or sentence structure to the group. The HLPs, regardless of whether they were classified as HTD or LTD, largely contributed language-related knowledge by either answering questions posed by others, initiated language-related dialog or made final language-related decisions (122 sequences, 84%). 105 of these sequences (72%) were contributions made by the HLP/LTD learners.

In Extract 1, Mami (LLP/HTD1), the designated journal writer and default group leader, first summarizes her understanding of the social and emotional development of two-year-olds (S1), then Risa (HLP) confirms the information (S2).

From S3, Mami commits to understanding her notes in order to write the journal entry. Risa and Naho, the other HLP, respond to Mami's questions (S3, S11) regarding lexical class, spelling and phrasing questions in S8-10 and S12.

Risa and Naho continue to subtly correct Mami's understanding in S14, S16, S22, S30 and S31. Mami is focused on the form of her writing and clearly defers to the grammatical knowledge of both Risa and Naho, the more capable peers, in order to successfully complete the journal writing entry.

In Extract 2, Kurumi, the LLP/HTD learner and designated journal writer, asks Sanae (HLP/LTD) for the translation of a word (S1). Sanae takes on the role of the more knowledgeable peer as she explains subtle differences in meaning to Kurumi (S6). Although Kurumi is the writer, she does not take on the leadership role, but rather acquiesces to Sanae's knowledge. It is worth noting, however, that Kurumi was the natural leader and decision-maker in the later performance-based tasks. Several teacher field note entries indicate her as being the clear leader in her group and make mention of her affective HTD in each of the performance-based evaluations.

There were several sequences (13%) that came to an incorrect or unresolved conclusion. Extract 3 outlines a discussion among a group of four on the physical dexterity of a 3-year old. In this sequence, Masuko (LLP) opens the dialog on the meaning of "push and pull" which then segues into "fill and dump". Risa (HLP) translates the meaning of "pull" correctly (S2). Although others scan a dictionary, a satisfactory definition is not reached for "fill and dump". In the end Ayako, the other HLP in the group, gives up and decides to leave the entry as written in her notes (S10), ending with no collective understanding for the group.

Sequences of Content Teaching Moments

There were 144 sequences of communicative acts where the group came to a higher level of understanding by constructing and negotiating meaning collectively. The extracts were analyzed within each group, focusing on what was said, who said it, how it was responded to and what was accomplished (Rex & Schiller, 2009). Of these extracts, 42 (29%) contained sequences where the group was able to reach not only a higher but also a more practical level of understanding of lecture content. The following three extracts show typical interactions where the learners confirmed then collated pieces of information and finally recast their understanding of the material. This was taken as evidence of greater overall development for the group as a whole.

In Extract 4 learners confirm understanding of the language development of 3-year olds by adding one statement at a time and continue on as soon as a group member corroborates the information. At first, Azusa (HLP/HTD1) offers the affirmative confirmations (S2, S4) but as Arina and Iris (LLP/HTDs) gain confidence, they begin to add their understanding of the material in sequence (S5, S7, S8, S10). In S12, Arina (journal writer) finishes the sequence with "...we can put this all together" indicating the shared understanding and satisfactory teamwork.

In Extract 5 the learners can be seen coming to a collective understanding. The sequence opens with Azusa (HLP/HTD) not understanding the meaning of what she had written in her notes (S1, S3). Arina (LLP/HTD1) contributes her understanding (S5), which jogs Azusa's memory (S6), subsequently leading to Iris' (LLP/HTD2) summary of the concept of counting (S7) and her effort to write it out (S10). It is doubtful that the learners in this group would have understood this important milestone in the cognitive development of 3-4 year-old children had this exchange not occurred.

Another pattern that emerged was clarification or confirmation of lecture points by a more capable peer who understood the English but not necessarily what it meant in actual practice. When the group reached a consensus on understanding the content, higher order processing occurred with the discussion moving forward on what this meant in the classroom. An example of this can be seen in Extract 6. Here two HLP learners, Risa and Naho are discussing the fact that two-year-olds engage in parallel play and do not yet interact with playmates, whereupon Mami (LLP/HTD) realizes that this means interactive games will fail with this age group (S9). In short, this realization eliminated many of the activities the group had in mind for the upcoming preschool visit. In the final comment, Risa suggests that they may have to prepare something for each child.

This discussion is interesting because it sheds light on what the LLP learner did not understand in the lecture and when this was brought up for clarification both the LLPs and the HLPs realized that this had a direct impact on the activities they might select. Had this dialog not taken place, it is doubtful that the HLPs would have processed the information in such practical terms and all members would not have gained this collective knowledge.

Discussions such as these cautiously point to a group ZPD. These types of communicative events dealing with processing and cognition happened often enough to suggest a group ZPD where all learners in the group collectively reached a higher level of understanding.

### Sequences of skill teaching or sharing moments

Of the 3.5 hours of audio recordings for the group task of selecting and preparing age-appropriate materials, there were no particular patterns as to how they were selected. No one learner type or disposition seemed to contribute any more than the others. However, in the 2.5 hours of video-recordings of the presentation sessions and the preschool visit, there were frequent sequences of communicative acts (52%) where the learners who displayed HTD characteristics supported the group by encouraging or demonstrating early childhood teacher attributes. This was particularly evident in the video recordings and in the teacher field notes of the preschool teaching session. The HTD students clearly displayed effective teacher dispositions such as taking on leadership roles, they were energetic and enthusiastic, and were willing to take risks with language use. The following is an excerpt from the teacher field notes on the day of the preschool visit. The names are pseudonyms and the labels in parentheses were added at the time of this writing.

Keiko (HLP/HTD), Mami (LLP/HTD), Momo (LLP/HTD) and Kurumi (LLP/HTD) are the clear leaders. They approach the children freely and interact with them with no prompting from the teacher. Although often incorrect, they try very hard to use only English.

During a post-presentation reflection and discussion session each group was asked, "How did you decide who would do what for your activity today?" In the following excerpt, the learners had demonstrated the use of a group-created picture book and are referring to how they made the decision on who would create the materials, who would narrate the story and who would do the gestures and acting out.

  * Minako: All the members made the book. We discussed each personality and decided what, which is which for each personality.

  * Momo: We helped each other decide which is best.

Their responses indicate some awareness of what each learner brings to the group and the subsequent assigning of tasks. They seemed to consider suitability over arbitrary assignment particularly when there was group cohesion.

Other roles taken on by LLP/HTDs

Some of the LLP/HTDs, on the other hand, took on unexpected roles. In the following 3 extracts from one recording, Arina (LLP/HTD) becomes responsible for dictionary searches in Extract 7 and moves the assignment forward in Extract 8 (S15). This is followed a few minutes later in Extract 9 with recognition that her English skills are lacking (S17) and later indicates that this is how she can contribute to the group (S19).

It is worth noting that in the above session the designated writer was Keiko, an HLP learner, whereas in Extracts 1 and 2 the LLPs were the writers. This role made them responsible for confirming understanding of content and language by default. When an HLP learner did not have this responsibility (regardless of HTD or LTD designation) they continued to contribute their language knowledge to the group discussions. However, when HTD learners were not the designated writers, they contributed little to language-related questions as expected, but compensated in other flexible and creative ways. This stood out in particular with the LLP/HTD combination learners and occurred at least once in four of the six lecture discussions.

### Discussion

The results of this small-scale study while not definitive, point to particular tendencies. The learners clearly support and gain insights from each other as a result of the collaborative learning tasks. The HLPs, regardless of high or low teacher dispositions, when viewed as more knowledgeable peers in terms of language proficiency quite naturally contributed to the group in this capacity irrespective of writing responsibilities. The LLPs when given the responsibility for journal writing consistently sought the help of the HLPs. In contrast, when the LLP/HTD learners did not have this responsibility, they did little to contribute to language-related questions but did compensate in other ways in order to maintain status as contributing members of the group. They tended to take on other roles such as looking up words in the dictionary, creating materials for the presentations or simply moving the discussion forward, that is, anything non-language related but teacher-oriented. In particular, when the LLPs were comfortable within the group they contributed their understanding of the lecture content with confidence.

In the performance-based tasks the HTDs came to the fore and were actively engaged in the affective or socio-emotional realms of teaching. They displayed many of the characteristics associated with effective early-childhood teachers. The HLP/LTD learners, however, did not actively seek out the help of their more capable peers but rather tended to acquiesce to the skills of the HTDs. In addition, the HTDs did little to support or engage the LTDs. This may be due to the fact that language skills are viewed as transferable and learnable whereas teacher dispositions may not be necessarily viewed as such, nor even be considered skills but rather affective inclinations. Dos Voseles and Fowler-Hughey (2007) make the claim that these teacher traits can contribute to a good occupational match as a teacher but should not be viewed as skills as this implies some degree of transferability.

At mid-point into the course, however, the teacher-researcher observed a change where three of the self-described LLP/LTDs realigned as HTD learners, pointing to the possibility that these dispositions can be adopted if the learners come to the realization that the traits are indeed necessary to become more effective teachers. This highlights the fluidity of the HTD descriptors and the potential to have skewed the results but it also points to the possibility that the skills and attitudes which underlie a "high teacher disposition" are transferrable and learnable. By observing the success with which the HTD learners delivered the activities, were the LTD learners able to reflect on and later adopt this style? Or were they simply latent HTD learners who needed the opportunity to come out of their shells? This unexpected issue of transferability requires further investigation and is not within the scope of this paper. For the sake of consistency and brevity these labels were not changed midway into the study.

The anatomy of a course and the inherent messages conveyed through its design affect developing notions of what is meant to be a successful language learner, a successful teacher of young learners and how these are assessed. Efforts to develop an internal sense of linguistic or communicative competence in tandem with an internal sense of positive teacher attributes and skills should be the working framework for training FL teachers of young learners. That is, the socio-emotional attributes required for teaching should have equal footing with L2 ability. A balanced focus on developing learners' ability to learn effectively, to observe and use appropriate skills and strategies whether linguistic or non-linguistic may allow for more internal attributes to develop.

The strength of peer collaboration in this investigation lies in the small group-learning format encouraging intensive interaction and resulting in a dynamic process of higher group learning, cognition and motivation. By emphasizing the students' active participation in constructing their own knowledge it can be seen as a learning process which maximizes the scaffolding found in a group ZPD.

### Conclusion

In this particular community of L2 learners, cognitive and linguistic ideas were effectively formed through reflective inquiry with their peers, which in turn helped the groups negotiate a collective ZPD, that is, the groups' degree of potential under conditions that allowed them to interpret then negotiate collective understanding. These peers showed capability in different ways and provided scaffolding, consisting of multiple forms of assistance that were first shared then naturally withdrawn as individual learners became more proficient in the language and in their teaching skills.

These two disparate groups of learners who might not naturally gravitate toward each other, stand to improve their language skills, gain more content knowledge, acquire higher order processing skills and improve their teaching skills through collaborative tasks that allow them the opportunity to share their individual strengths in a supportive learning environment. The aptitudes observed in each of the learners should be continually nurtured in order to produce well-rounded, competent and effective teachers of young learners of English.

### References

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). _Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge_. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Bruner, J. (1978). Learning how to do things with words. In J. Bruner & A. Garton (Eds.), _Human growth and development_ (pp. 62-84). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: Having and doing in the study of personality and cognition. _American Psychologist, 45_ , 735-50.

Colker, L. (2008). Twelve characteristics of effective early childhood teachers. _Young Children. 63_ , 68-73.

Da Ros-Voseles, D., & Fowler-Haughey, S. (2007). The role of dispositions in the education of future teachers. _Young Children. 62_ , 90-98.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). _The Sage handbook of qualitative research_. London: Sage.

Katz, L.G. (1993). _Dispositions: Definitions and implications for early childhood practices_. Champaign-Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), _Sociocultural theory and second language learning_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Le, P. H. H. (2007). The more knowledgeable peer, target language use, and group participation. _The Canadian Modern Language Review. 64_ , 333-354.

Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N., & Hawkes, P. (1995). Building bridges between cooperative and collaborative learning. _Change, 27_ , 35-40.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). _Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education_. Oxford: Macmillan.

Nyikos, M., & Hashimoto, R. (1997). Constructivist theory applied to collaborative learning in teacher education: In search of ZPD. _The Modern Language Journal, 81_ , 506-517.

Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2009). _Using discourse analysis to improve classroom interaction_. London: Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). _Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

### Appendix A: Participant classification

HLP: High Language Proficiency

LLP: Low Language Proficiency

HTD: High Teacher Disposition

LTD: Low Teacher Disposition

### Appendix B: Transcription conventions

Note: All transcription texts have been translated into English by the author. Any errors in transcription or translation are the author's own.

### Chapter 12

Collaborative Learning and Professional Development for Teachers in an Elementary School Context /小学校における教師の協働的学びと専門的成長

Hideo Kojima

### Abstract

In 2011 English language activities (ELA) classes started in Japanese elementary schools as a part of compulsory education for fifth- and sixth-grade children. Many elementary school teachers with no certificate in teaching English are required to instruct ELA alone or in team-teaching situations. This study aims to examine to what extent teacher collaboration in ELA instruction promoted the professional development of a graduate student and elementary school teacher of English and her colleagues' teacher-learner autonomy in their school context. With the support of collaborative and reflective supervision (CRS), she implemented learning strategies instruction and orchestrated- strategies-use projects in order to promote her pupils' abilities in learning how to learn. CRS assisted her in playing a significant role as a core teacher in the community of learning and practice. The study provides evidence that the core EFL teacher is a critical element in elementary school ELA contexts where collaboration among teachers is essential for ELA instruction to be successful.

日本全国の公立小学校では、第5学年及び第6学年において、2011年から義務教育の一部として英語活動が完全実施されてきている。英語教授資格のない多くの小学校教員が、単独もしくはティーム・ティーチングの形態で英語活動を指導しなければならない。本研究では、ある小学校で英語活動の中核を担う小学校英語教員(英語教授資格を有する現職教員で大学院生)の専門職能とティームを組む同僚たちのオートノミーが、協働授業を通してどの程度促進されたかを探ることがねらいである。院生の現職教員は、教師教育者による協働的・省察的スーパービジョン(CRS)の支援の下で、児童たちに言語を学ぶ方法を身につけさせるために、学習方略指導に加えて多様な方略使用を組み入れたプロジェクトを、他の教員と協働的に実施した。CRSは、学びと実践の共同体において、院生が中核教員として大事な役割を担うことができるように支えた。担当教員同士の効果的な協働が、英語活動指導の成功を導く上で重視される小学校のコンテクストでは、中核教員の存在が鍵を握ると考えられる。

### Introduction

Since the OECD published _Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers_ (2005), a number of countries have considered teacher quality as a requirement for providing high-quality education and have conducted various reforms of their teacher education systems. Based on discussions held at its special committee for improving teachers' abilities, the Central Council for Education (2012) in Japan submitted a report that proposed training at the master's degree level and reform of the licensing system. The report also clarified the direction that teacher education reform should take, based on the notion of life-long learning for teachers.

Little (1995) defines genuinely successful teachers as those who have always been autonomous in the sense of having "a strong sense of personal responsibility for their teaching, exercising via continuous reflection and analysis the highest possible degree of affective and cognitive control of the teaching process, and exploiting the freedom that this confers" (p. 179). As a teacher educator in Japan, I believe that teachers should continue to enhance their technical knowledge, pedagogical skills, interpersonal skills, and personal qualities through collaborative, reflective practice and research throughout their teaching careers.

This study focuses on teachers working in English language activities (ELA) classes. These classes were introduced in 2011 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) as a part of compulsory education for fifth- and sixth-grade children in Japanese elementary schools. The primary objective of ELA is not to acquire language knowledge and skills, but rather to nurture the foundations of pupils' communication abilities in English (MEXT, 2008).

Many elementary school teachers, who have no certification in teaching English, are required to conduct ELA classes alone or by means of team-teaching with native speakers of English, known as Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs), or Japanese teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL). Since ELA classes are still in their infancy, those charged with teaching these classes have a lot to gain through learning together. My major goal as a teacher educator is to support my graduate student "Akiko", in developing her own professional autonomy as a researcher and core teacher and her colleagues' teacher-learner autonomy through collaborative teaching.

### Background and Context

Smith (2000) suggests that teacher autonomy can be defined at least partially in terms of the _teacher's autonomy as a learner_ , or more succinctly _teacher-learner autonomy_ , which is characterized by a readiness to take charge of one's own learning in the service of one's needs and purposes. This entails a capacity and willingness to act independently and in collaboration with others, as a socially responsible person. Those charged with teaching ELA classes in this study need to enhance their own readiness, capacities, and control in relevant areas of teacher learning, and consider the nature and extent of their own teacher-learner autonomy.

One of the directions in the _Second Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education_ (MEXT, 2013a) is: "Developing social competencies for survival—individual autonomy and collaboration in a diversified and rapidly changing society." The Central Council for Education (2012) proposed that these social competencies should be fostered through collaborative learning (CL) activities, and that school teachers should collaborate with their colleagues to deal with difficult educational issues. Taking into account the key elements of CL: positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interaction, social skills, and group processing (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1990), I have implemented CL not only for learners but also for teachers who need to develop their teaching skills and autonomy through positive interdependence in communities of practice.

As a teacher educator, I have researched and written about the effectiveness of collaboration in learner and teacher development in secondary or tertiary EFL education contexts. In this case study, for the first time, I deal with collaborative and reflective supervision (CRS) for ELA and focus on collaborative teacher learning and professional development in an elementary school education context. MEXT (2009) advocates that homeroom teachers (HRTs) should lead ELA classes because they are best placed to create appropriate content and activities that suit their pupils' interests, academic studies, and daily lives. However, most HRTs at Akiko's school felt anxious about teaching ELA and lacked self-confidence in their skills in and knowledge of English. Thus, collaborative teacher learning seemed to be a promising way for each teacher to engage in their own development.

### Practice

The following people (all were anonymized except Kojima) were involved in the study: a graduate student and elementary school EFL teacher in her forties (Akiko), four homeroom and ELA teachers (Takashi, Yumi, Manabu, Masako), an ALT from the United States (Greg), elementary school pupils, and Akiko's supervisor (Kojima). Takashi and Yumi were in charge of the fifth-grade classes (Classes A and B), and Manabu and Masako were in charge of the sixth-grade classes (Classes C and D).

During the first year of the MA course at my university, as a full-time student, Akiko studied various subjects with other MA students and laid the groundwork for her research. In weekly CRS sessions, she learned a variety of key concepts in English language teaching (ELT) such as Communicative Language Teaching, learner and teacher autonomy, language learning strategies, collaborative learning/teaching, reflective learning/teaching, community of learning/practice, and so on. In the second year of her course, Akiko went back to the school where she had previously been employed and taught ELA with her fellow teachers while working on her research study. Once or twice a month, she would return to our university for extra CRS sessions with me.

In the final CRS session before returning to her school, Akiko and I reviewed her plans for teaching practice at her elementary school. Her intention was to teach learning strategies to the pupils in the ELA classroom, based on Chamot's (1990, 1999) Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA). Akiko wanted to help her pupils to develop metacognitive strategies, or in other words, to learn how to learn. We felt that it was essential for her as a core teacher to share her teaching principles with her colleagues and promote collaborative teacher learning in the community of practice. We discussed how to promote collegiality at her school, and I advised her to ask the principal for his support in promoting teacher collaboration in these classes.

ELA classes at Akiko's school started in April 2012, and the CRS sessions at the university continued until Akiko completed her thesis (Sasaki, 2013) at the end of January 2013. Based on an analysis of the results of the pupils' learning strategies use, together with the HRTs and Greg, Akiko taught learning strategies that the pupils lacked from April through July. After the summer vacation, orchestrated-strategies-use projects (interviewing the school teachers and introducing a country the pupils would like to visit) were implemented in the ELA classroom. The fifth- and sixth-grade pupils used a variety of learning strategies that they had learned in the ELA classes during the previous term. The teachers worked on the projects collaboratively and reflected on the effectiveness of their instruction.

### Results and Discussion

In the following sections, teacher collaboration in the instruction of learning strategies and the orchestrated-strategies-use projects is analyzed, and then individual participants' reflections on the collaborative process are discussed. The participants' claims or comments in Japanese are translated into English by me.

Learning Strategies Instruction

Before starting ELA instruction, Akiko had a meeting with the four HRTs. She expressed her ideas about learning strategies instruction and teacher collaboration, and together they discussed how to collaborate in ELA classes. Akiko introduced some materials to them for teaching learning strategies to the pupils.

Teachers are usually required to make teaching plans for themselves. However, in the case of the ELA classes, most of the HRTs lacked confidence in their English proficiency and teaching skills and asked Akiko and Greg to make teaching plans and materials for the classes. Whenever Greg visited the school, they met during the first period before the start of the class to discuss what and how to teach. Akiko had short meetings with each of the HRTs during recess a few days before each ELA class, when she handed over the lesson plans. The HRTs proposed adding or deleting activities or changing the order of activities.

ELA lessons were conducted using team-teaching. Akiko supported the HRTs and the pupils and gave them some advice when they were unsure about how to explain activities, when they hesitated to move to the next activity, and when they could not collaborate with Greg effectively. In the teaching plan, she concretely described desirable teacher actions such as asking Greg to explain how to do activities and demonstrating how to play games with him. Moreover, she explicitly described target strategies and the timing for instructing them so that the HRTs could support the pupils' strategies use effectively.

Although the HRTs were able to talk with Akiko individually inside and outside the classroom, they had some problems achieving collaboration in their teaching practice. For instance, it was not easy for Akiko to arrange meetings with all the teachers together because of conflicting school schedules. It was also difficult for Akiko and the HRTs to immediately reflect on their lessons. After lessons the HRTs had to prepare for the next period or supervise their pupils during recess. In the general meeting in August, Akiko emphasized the significance of face-to-face communication between the teachers and proposed coordinating meetings with individual teachers or all the teachers more regularly.

Orchestrated-Strategies-Use Projects

Akiko and all the HRTs discussed how to implement orchestrated-strategies-use projects in a meeting held in September. In line with Anderson (2005) who claims, "It may be helpful to view strategy use as an orchestra"(p. 757), Akiko proposed some group research projects where all pupils in the same grade were encouraged to collaborate in a common project and employ a variety of learning strategies in an orchestrated way. In this integrated approach, "the various components of an ability to learn are woven, so to speak, into the learners' overall experience of language learning" (Mariani, 2004, p. 40).

Regarding the fifth-grade project, the HRTs (Takashi and Yumi) had difficulty in deciding on an appropriate project because the number of English words and expressions that the pupils had learned was very small. I advised Akiko to have the pupils interview the school teachers about their preferences, and this proposal was accepted by the HRTs. As a result, all the teachers at the school were involved in the project. The collaboration among the HRTs was essential to the success of the project. They discussed how to help the pupils to write questions in English and interview the school teachers, and how to collaborate with Greg, taking into account the pupils' interests and abilities. Greg was asked to select and teach suitable English words and expressions. The pupils in groups of four or five made questionnaires in English (e.g., "Do you like...?") and conducted interviews with their school teachers. They then summarized the collected information and reported each interviewee's preferences in English on the class open day when parents and grandparents were invited.

The HRTs in charge of the sixth-graders (Manabu and Masako) decided to have the pupils introduce a country that they would like to visit. Group investigation was often employed in the Period of Integrated Study classes at their school. In this project, too, collaboration among the teachers concerned seemed to contribute to the pupils' successful presentations. Masako made the scripts that the pupils used for the performance of little plays and instructed them on how to carry out the presentation. Manabu instructed them in the use of gesture and supported Masako. Greg and Akiko taught English words and expressions that the pupils wanted to use in their presentations.

The orchestrated-strategies-use projects became a very good opportunity for both the pupils and the teachers to enhance their cognitive and metacognitive abilities. The pupils reflected on their activities in every class. The teachers also kept taking notes and reflected on their own teaching practice, as a way to enhance their professional growth. All the HRTs showed positive attitudes towards conducting ELA lessons collaboratively.

Individual Participants' Reflections on the Collaborative Process

At the end of the school year, the HRTs, Greg, and Akiko had a general meeting to reflect on the collaborative process and evaluate their ELA instruction. Their reflections and mine are summarized and discussed below.

Takashi (5th grade HRT)

I didn't know how to teach ELA effectively during the first year of ELA instruction. Observing the core teachers teaching ELA, I have learned how to do various activities with pupils and how to develop teaching materials. In order to achieve our full potential, we teachers need to work at a school that is creative, enabling, and collaborative. As a core teacher for ELA instruction, Akiko motivated me to enhance my professional consciousness-raising. Every teacher is a leader in the classroom. I'd like to be more responsible for my ELA instruction. In the orchestrated strategies use project, the pupils seemed to enjoy selecting and using different strategies in their own way. Strategy training would be effective in fostering creative and self-regulated pupils with the capacity to go on as lifelong learners.

Takashi and Manabu had taught ELA classes with Akiko in 2010 before she began her MA course. At that time, Akiko was the main teacher. She involved Takashi and Manabu in these lessons and gradually increased the amount of teaching they did so that they could conduct these classes independently. In 2011, when Akiko left to start her graduate course, Takashi and Manabu became the main teachers with a new core teacher. In April 2012, when Akiko returned and became a core teacher again, Takashi seemed to understand how to conduct ELA through his previous teaching experiences. He realized the potential problems in ELA and tried to improve his instruction. He had positive attitudes towards learning strategies instruction. When Akiko asked him to demonstrate a lesson for the school workshop in July, he agreed to do so without hesitation. He wanted to develop his teaching skills making the best use of any opportunities. He usually used classroom English and supported the pupils in various ways. Akiko thought that Takashi became more autonomous through his experience in collaborating on the teaching of the ELA classes in 2012.

Yumi (5th grade HRT)

When I started teaching ELA for the first time in April, I was very nervous because I lacked confidence in my English knowledge and skills. Whenever I observed Takashi's classes, I felt I must improve my own lessons. Takashi looked happy with the pupils. I knew my ELA lessons weren't effective. Through team-teaching with Akiko and Greg, I gradually recognized how to instruct ELA. I could find insights that would help me to accomplish my goal to be an effective teacher. In particular, I asked Akiko for help when I was struggling with my pupils. When I built good relations with more teachers and pupils through the orchestrated-strategies-use project, I had a much happier, more enjoyable time as a teacher.

Yumi started teaching ELA in April 2012. In the first term she could not instruct as she hoped. It was very difficult for her to carry out activities in a timely fashion and to explain how to play games effectively. Akiko gave her a lot of advice during lessons, and sometimes explained to the pupils how to play games instead of her. Yumi gradually got used to teaching ELA and improved her lessons. In the second term, Yumi took more confidence in discussing teaching plans with Akiko before lessons and reflected on her instruction. She had already experienced using a group research project in the Period of Integrated Study classes. This helped her to have an image of collaborative learning. Her teaching became more effective than before. Because of this, Akiko asked her to demonstrate her ELA instruction for some teacher consultants from the board of education. Yumi agreed with Akiko and made a teaching plan in consultation with Akiko and the vice-principal. This experience seemed to enhance Yumi's professional growth. She was able to give more appropriate feedback to the pupils' responses. She also made self-evaluation cards so that the pupils could develop their metacognitive abilities.

Manabu (6th grade HRT)

Frankly speaking, I'm against the goals of ELA in the New Course of Study. We should teach basic knowledge and skills of English. Some pupils have already learned how to read and write English in cram schools. They seem to be interested in reading and writing English. This year I could develop the pupils' abilities in learning how to learn. Akiko taught the target strategies at the beginning of ELA lesson and then I encouraged the pupils to use the strategies during the class. Moreover, a few years ago, I got interested in CL, but I couldn't use the approach effectively in my daily classes. The ELA lessons were a good opportunity for me to implement CL in my classes and realize its power. If we'd like to succeed in our ELA lessons, we need to foster collaboration among ELA teachers.

Some ELA teachers in Japan might agree with Manabu who emphasizes developing pupils' language knowledge and skills. Manabu had conducted ELA classes at his previous school and had more confidence in teaching English than the other HRTs. He was also interested in implementing CL in the ELA classroom. In his classes Akiko mostly supported the pupils. She helped Manabu only when she was asked to do so by him. Through learning strategies instruction, he came to understand the significance of collaboration among teachers.

Masako (6th grade HRT)

In the first term, I couldn't conduct team-teaching effectively. I often spent too much time on an English game and couldn't move on to the next activity. It was also hard for me to design a teaching plan. I downloaded the teaching plans for the MEXT textbook (Hi, friends!), but they didn't describe how to interact in English. Luckily, I could find some suggestions from a commercial reference. I made sure of the objectives of ELA and learned how to design ELA. Working on the orchestrated-strategies-use project, I recognized the importance of being a team player. I felt a great sense of belonging to my school. If I can create an atmosphere where learning is expected and rewarded, I'll probably get more pupils who actually do learn in my classroom.

Masako, who had one year of experience in ELA instruction, continually reflected on her own teaching. She often hesitated to lead ELA in the first term because she was not good at team-teaching. She complained that she had no confidence in speaking English. In addition, she was likely to spend a lot of time doing one activity. Akiko often had to remind her to move on to the next one during the lessons. Masako also tended to teach the pupils English expressions before they noticed themselves, which went against Akiko's advice that the pupils should be allowed to notice first. As for ELA teaching plans, even experienced teachers spend a lot of time designing them. However, Masako's comments above imply that making ELA teaching plans could be a good opportunity for HRTs to develop teaching skills and teacher-learner autonomy. In the orchestrated- strategies-use project, Masako collaborated with Greg. It was from this point that she started to play a more active role as a team player and build her own teaching style. Akiko encouraged Masako to demonstrate her ELA lesson for junior high school teachers who visited the elementary school to observe lessons and exchange educational ideas.

Greg

I enjoyed teaching ELA with the teachers at this school. They were working collegially and contributing to the whole school. I'd like to thank Akiko for her arrangement of all ELA classes. She did a very good job as a core teacher. We discussed how to promote learner-centered ELA instruction and shared various ideas about team-teaching with the HRTs. Learning strategies instruction and the orchestrated-strategies-use projects were very interesting and exciting. I'd like to help pupils promote cross-cultural understanding and autonomy in language learning.

Greg was very interested in Japanese culture and literature but had little experience in teaching English. As an ALT, he made an effort to enhance pupils' cross-cultural understanding and familiarize them with English sounds and expressions. Akiko helped him to understand the education system of elementary schools, work collegially in the ELA classroom, promote the pupils' awareness and use of strategies, and make teaching plans. He had to visit several schools in a week. In the schools without core teachers, he was expected to teach ELA as a core teacher. This is often the case with ELA classes in Japan. He sometimes also assisted Akiko in working on her research study. The good relationship among the participants in the ELA classroom at Akiko's school seemed to facilitate Greg's professional growth and teacher-learner autonomy.

Akiko

As a graduate student and elementary school EFL teacher, I learned a lot about learner/learning-centered approaches to ELA instruction. I know individual pupils have different learning styles and strategies. Through learning strategies instruction and the orchestrated strategies use projects, I could foster pupils' abilities to learn how to learn. I'd like to continue to help them to be good language learners. Moreover, while making teaching plans and developing teaching materials, I always considered how to make daily ELA classes more effective through team-teaching. As a core teacher, I paid much attention to enhancing collegiality at my school.

When Akiko became a graduate student at our university, she was intrinsically motivated to study EFL education very hard, but she lacked confidence in her professional competence to be an effective core teacher at her school. In the second year of the MA course, through teaching practice and research in ELA instruction, she helped her fellow teachers to enhance their teacher development. Akiko's professional development in the school context enabled her:

  * to implement strategy-based instruction so that the pupils could foster learner autonomy and positive attitudes towards communication in English,

  * to assist her fellow teachers in developing their teacher-learner autonomy through positive interdependence,

  * to enhance her professional competence and autonomy through collaborative and reflective teaching cycles,

  * to foster collegiality in her community of practice.

Akiko developed a new approach to fostering elementary school pupils' abilities to learn how to learn as part of a collaborative teaching program. Moreover, her high professionalism as a core teacher contributed to the enhancement of collaborative teacher learning among her colleagues. Their final reflections on ELA instruction indicate that individual teachers' learning and professional development were an outcome of the effective teacher collaboration, rather than incidental to that collaboration.

Kojima

As a teacher educator I also developed professionally. For the first time, I was able to explore the potential of CRS to drive the learning of a professional learning community at an elementary school. The idea of building a community of teacher learning which enhances the autonomous learning experience of pupils/students is becoming a pivotal idea in the national education systems in Japan. Individual teachers are expected to work collegially and contribute to the whole school so that they can improve school education. In order to realize this idea, there has to be a clear sense of the shared values of all members in each school community. School culture will also have a profound effect on teachers and their perception of their role in carrying forward change that will promote learner autonomy. Collegiality and collaboration seemed to be the key factors in bringing about a change in Akiko's professional identity.

### Conclusion

The participants' reflections demonstrate that teacher collaboration in ELA instruction was the key to development of autonomy for Akiko as a researcher and core teacher, and for her fellow teachers as teacher-learners in their school context. In designing and organizing in-service teacher education programs, it is essential for teacher educators to consider the relationships among teachers working within the same school context. Regarding the degrees of professional development among the participants, there were individual differences depending on their teaching experiences. Akiko's role as a core teacher was essential, and her positive attitudes towards innovation in ELA led to the improvement of teaching materials/methods and a more effective relationship among the participants. Through the cycles of collaborative and reflective teaching in the orchestrated-strategies-use projects, in particular, each teacher was able to strengthen his/her sense of professional identity and teaching expertise.

EFL education in elementary schools is a significant issue in Japan. We have to consider its current problems and future direction. Taking globalization into account, MEXT has released the _English Education Reform Plan_ (MEXT, 2013b) and is working to incrementally promote education reform from the elementary to lower/upper secondary education stage. As part of this reform, MEXT is planning to implement English language subject classes in the fifth and sixth grades of elementary schools. However, this study implies that the majority of elementary school teachers do not have enough training/education to be autonomous language teachers. Just as Akiko played a significant role at her school, it may be beneficial for schools generally to assist individual teachers in becoming collaborative, autonomous, and reflective practitioners and researchers. Different institutions have different educational problems. A collaborative and reflective approach can help achieve the effective collegiality needed to face these difficulties, realities, or obstacles.

### References

Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), _Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning_ (pp. 757-772). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Central Council for Education. (2012). _Report on comprehensive measures for improving teachers' abilities throughout their teaching lives_. Tokyo: MEXT

Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). _The learning strategies handbook_. New York: Longman.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). _Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom_. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. _System, 23_ , 175-182.

Mariani, L. (2004). Learning to learn with the CEF. In K. Morrow (Ed.), _Insights from the common European framework_ (pp. 32-42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2008). _The guidelines for study in the elementary school: Foreign language activities_. Tokyo: Toyokan.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2009). _Teacher training handbook for foreign language activities in elementary schools_. Tokyo: Obunsha.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2013a). _The second basic plan for the promotion of education_. Retrieved from: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/1338141.htm

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2013b) _English education reform plan corresponding to globalization_. Retrieved from: http://www.mext. go.jp/ english/topics/1343591.htm

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). _Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers_. Paris: OECD Publishing.

O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). _Learning strategies in second language acquisition_. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Sasaki, A. (2013). Learning to learn in elementary school foreign language activities. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Hirosaki University, Japan.

Smith, R. (2000). Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.), _Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions_ (pp. 89-99). London: Longman.
Drawing Some Threads Together

The contributors to this collection have sought to uncover what it is about collaboration that can lead to learning. Some have managed to identify actual instances of learning which have accrued from the collaborative work the learners were engaged in. This is no mean feat. Others have had to conclude that collaboration may not have had the positive effects they were expecting. All have demonstrated that collaborative learning is something which is very hard to pin down and that it requires a delicate balance of circumstances for it to bloom.

We saw in the first chapter that, while trust is an essential element for fostering CL, even this basic concept is layered and faceted. Through the dialogue between Steven Paydon and Dexter Da Silva, we began to see that when members of a group trust one another in a way which creates the potential for CL, they open themselves up to the dangers of interaction with others and are able to exhibit vulnerability in such a way that space is created for learning to occur. A static, all-or-nothing characterization of trust fails to recognize that individuals are constantly negotiating their relationships with others in a group as they move towards having the self-confidence to open up to others.

The three chapters which followed explored the use of collaborative group work in regular university English classes. In searching for a connection between collaborative group work and motivational orientation, Etsuko Shimo found no group effect for the various activities she used which might reasonably have been expected to boost learners' relational motivation at the very least. Many of us use group work activities in our classes in the belief that they motivate students in various ways, but the results of this study hint that it may be very hard to change the underlying motivational orientations of a group over a relatively short period of time by using collaborative group activities. An important insight gained from this study was that those students who have higher self-esteem and self-confidence are likely to take advantage of collaborative activities most, which seems to be a reminder to all of us that learners in any group without these attributes will need support to benefit fully from group work.

Hiromi Tsuda's study found that collaborative pre-listening tasks boosted her students' interest in and their understanding of the lectures they consequently listened to, but, as in Shimo's study, there did not appear to be overall motivational gains for her students. However, the study demonstrates that some individuals, including some athletics students, gained a great deal from working closely with others who acted as near peer models.

Chika Hayashi's study is in quite a different vein to the previous two. Through a close analysis of the journal entries written by a group of four students over the course of a year, she identified two important changes in the writing. One was a change in mode from a monologic style to a dialogic style; the other was how writers' roles changed as they experimented with different topics and styles of writing and how they emulated each other in their following entries. Although there is no direct evidence of collaborative learning, the study demonstrates how trust and empathy can develop in a group even through the written medium of a journal completed out of class.

The two following chapters dealt in different ways with the complex relationship between collaboration and autonomy. Martin Mullen and Chris Fitzgerald introduced two collaborative group projects into a learner autonomy course partly because they were dissatisfied with the way the course had been run before. They observed that learners seemed more willing to participate in the class and were more engaged with the content matter when working collaboratively. They also saw their learners starting to regard each other as sources of information about choosing and using learning resources, thus perhaps identifying one connection between collaboration and individual autonomy.

Mathew Porter's study looked at the relationship between materials' design, collaborative learning and self-access. The results underscored the ways in which CL hangs by a thread, dependent as it is on the delicate interplay between individual orientations, personalities, group dynamics, learning tasks, and other contextual factors. In one group session it was possible to identify some examples of scaffolding, equilibration and convergence which the author characterized as elements of CL. This group had a strong leader who understood the need to encourage everyone to participate, but the quality of the discussion and the potential for CL was undoubtedly raised by the way the learning materials were designed. Materials which create a gap and which are relatively challenging seem once again to be an important element in supporting CL.

The two chapters which followed were situated in university seminar classes. In Tim Ashwell's study, a team-based learning approach was used in a seminar class which focused on sociolinguistics. He found that students were not disturbed by the amount of structure this approach imposes and were able to appreciate some of the benefits of working in groups when they evaluated discussion and its numerous affordances. He was also able to identify in the video recorded sessions some examples of peer teaching, of "off-line thinking", and of micro-level other-completions which indicate that CL may have been occurring. He also underscored the importance of the nature of the task suggesting that tasks in which the terms of the question are in doubt may be particularly facilitative of high quality discussion which may lead to CL.

Ken Ikeda's study is the only one in this collection to focus specifically on collaboration via computer-mediated communication (CMC). Although there is a large research literature about online collaboration, it just so happens that our contributors have been mostly interested in physical face-to-face collaboration. Working with a colleague in another institution, the teachers sought to encourage their seminar students to discuss graduation thesis topics to see if a remote peer would help support development of the topic. The study did not lead to positive collaboration for the students, but the two teachers involved gained many insights into the possible pitfalls of cross-institutional CMC and offered concrete suggestions for how such projects might succeed in future were made.

The final two papers were concerned with the role of CL in teacher development contexts. Ann Mayeda identified CL within groups of students who were studying to become teachers of L2 English to young learners. She found examples of both L2 English transfer between learners and transfer of teaching skills. The former were observed in sessions where the students were "languaging" together, whereas the latter tended to be in practical sessions with young learners where students with higher teaching dispositions intuitively modelled "expert" behaviour for other students who were not such natural teachers. This analysis led her to conjecture that there may be such a thing as a group zone of proximal development.

In the final chapter, Hideo Kojima looked closely at how elementary school teachers collaborated as they met the challenge of teaching English. He focused particularly on the role of a core English teacher in fostering teacher collaboration between herself, four homeroom teachers and an assistant language teacher to promote their understanding and use of strategy-based instruction. The role which a core teacher has within the school and the support the teacher educator can provide through collaborative and reflective supervision were critical to the success of adult CL in this context showing that CL can play an important part in the implementation of new curricula and the professional development of elementary school teachers.

One obvious common thread through many of the papers is that in a group learners can act as near peer models for each other. This outcome of simply configuring the class in groups creates the potential for peer learning in which learners naturally emulate behaviour they regard as desirable. In this set-up, other students can act as resources because there is an uneven spread of skills and knowledge across the group and this creates a potential for peer learning. In grander terms, learning may transpire as a ZPD is formed between learners and as learners seek alignment, convergence, and equilibrium as they bridge this gap. The possibility that learning may transpire across a group, not just between two individuals within the group, was also implied by the findings of several papers.

Another common thread seems to be that it may be necessary to analyze recorded data of group interaction in minute detail if one is hoping to identify actual instances of CL. It may also be that these are fleeting glimpses. Research which seeks to establish clear advantages in learning outcomes for learners working collaboratively will probably require fine-grained analysis of transcriptions of group interactions and some kind of delayed follow-up to see if the learning was retained. In future research, we have to be mindful that when there is collaboration between learners it does not automatically imply that collaborative learning has occurred.

### Contributor Reflections

Reflection is a large part of what makes learning, collaborative or otherwise, effective. With this in mind, we asked the CLiLD contributors and editors to reflect on their experience working on the CLiLD project. We thought that, in lieu of a standard conclusion, we could leave the reader with the contributors themselves and enjoy what they have to say about the experience.

Here, the authors discuss what they have learned from their experiences working on the project, how it has influenced their views on collaboration and collaborative learning, and how they might use this experience moving forward.

Steven Paydon [Co-author of Chapters 2 and 3 and Co-editor]

Writing for the CLiLD project has given me a much wider view of what collaboration is and how it can benefit our students as a learning tool. For me, my main focus is usually on the group dynamics aspect of teaching; I aim to enhance the interpersonal relationships in order to optimize learning. But with this project, I was really able to learn about and appreciate the cognitive developmental aspects of collaborative learning as well.

Before being involved in the project, I might not have defined collaborative learning any differently from cooperative learning—at least, I wasn't clearly aware of any differences between the two—they both appear to be group learning. Now, however, while I still see both CL and CoopL essentially as group learning, and the two do have a lot more in common than they do not, I tend to think of CL as a more cognitively focused form of cooperative learning. That is, I see CL as being a more sustained, cognitively challenging, and higher learning form of cooperative learning than the discourse surrounding Coopl tends to suggest.

As both an editor and also a co-author of one of the submissions, I have found the process very collaborative. My team-members on the editing team, my co-author on Chapter 3, and all the writers involved in the process of bringing this publication to fruition all have busy schedules and are involved with a multitude of ongoing projects. But everyone has been cooperative, encouraging, accountable, and ready to listen to alternative ideas—and these to me are many of the characteristics that define what collaborative learning is.

Steven Paydon has been teaching English in Australia, Taiwan, and Japan since 1993. He is happily employed as an adjunct lecturer for the Language Center at Rikkyo University in Tokyo. His main teaching interests revolve around group dynamics, interpersonal relationships, and autonomy—for both learners and teachers. When he's not working he is collaborating in the kitchen, around the pizza oven in his garden, or touring around somewhere on his motorcycle.

Dexter Da Silva [Co-author of Chapter 3]

The process of researching and writing on my own has not really changed my views much but helped to clarify them to myself. The process of collaborating with my co-author has helped to make me understand more deeply the importance and power of CL—the resulting synergy or emergence producing more than each of our ideas added together. I wouldn't really say that I would define CL differently because I didn't really try to define it before. I think through researching for the project I could find a definition I became happy with.

It has felt very collaborative, very positive, very enlightening. Looking back, it feels like during the early drafts with my co-author, under time pressure, we were more focused on putting our ideas together in a coherent way than in exploring how our ideas fit or worked together. I felt we had an assumption that they would just mesh. With the additional time that real collaboration often needs, and with the critical collaborative input from the editors, we moved onto a different plane of collaboration. Changing our format to a dialogic one helped us to try to more critically question each other and ourselves. The editors earned our deeper or more authentic trust by submitting their own writing to the same process of peer revision that other contributors were engaged in, demonstrating their perception of their role as equal participants. This willingness to risk was one aspect that deepened the collaborative process. They fulfilled other aspects in their detailed feedback showing their understanding and appreciation of our ideas, directly and honestly pointing out the weaknesses, suggesting the dialogue format, demonstrating their honesty and openness, their competence as editors, their benevolence as collaborators, and their commitment to the project and its people. These are all aspects of trust that my co-author and I focused on in our chapter. We argued for its importance and it was a critical factor throughout the entire process of this collaborative project.

Dexter Da Silva is currently Professor of Educational Psychology in the Department of Psychology and Horticulture at Keisen University in Tokyo. His research interests span a broad range of education-related topics, such as trust, student motivation, CLIL, identity and self-concept. He enjoys "walking and talking".

Etsuko Shimo [Author of Chapter 4]

The study reported in my chapter indicated that attributing English learning to CL activities might not be as straightforward in language learning as we might think. This may be true when CL is discussed in terms of attribution theory. However, this does not mean that CL itself may not be effective in other aspects of language learning. In this sense, my views about CL have not changed during this CLiLD project: CL should be used regularly in any language (and other subject) classroom.

CL is a kind of learning, but simply doing an activity in pairs or in groups does not make the activity CL. Students have to be learning something through the activity. My belief has become even stronger in the sense that what students learn from a CL activity is just as important or is even more important than how they are learning it, because what—the content—should affect students' learning motivation.

Students can learn both social and linguistic skills through CL activities in English classrooms. In order for our students to live in this global society, abilities to work in a team, abilities to negotiate and collaborate with others, and abilities to communicate with others from different backgrounds are essential (cf. "fundamental competencies for working persons," METI, n.d.). I believe that CL is the key in what we teachers can do to help students acquire such abilities.

The process of working on this CLiLD project was definitely beneficial. Comments from Tim and Steve and other CLiLD members provided me with various viewpoints to consider in my writing process. This is precisely one of the many benefits of collaboration—learning to contemplate one's own views while considering other people's interpretations of a phenomenon, and learning to deal with issues together while sharing problems and ideas for solutions.

Etsuko Shimo (Ed.M. in TESOL), associate professor in the Faculty of Applied Sociology, Kinki University, teaches English and other related courses in their undergraduate programs. Her research interests include student and teacher beliefs, can-do assessment, learner autonomy, and collaborative learning activities. Her favorite things are novels she reads just before going to bed, a hot bath she takes after swimming in a pool, musical shows that she goes to see in theaters, and the time spent with her two young children playing and making things—not so fancy but simple things like a cardboard bus.

Hiromi Tsuda [Author of Chapter 5]

It was my first and very exciting experience to collaborate with other researchers to complete a book. Moreover, in the process of writing, my editors gave me a lot of informative advice to improve my chapter. We had many discussions by e-mail. Through such collaborative discussions, my view of collaborative learning (CL), which was initially rather vague, has gradually changed to be more precise.

It was very hard for me to revise my writing each time. However, every discussion was very helpful, and I was able to learn how to demonstrate clear logic in English. It was fun for me to rediscover CL, which allowed me to gain a fresh perspective each time. I deeply appreciate their patient cooperation in revising my writing. I would also like to express my dearest thanks to the final editor. She gave me brief but exact instructions. In this way, collaborative work with the editors greatly helped me finish writing my chapter successfully.

I conducted my research in my listening classes at a university. The participants, who were not so highly proficient in English, showed a big improvement in their English competence after having enjoyed numerous types of collaborative pre-listening tasks in my class, and to my pleasure, some students finally went abroad to study English. During my research, they answered a questionnaire and wrote their reflective comments after each class without complaint. Some of my students willingly came to school even in the summer holiday to grant a retrospective interview. Without their collaboration, I could not have completed my research.

At present, I am collaborating with another researcher: We are doing our research in a CL style listening class and in a CL style reading class respectively at the same university. I hope a comparative survey between two different kinds of English classes will yield some interesting results related to CL in the near future.

Hiromi Tsuda received her PhD in Intercultural Communication from Rikkyo University in 2011. She is working as a part-time lecturer at Meiji University, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, and Musashino University, and also working as a teacher trainer at Jissen Women's University. Her research interests are in English teacher education, collaborative learning, learner autonomy, and language learning strategies. She is an eager supporter of the Japanese national rugby team and is planning to visit London for the Rugby World Cup in 2015. Another favorite pastime is going to the theater to see musicals such as Les Miserables or Phantom of the Opera.

Chika Hayashi [Author of Chapter 6]

I had a number of opportunities to use collaborative learning (CL) in my English classes when I taught in junior and senior high schools. By observing students working closely with other students and examining their final products, I recognized that CL was effective and realized its positive influence especially on their interpersonal relationships. However, the process of collaboration, in particular, how the collaboration among students had an impact on their thinking, emotions and English skills, and the changes identified through collaboration were not explicitly traced in my previous research study. Moreover, it was a new attempt for me to examine whether or not CL would work for university students and how it would work at the tertiary level.

Curious to fill the "gap" which existed in my research interests on CL, I embarked on this CLiLD project with group journal writing (GJW). Using a case study approach, I closely focused on the process of collaboration among four university students and traced changes that emerged through collaboration over one academic year. Like my previous attempt, in this study, I was reassured of the effectiveness of CL even in a tertiary EFL education context. Moreover, the GJW project made me realize that CL is a more dynamic process which involves both academic and reciprocal encounters. Collaboration among students was solidified and intensified with each member's unique contribution and involvement, and acted as a catalyst for their collaborative dialogue and mutual responsibility.

Reflecting on the CLiLD project itself, I appreciate Alison, Masuko, Steve and Tim for their leadership and guidance. They posed critical questions, asked for clarification, provided new insights and gave encouragement over the three years. Every time I responded to the points raised by the editors, I felt this was an initiation of a dialogue and the dialogue was gradually expanded as a collaborative dialogue among the five of us. Through constant interaction with the four editors, I was anxious about how they would respond to me, but at the same time, I found great enjoyment in reading their comments and more importantly engaging in collaborative dialogue with them. I assume that these would be the same feelings the four students might have had while working with the group members throughout the entire process of GJW. In parallel with the GJW project my students worked on, my engagement with the CLiLD project itself was GJW for me!

Chika Hayashi is a lecturer at Dokkyo University in Japan. She holds a PhD from the School of Education, University of Nottingham, UK. Her research interests include autonomy, motivation, and cultural influences on classroom language learning. Her publications include "Weaving threads of autonomy: The challenge for personal pedagogic change" (2013, Chapter 2 in Autonomy in Language Learning: Stories of Practice, IATEFL) and "SRA kyouzai wo mochiita kirokuhyou zukuri: Gakushusha no kiroku deta karano bunseki [A form for rapid reading using SRA Reading Laboratory: An analysis on learners' commentaries]" (2013, JACET-KANTO Journal, No.9). Free time activities include cycling and cooking.

Martin Mullen [Co-author of Chapter 7]

Involvement in this project has changed my views about CL in that I've discovered that CL is a much more complex kind of learning than I had previously understood it to be, and a more delicate and easily capsized approach. Through working on this chapter and discussing with my co-author not just the chapter itself but our practices in the classroom, I would feel better informed and equipped to introduce CL projects in the future. This has been an unexpected but very welcome discovery for me. Particularly in the area of the different kinds and merits of assessment, I have a better understanding of CL than before.

In defining collaborative learning, I think I would be more aware of the differences between CL and cooperative learning than before. If anything, I'd probably define it more carefully than before, and I'd be less likely to define it as something that happens organically than previously. It would be fair to say that my previous definition of CL, while not incorrect, did not take into account all aspects of CL. Particularly in relation to CL as a method of facilitating students' capacity for autonomous learning, I've learned a lot about how CL can be effectively implemented with this goal in mind.

Obviously, as I wrote the chapter with a co-author, it has been a collaborative experience and an extremely beneficial one in terms of my confidence in my improved ability to introduce CL activities into my classes in the future. In particular, the way in which students have come to realize the possibility of learning from each other and helping each other develop has influenced how I teach many classes, not only those related to autonomy.

Martin Mullen has taught at various institutions in Ireland and Japan, and is currently a lecturer in the International Studies Department at Meisei University in Tokyo, Japan. His main research interests are in the areas of autonomy, motivation, and technology-assisted language learning, with a particular interest in the role of both teachers and students in facilitating students' development of a capacity for autonomy. He has published in the areas of task-based learning, learner autonomy, and language learning strategies.

Chris Fitzgerald [Co-author of Chapter 7]

Comments from the editors and readings of previous research have made me think again about how and indeed why CL should be implemented. I now understand that CL is so much more than just students working together. For it to be successful, it should involve accountability and interdependence. It is these two principles which have impacted me most in my research into CL and which have shone a new light on what CL can and should be.

Through this project I have delved into what the term "collaborative" means. Through discussions at get-togethers and through reading, I have found that it is difficult to pin down what it truly does mean and my own personal definition keeps changing. I started with the idea that collaboration means students working together to achieve a common goal. By the end of the project I still hold this as my core belief of what CL is, though there are many ways of implementing this.

Working on CLiLD has been a highly collaborative process for me. Working with my co-author and the editors has been an educational, inspirational and enlightening experience. One of the key elements of successful collaboration for me is compromise. This process has enhanced my ability to compromise greatly from the planning stage to the final draft, from single words to whole sections of the paper, with a co-author everything has to be compromised. I am very satisfied with what we have produced, even more so because it has been a collaborative effort.

Chris Fitzgerald was awarded a Masters in English Language Teaching from the University of Limerick in 2010. His masters' research focused on corpus linguistics and discourse analysis of Irish English. Since then he has worked in a number of third level institutions in Japan. He now teaches in the Department of British and American Studies at Kyoto University of Foreign Studies where his main research interests are Self Regulated Learning, CALL and Project Based Learning.

Mathew Porter [Author of Chapter 8]

My views about collaborative learning have become much clearer, particularly as Alison and Tim sought further explanations in subsequent drafts. My exploration into CL began only with some vague notions of the ZPD and how it was used in peer tutoring. Although I got sidetracked by the many definitions of CL, particularly when it seemed to be defined exactly like cooperative learning, now I am focusing more on the importance of collaborative interaction and preparing groups to work at achieving it. Most importantly, as my study was an evaluation of materials for CL, observations and conclusions from my research will be shared with the team of teachers who designed the materials for our collaborative learning project and hopefully lead to improvements in our study and orientation materials. Needless to say, I think of CL quite differently now. The most important questions for me now are what interaction best supports CL and what environments best support those kinds of interactions.

Whether the project has been collaborative is a difficult question given all of this talk about CL. Of course, I don't think I'd be nearing the final draft without the help of the tireless editors. I also credit their comments for stimulating me to dig deeper and feel I've learned as a result of those explorations. However, perhaps because we were unable to talk in person, or because the editors were responsible for providing feedback on so many people's work, or because I was not a member of the Tokyo Get Togethers, it's hard to see how I acted upon them and that makes me question if our interaction was collaborative. I guess I see CL as two-directional, acting and being acted upon. In the end, I feel that I have been mentored well. Regardless, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this project and offer my sincere appreciation to all of the people involved in coordinating it.

Mathew Porter has been involved in language education for 15 years. He is currently a Learning Advisor in a Self-Access Learning Center at Hiroshima Bunkyo Women's University. His research interests are primarily concerned with designing materials to support self-directed learning. He is also passionate about continuing professional development and enjoys participating in professional organizations. His dream is to collaborate on the creation of a bilingual website to support Japanese students' self-directed study of English pronunciation. In his free time, he enjoys karaoke, which he credits for helping him with his Japanese pronunciation.

Tim Ashwell [Author of Chapter 9, Co-author of Chapters 1 and 2, and Co-editor]

My views about CL have changed a great deal through working on this project. Before, I think I had a hazy notion of the claimed benefits of CL shrouded in some humanistic terminology and vaguely underpinned by an even hazier notion of the ZPD. Since the project got off the ground, I think I have built a much more detailed understanding of what CL might be and, in particular, of the difficulties we face in actually capturing it as we try to observe it in action. I have learned to demand a clear distinction between "collaboration" and "collaborative learning" in discussions of CL and I am even more convinced than before that accounts of CL should aspire to provide evidence that learning has occurred and that this is directly the result of collaboration.

Before this project I do not think I could have attempted a definition of CL and even now I am not confident about proposing something. Several of the definitions our contributors discovered in their reading seemed to be very useful. Personally, I think Panitz's (1996) discussion is very bold and clear and I was inspired by Bruffee's (1999) vision of CL as emancipatory, transformative practice. I accept that this is a highly ambitious formulation and is one many of us may only be able to aspire to, but having had the good fortune to work in several groups which have certainly been transformative for me, I strongly believe that what Bruffee claims is no illusion.

Working on CLiLD has felt extremely collaborative from my perspective. As one of the four coordinators and fourteen writers involved, the project has required a great deal of collaboration over three years. Working with writers, making suggestions, not giving up in demanding revisions, praising people's efforts and being praised in kind for one's own efforts were all part of a trusting, interdependent, rewarding enterprise. And learning has transpired for me as a result, partly out of these interactions with the writers, and partly through the work the four of us have done together as coordinators. I am indebted to my three hard-working, dedicated and generous co-coordinators, Alison, Masuko and Steve, who have made the process feel very collaborative indeed through our exploration of the underpinnings of CL together and by sharing their expertise over editorial matters with me. I think we learned something, didn't we? I definitely feel transformed!

Tim Ashwell has worked at Komazawa University for longer than he cares to remember, most recently in the Faculty of Global Media Studies. He is interested in grammar instruction, the potential for automated scoring of speaking tests, and anything to do with teaching methodology. He likes to cycle and walk in his spare time and to cheer his kids on from the sideline.

Ken Ikeda [Author of Chapter 10]

I had actually not attempted CL in my instructional practices before. I had viewed CL as something not for everyone, and that "not for everyone" included me. I was then content to be the "learner" in an asymmetrical CL relationship with my co-researcher until I became familiar with the expectations of collaborating.

Prior to my project, CL seemed to be limited in its application to lower-division university courses, but that view was fueled by my lack of personal experience of working with others. CL through the filter of symmetries as postulated by Dillenbourg however shows that CL is more multifaceted and complex, which requires reflexivity in regarding the other as well as oneself.

Working on CLiLD had been very time-consuming and frustrating actually. I felt at times at odds with the enterprise, but only in the latter stages did I begin to comprehend the dynamics of collaboration. Give and take are required, both actions requiring so much of me personally that at times I felt I was sacrificing myself far too much.

I feel like the man in the fable who had a small room and asked a wise person to make it bigger. The man was told to fill his room with things before they could be taken out, and then he saw his room as much roomier. Now I can see things with a broader perspective, and likewise, view CL through a wider lens.

Ken Ikeda is an Associate Professor in the Department of English at Otsuma Women's University in Tokyo. His current research interests in the field of English education focus on undergraduate thesis supervision in Japan and on identities of Japanese learners of English. He would like to spend more time writing stories, playing the piano, and being with his wife.

Ann Mayeda [Author of Chapter 11]

I don't think that this research project has necessarily changed my views about CL as I've always viewed it as something that arises from a need to know and that the best resources are almost always right there in the classroom albeit mostly untapped. I really just wanted the learners to find the tap for themselves.

When I first began this study, I went into the classroom and briefly explained to the learners that I would be conducting a bit of research and received their permission to record the group discussions. This was met with mostly disinterest and as the weeks went by the learners became so accustomed to recording that whenever group work began someone from each group would immediately pick up a device and switch it on. At the end of the term I thanked them for their cooperation and nary a question was asked.

This year, 12 of the 19 learner-participants have enrolled in my research seminar. In the course of discussing research methods, we revisited the purpose of the study, the group work and the recordings. This, in turn, prompted a lively discussion about the whole notion of CL and about the nature of learning in general. Needless to say, they were quite fascinated with the subsequent analysis and now eagerly await the opportunity to read the published paper.

The upshot of all this is that the sharing of this research with the learner-participants has resulted in a lesson on creating a classroom environment conducive to collaborative learning. The learners newfound awareness that individual contribution matters, that each contribution adds to a collective mass and that this is what can bring the entire class to even greater understanding seems to have created an atmosphere of mutual reliance, trust and a wholehearted eagerness to make some contribution to every discussion. So the collaboration continues with the added realization that it works, at least for these learners and this teacher-researcher.

Ann Mayeda lectures at Konan Women's University in Kobe. She has worked with young learners for over 20 years and conducts workshops and teacher-training programs for pre- and in-service, pre-primary and primary school teachers. She also has a keen interest in learner development and issues surrounding autonomy as it applies to children and young adult learners. In her free time, she enjoys the companionship of her golden retriever, Sophie, and watching her cacti bloom.

Hideo Kojima [Author of Chapter 12]

Collaborative learning (CL) has been one of my major research interests. As a teacher educator, I have researched and written about the effectiveness of collaboration in learner and teacher development in secondary and tertiary EFL education contexts. However, through my case study in this CLiLD project, I could recognize that CL was also effective in developing learner and teacher autonomy in an elementary school education context. Many elementary school teachers with no certificate in teaching English are expected to instruct English language activities through team-teaching. Collaboration among teachers is essential for EFL to be successful.

Today, MEXT emphasizes collaboration among teachers in school education as a whole. Thus, in defining CL, teachers' collaborative learning in communities of practice should be considered as a new important issue. A social constructivist approach to teacher education seems to help individual teachers to enhance their professional competence and autonomy in different communities of practice.

The collaborative process of working on this project has helped me to focus on teacher education and improve my paper. I do not believe that almost three years have passed. I would like to thank all the editors for their collaborative hard work and effective feedback for a long time.

Finally, I will apply what I have learned in my pre- and in-service teacher education. In particular, in designing and organizing in-service teacher education programs, it is essential but difficult for us teacher educators to consider the relationships among teachers working within the same school context. MEXT is currently working to promote the English education reform plan corresponding to globalization from the elementary to lower/upper secondary education stage. Thus, I need to continue to develop effective approaches to teacher development in more complicated school education contexts.

Hideo Kojima is a professor and teacher educator at Hirosaki University, Japan. He obtained his TESOL Graduate Certificate from Georgetown University, USA, and both MA in TEFL/TESL and PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Birmingham, UK. His research interests include: teacher education, learner/teacher autonomy, collaborative and reflective approaches, portfolios, advising, CLIL, etc. He has published extensively on all these topics. He is an editor and author of Learner Development in English Education: Learner Factors and Autonomous Learning (Taishukan, Tokyo, 2010). He likes reading books or going on a short trip in his free time.

Masuko Miyahara [Co-author of Chapter 2 and Co-editor]

It is hard to believe that almost three years have passed since we first embarked on our adventure of putting together a collection of papers on collaborative learning. The prospect of "collaborating" with four coordinators, each with their unique background, on the theme of "collaboration" was definitely very appealing to me. Although, the word "collaboration /cooperation" has been a buzz word in the field of education for decades, I realized that I had taken the concept for granted, and never really bothered to think or reflect on it, let alone question it. In fact, the words "collaboration /cooperation" were magic words that always had a positive ring for me. But to repeat the question posed in the opening chapter, and also by some of the authors of the core chapters: Does learning always occur as a consequence of collaboration? Furthermore, as Tim has pointed out in his reflection, I also do not think I was really aware of the distinction between "collaborative" and "learning": that is, I had always assumed (for no particular reasons) that collaboration would automatically lead to learning. Our collaborative endeavor of putting a collection of papers together certainly helped me develop my understandings about collaboration/cooperation.

Although I was not one of the authors, I also felt fortunate to have been able to read through all the papers, some in more detail than others. I was stunned by the diversity of viewpoints that were discussed, and the insights that people had towards the subject. My interactions with the writers prompted me to check up on various matters that emerged through the papers that also enabled me to develop my ideas and concepts that would have otherwise been vague to me until that point. So, yes, it has definitely been an excellent learning experience for me. Not only did I develop my understanding about the topic itself, but through my interactions with the three other coordinators, a process that consisted of numerous email exchanges as well as frequent Skypes over the last three years, was most rewarding.

Finally, one last, but very important message: I would like to thank my co-coordinators, Alison, Tim and Steve, for all the cooperation, support and patience they have shown me throughout the project!!! Thank you all! I learned a lot from each of you in different ways, and, mind you, this is just the beginning... I hope I will have more opportunities to work with you in the very near future!!

Masuko Miyahara is a tenured lecturer at International Christian University, Tokyo. She holds a MA in TESOL and a PhD in second language learning from the Institute of Education, University of London. Her research interest focuses on identity studies and autonomy in language education, and has published widely in these areas. She is also interested in research methodology and methods in language learning research, particularly in the area of narratives.

Alison Stewart [Co-author of Chapters 1 and 2 and Co-editor]

I've felt for a long time that collaboration provides an ideal way in which to learn anything. The synergy of working together with other people on a joint project is something that can be very stimulating and enjoyable. I've been lucky that in my teaching career in Japan I've had opportunities to work on collaborative projects with fellow teachers at work and with fellow JALT members on various different kinds of projects. Because I feel this way about the promise of collaborative learning, I try to find ways to facilitate it through projects and pair work in the classes I teach too.

Collaborative learning is something that is characteristic of the job of editing at its best. I've been editing publications for JALT for a few years now and I've learned a great deal from every paper I've worked on. As an editor, I feel that my role is to understand the author as well as I possibly can and engage with their ideas and with their writing at a very deep level. The insights that come through for the author and for myself in this process are some of the most satisfying intellectual experiences I can imagine.

In the past I've edited with a partner; this is the first time I've worked with as many as three other people. In some ways it has been harder, as we each have our own different styles and preferences. Working with one other person always involves negotiating differences, but this is more difficult, or perhaps I should say more interesting, when there are four of us. There have been, and still remain various problems to solve: editing issues, technical and technological problems, struggles to manage time and keep to deadlines. But these have all been learning opportunities: we have been learning about collaborative learning, about project management, and about ourselves.

Alison Stewart belongs to the Department of English and American Language and Cultures at Gakushuin University where she teaches English and Applied Linguistics. Her research interests include identity issues for learners and teachers, culture in language education, and critical pedagogy. In the spaces between teaching, writing, editing, and going to conferences, she relaxes with family, friends, and her Kindle.
The editors (from left to right):

Masuko Miyahara, Tim Ashwell, Alison Stewart and Steven Paydon

