This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]On: 19 September 2013, At: 01:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of BilingualEducation and BilingualismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Correlates of the Implementationof the STAD Cooperative LearningMethod in the English as a ForeignLanguage ClassroomGhazi GhaithPublished online: 26 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Ghazi Ghaith (2004) Correlates of the Implementation of theSTAD Cooperative Learning Method in the English as a Foreign Language Classroom,International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7:4, 279-294, DOI:10.1080/13670050408667813

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050408667813

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Correlates of the Implementation of theSTAD Cooperative Learning Method inthe English as a Foreign LanguageClassroom

Ghazi GhaithDepartment of Education, American University of Beirut, Riad El SolhBeirut, Lebanon

This study investigates the connection between teachers’ experience, beliefs con-cerning the acquisition of knowledge, behavioural intentions to implement instruc-tional innovations and their use of the Student Teams Achievement Divisions(STAD) cooperative learning (CL) method in teaching English as a foreign language(EFL). Fifty-five EFL teachers from diverse school backgrounds in Lebanon partici-pated in the study. The participants completed a demographic questionnaire andanother Likert-type questionnaire that measured the variables under consideration.The results indicated that teachers’ interpretive beliefs, attitudes towards STAD,subjective norms, and perceived degree of behavioural control play a significant rolein the use of STAD in EFL teaching. Conversely, the results revealed that teachers’transmissive beliefs and experience did not influence their use of STAD in theirteaching. Implications for teacher preparation and suggestions for further researchare discussed.

Keywords: cooperative learning, bilingual, EFL, teacher beliefs

The past few years have witnessed considerable interest in teachers’ beliefsas determinants of the success and failure of instructional innovations in thelanguage classroom. According to Darling-Hammond (1990) and Isenberg(1990), teachers are no longer perceived as ‘technicians whose main task wasmerely to transmit a curriculum that was designed by more able pro-fessionals’ (cited in Cohen & Tellez, 1994, c: 2). Rather, teachers’ beliefs arerecognized as significant factors that ‘may have the greatest impact on whatteachers do in the classroom, the way they conceptualize their instruction, andlearn from experience’ (Brody, 1998, c: 25). Along similar lines, a number ofstudies have linked teachers’ beliefs to the implementation of some innovativemethods such as the whole language approach (Anders & Richardson, 1991;Duffy & Roehler, 1986; Richardson et al., 1991). These researchers have allreported that teachers who believe in the tenets of the interpretive model ofinstruction tended to implement whole language more than their counterpartswho adhere to the tenets of the transmission model. Whole language is aphilosophy of language as a natural phenomenon whereby language develop-ment is considered to be promoted through natural and purposeful readingand writing functions (Clapp & Flood, 1992). Similarly, Cohen and Tellez(1994) reported that teachers of English as a second language (ESL) andbilingual teachers with high interpretive beliefs tend to use cooperative learn-

1367-0050/04/04 0279-16 $20.00/0 2004 G. GhaithBILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM Vol. 7, No. 4, 2004

279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

280 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

ing (CL) more frequently than teachers with low interpretive beliefs in theirinstruction. However, the results reported by these researchers regarding theconnection of teachers’ beliefs and their use of CL remain ‘less than perspi-cacious’ (c: 11). The literature also includes evidence regarding the relationshipbetween certain teacher characteristics and their willingness to implement CLas a form of instructional innovation. For instance, Ghaith and Yaghi (1997)reported that teachers’ sense of general teaching efficacy and their teachingexperience were negatively correlated whereas teachers’ sense of personalteaching efficacy was positively correlated with teachers’ willingness to adoptCL in their instruction. According to Anderson et al. (1988), general teachingefficacy signifies the belief that the teacher population’s ability to perform theactions that lead to student learning is limited by factors beyond school con-trol. Likewise, these researchers defined personal teaching efficacy as the tea-chers’ own expectations that they will be able to perform the actions neededto bring about student learning.

The theoretical relevance of CL in the language classroom is now well-estab-lished as its proponents have developed, researched, and applied a numberof instructional procedures and techniques (Kagan, 1996; Kessler, 1992;McGroarty, 1989, 1993). These researchers maintain that CL

enriches the language classroom with comprehensible, developmentallyappropriate, redundant and somewhat accurate input as described byKrashen (1988) as well as promotes frequent, communicative, and refer-ential classroom talk in a supportive, motivating, and stress-reducedenvironment. (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1998, c: 223–224)

Furthermore, CL is currently being used, to varying degrees, in schools inNorth America (United States, Canada, Mexico) in Asia and the Pacific (Japan,Australia, New Zealand), the Middle East (Lebanon, Israel), Africa (Nigeria,South Africa), Europe (Greece, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, France,The Netherlands, England) and other countries (Kluge et al., 1999). However,CL ‘remains an instructional strategy seldom used in a systematic manner’despite its academic vogue and efforts by its proponents to disseminate it asan instructional innovation (Rich, 1990, c: 83). Consequently, there is a needto investigate the factors that influence teachers’ implementation of CL intheir instruction.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the connection betweenteachers’ beliefs concerning the acquisition of knowledge, their behaviouralintentions to implement instructional innovations, and their use of the StudentTeams Achievement Divisions (STAD) CL method in their teaching of Englishas a foreign language (EFL). In addition, the study looked into the role ofteaching experience in teachers’ use of STAD.

The study viewed the construct of teachers’ beliefs as comprehensive ofseveral dimensions relative to beliefs about learning, teaching, programmeand curriculum, and the teaching profession more generally. These beliefs con-stitute the ‘culture of teaching’ as termed by Feimen-Nemser and Folden(1986) and are founded on the goals, values, and views of teachers regardingthe content and process of teaching and on their understanding of their roleswithin the systems in which they work (Richards & Lockhart, 1996). Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

281Implementation of Cooperative Learning

and Tellez (1994) and Rich (1990) maintain that the transmission and interpret-ation models of instruction have particularly impacted teachers’ beliefs regard-ing their roles and classroom practice. Definitions of these models suggest thatthe tenets of the transmission model focus on measuring learners’ performancein terms of teacher-predetermined criteria and lesson agendas, withoutincorporating learners’ input into class syllabuses (Barnes, 1976; Cummins,1986). As such, teachers who tend to adhere to close-ended instruction andteacher-directed learning endorse the transmission model of instruction. Theyignore learners’ prior knowledge, impart information, and put stress on extrin-sic motivation and isolated skills teaching. Conversely, teachers who believein the interpretive approach expect and encourage learners to reinterpretknowledge and make it personally meaningful. Consequently, they encouragelearners to take an active part in the determination of course syllabuses andare more likely to adopt flexible instructional agendas. Likewise, they endorseopen-ended instruction and student-directed learning. Finally, they utiliselearners’ background knowledge and put stress on intrinsic motivation as wellas capitalise on context in their instruction.

In the present study we adopted Young and Lee’s (1984) conceptualisationsof the transmission and interpretation models of instruction in the context ofsecond language (L2) instruction. These researchers maintained that the tenetsof the transmission model are congruent with the grammatical accuracyapproach, whereas the interpretive approach is more closely aligned with thefluency approach that fosters negotiation of meaning and active interactionamong learners. More specifically, the accuracy approach emphasises on cor-rect grammatical practice and does not allow divergence, because the teachercontrols the language used by learners. Conversely, the fluency approach pro-motes negotiation of meaning through elimination of constraints on diver-gence and promotion of meaningful interaction among learners. As such, thelatter are free to draw on their background knowledge and resources toaccomplish their communicative tasks.

In addition, we drew on the tenets of the Theory of Planned Behaviour(TPB) proposed by Ajzen and Madden (1986) in order to identify the beliefs,intentions and subsequent instructional behaviours of the participants.According to Lumpe et al. (1998) TPB is based on three constructs. The firstconstruct (attitude towards behaviour) refers to beliefs about the consequencesof performing a particular behaviour and evaluation of those consequences.The second construct (subjective norms) signifies what others think regardingthe behaviour. Finally, the third construct (perceived behavioural control)indicates a person’s belief as to how easy performance of the behaviour willbe and to what extent internal and external influences will affect the person’sability to engage in the behaviour. It is theorised that the preceding constructsdetermine a person’s intent to engage in a particular target behaviour, calledbehavioural intention.

The study also adopted the definition of cooperative learning as a generalterm for an instructional approach that emphasises conceptual learning anddevelopment of social skills as learners work together in small heterogeneousgroups according to the principles of positive interdependence, individualaccountability, face-to-face promotive interaction, and group processing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

282 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

(Johnson et al., 2000). Presently, there is more than ‘one flavor of cooperativelearning’ operationalised into a number of techniques and structures (Klugeet al., 1999, c: 19). These techniques and structures can be categorised intofive categories of instructional models that include: The Structural Approach(Kagan, 1989), Group Investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992), Student TeamInvestigation (Aronson et al., 1978; Slavin, 1995), Curriculum Packages (Slavinet al., 1986), and Learning Together (Johnson et al., 1991, 1992, 1994). The Struc-tural Approach is based on using generic and content-neutral ways of manag-ing classroom interaction called structures. These structures can be used forteam and class building, communication, mastery learning, and critical think-ing. Group Investigation divides work among group members who completeindividual-specific tasks and then reconvene to present a final group project.Student Team Learning includes the Jigsaw method and its variations andSTAD. Curriculum Packages are specific programmes for teaching mathemat-ics and language and include the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Writing(CIRC) programme. Finally, the Learning Together model organises instruc-tion according to the principles of heterogeneous grouping, positive interde-pendence, individual accountability, social/collaborative skills, and groupprocessing.

In the present study we focused on the STAD method that belongs to theStudent Team Investigation model (Aronson et al., 1978; Slavin, 1995). This isbecause STAD has consistently been shown to be among the most simple andeffective CL methods (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1998; Slavin, 1995) and the participat-ing teachers in the study were all trained in its applications in teaching EFL.This training was part of a comprehensive staff development programme thatwas implemented nationwide in connection with introducing new curriculain the Republic of Lebanon. Specifically, instruction in STAD is organisedaround the four stages of lesson planning: (1) teaching, (2) team study, (3)individual quizzes, and (4) team recognition. As such, learners first listen toteacher explanation of material, following which they work in heterogeneousgroups to complete exercises, take individual quizzes, and finally acknowl-edge their team achievements.

The study addressed the following questions:

(1) To what extent are the variables of transmissive beliefs, interpretivebeliefs, attitude towards STAD, subjective norms, perceived behaviouralcontrol and experience related to the implementation of STAD?

(2) In a multiple regression equation, how much of the variance in teacherimplementation of STAD can be accounted for by the influencing variablesof transmissive beliefs, interpretive beliefs, attitude towards STAD, subjec-tive norms, perceived behavioural control, and experience?

MethodThe data for this investigation were gathered from an original sample of

EFL teachers (n = 71)1 from five schools in Lebanon that use CL among otherinstructional procedures in their EFL programmes. The schools teach EFLstarting with kindergarten and the latter gradually replaces the native langu-age, Arabic, as the medium of instruction in social sciences, sciences, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

283Implementation of Cooperative Learning

mathematics. The participating teachers in the study were all trained in usingSTAD in EFL teaching. They were identified and contacted through theirrespective school administrators who requested them to complete the studyinstrument during a period of three weeks, following which the researchercollected completed questionnaires from the school administrators. The useof CL is not mandated by the schools and it is left entirely to the teacherswhich instructional procedures to adopt. Three schools were considered urbanschools enrolling students with high socioeconomic and family educationalbackgrounds, but which follow different school policies with regard to disci-pline, school scheduling, and parental involvement. Another school was alsoconsidered to be urban, enrolling students from medium and low socioecon-omic and educational backgrounds. The last school was considered to be sub-urban with diverse students in terms of the socioeconomic and educationallevels of the parents. The sample includes six male teachers (10.9%) and 48female teachers (87.2%), and one teacher with missing gender data (1.8%).Nineteen teachers (34.5%) were Cycle I of Basic Education Teachers (Grade1–3), 14 (25.4%) were Cycle II (Grade 4–6), 8 (14.5%) were Cycle III (Grade 7–9), 9 (16.3%) were secondary teachers, and 5 (9.0%) did not report the gradelevel at which they teach. Thirty-five teachers (63.6%) had a bachelor degree,13 (23.6%) a master’s degree, 4 (7.2%) a specialist degree, 1 (1.8%) had a doc-torate, and 2 (3.6%) did not report their level of educational attainment. Ingeneral, the participants were highly experienced teachers with an average of13.20 years (sd = 9.67). The range of experience was 36 years.

InstrumentsTeachers’ beliefs regarding the acquisition of knowledge (transmissive vs.

interpretive) were assessed through a modified version of a Likert-type meas-ure developed by Cohen and Tellez (1994) (see Appendix). The participantsfirst responded to Part 1 of the instrument that included 20 four-point bipolaritems, where responses could range from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly dis-agree’. Eleven items (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18) measured teachers’transmissive beliefs and focused on correction of student errors, direct whole-class instruction, firm teacher control, knowledge acquisition, and teacher’srole in presenting academic material, standardised word lists, and assessingstudent learning. Meanwhile, the remaining nine items (2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15,19, 20) measured the teachers’ interpretive beliefs and dealt with the teacher’srole in promoting students’ personal and social development, raising self-esteem, encouragement of discussion and expression of personal ideas, inter-personal skills, decision making, vocabulary expansion through group work,and provision for informal talk during class activities without much attentionto the form of spoken language. The validity of this measure was establishedby its developers and the internal consistencies (alpha reliabilities) of the trans-missive and interpretive scales were � = 0.78 and � = 0.75 respectively, basedon data from the present study.

Similarly, teachers’ attitudes towards behaviour (STAD) and their percep-tions of subjective norms were assessed through two Likert-type measuresadapted from Lumpe et al. (1998) whereby participants responded to 11 and8 five-point bipolar statements to which the responses ranged from ‘very

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

284 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

likely’ to ‘very unlikely’. The 11 items (Part 2) that measured teachers’ atti-tudes focused on whether STAD increases student learning, makes Englishmore fun, increases the number of ideas and problem-solving techniques, andhelps students acquire cooperative social skills. In addition, there were nega-tively worded items in the scale relating to teachers’ attitudes regarding dif-ficulty of STAD implementation, noise, wasting instructional time, assessmentof learning outcomes, and the opportunities for learners to get by on the effortsof other classmates. On the other hand, the eight items (Part 3) that measuredteachers’ perceptions of subjective norms focused on whether the schooladministrators, other teachers, students, parents, and officials in the Ministryof Education would like the respondents to use STAD in their instruction.These measures also have established validity and their reliabilities wereestablished via alpha coefficients for internal consistency based on data fromthe present study as follows: � = 0.73 for the eleven-item attitude towardsSTAD scale and � = 0.68 for the eight-item subjective norms scale.

Finally, the construct of perceived behavioural control was measured by 19Likert-type items whereby 10 five-point bipolar statements where the rangeof possible responses was from ‘very likely’ to ‘very unlikely’ (Part 4) andnine six-point statements of the ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ type(Part 5) assessed teachers’ perceived sense of behavioural control to implementSTAD. The 10 items that measured teachers’ perceived degree of behaviouralcontrol to implement STAD focused on resource availability, staff develop-ment opportunities, less emphasis on standardised testing, curriculum ideasfor STAD, administrative support, time for lesson planning, classroom space,smaller classes, and students who have cooperative skills. The nine items thatmeasured teachers’ sense of efficacy focused on their perceived ability toimprove student learning, adjusting the difficulty level of assignments, findingbetter ways of teaching, dealing with difficult students, facilitating learning,and increasing retention. The validity of this measure was established by pre-vious research (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Lumpe et al., 1998) and its internalconsistency was � = 0.78 based on data from the present study. In addition,the participants completed a demographic questionnaire specifically designedfor the purpose of the present study and included items relative to gender,teaching experience, and grade level(s) of teaching. Finally, the participantsindicated the percentage of instructional time they spend using STAD intheir teaching.

Data analysisAnalysing the data involved computing the mean and the standard devi-

ation for each of the items in the instrument and then determining the fre-quency distribution and percentage of teachers by the average instructionaltime they spend using STAD in their instruction. In addition, two compositescores of teaching beliefs (transmissive and interpretive) were computed foreach respondent by adding the scores on the 11 and 9 items respectively meas-uring these constructs. Similarly, three other composite scores were computedfor each respondent by adding the scores on the 11, 8, and 19 items respect-ively measuring the constructs of attitudes towards STAD, subjective norms,and perceived behavioural control. The coding of the negatively worded state-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

285Implementation of Cooperative Learning

ments was reversed to ensure that high scores meant agreement with the itemsmeasuring the constructs under investigation. Pearson Product-Moment corre-lation coefficients were computed among the variables and teachers’ use ofSTAD and a step-wise multiple regression analysis was conducted in orderto address the questions raised in the study. The variables of transmissivebeliefs, interpretive beliefs, attitude towards STAD, subjective norms, per-ceived behavioural control, and experience were used as influencing (factorspredictor) and teachers use of STAD in their instruction as a dependent(predicted) variable.

ResultsTable 1 displays the number of teachers and percentage of the average

instructional time they spend using STAD in their teaching and reveals thefollowing patterns. First, 36 teachers (65.1%) use STAD 40% of the time or lessand six teachers (10.9%) do not use this method at all. Second, 15 teachers(27.2%) use STAD 50% of the time or more and five teachers (9.0%) use itmore than two-thirds of the time. It should also be noted that seven teachers(12.7%) reported that they use STAD 20% of their time and eight teachers(14.5%) reported that they use it 35% of the time.

Table 2 displays the correlation coefficients among the variables influencingteachers’ use of STAD and reveals the following.

First, the data show moderate positive correlations between teachers’implementation of STAD and interpretive beliefs, r (55) = 0.32, p = 0.02, atti-tude towards STAD r (55) = 0.52, p = 0.00, subjective norms r (55) = 0.46, p =0.00, and perceived behavioural control r (55) = 0.44, p = 0.00. Second, the datashow that implementation of STAD is not related to teachers’ transmissivebeliefs, r (55) = �0.13, p = 0.38, and to teachers’ experience r (55) = 0.12, p = 0.42.

Table 1 Reported average of instructional time for using STAD

Number of Teachers (total 55) Percentage Instructional time for using STAD

6 10.9 0%

3 5.4 5%

5 9.0 10%

1 1.8 15%

7 12.7 20%

1 1.8 25%

4 7.2 30%

8 14.5 35%

1 1.8 40%

4 7.2 45%

5 9.0 50%

5 9.0 60%2 3.6 70%

2 3.6 75%

1 1.8 80%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

286 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Table 2 Correlations between influencing variables and implementation of STAD

Influencing variables Implementation of CL n

Transmissive beliefs �0.13 55

Interpretive beliefs 0.32* 55

Attitude towards STAD 0.52** 55

Subjective norms 0.46** 55

Behavioural control 0.44** 55

Experience 0.12 55

* Significant at p < 0.05** Significant at p < 0.01

Table 3 Stepwise multiple regression of influence variables on the implementationof STAD

Variable R2 Adjusted R2 B Beta t p

Attitude towards STAD 0.27 0.26 7.12 0.33 3.07 0.00

Subjective norms 0.40 0.37 0.10 0.41 3.81 0.00

Interpretive beliefs 0.52 0.49 0.13 0.39 3.76 0.00

The results of the investigation into the main effects of the influencing vari-ables under study on teachers’ implementation of STAD are shown in Table3. This table shows that the overall value of coefficient of determination (Rsquare) is 0.52 and the adjusted R is 0.49. Table 3 also shows that the firstvariable entered into the equation (attitude towards STAD) explained 0.26(26%) of the variance in the criterion variable, the second variable (subjectivenorms) added the explained variance to 0.37 (11%), and the third variable(interpretive beliefs) added the explained variance to 0.49 (12%). Specifically,the results show significant effects for the variables of attitudes towards STAD(t = 3.07, p = 0.00), subjective norms (t = 3.81, p = 0.00), and interpretive beliefs(t = 3.76, p = 0.00).

DiscussionThe results of the present study suggest the following aspects of interest.

First, teachers’ beliefs regarding the acquisition of knowledge and second lan-guage influence their implementation of STAD as an instructional innovation.That is, teachers who believe in the interpretive model and perceive their rolesas facilitators of student learning and development in the cognitive as well asnon-cognitive schooling domains of self-esteem, social development, and self-expression, may use STAD more frequently than their counterparts whoadhere to the tenets of the transmissive model and consider their role asmerely the presentation and assessment of standardised knowledge. Theseresults further validate the propositions of Rich (1990) and those of Brody(1998) regarding the role of teachers’ ideological beliefs about education indetermining whether instructional innovations and implementation of newmethods are sustained or not. The results also corroborate those of Cohen and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

287Implementation of Cooperative Learning

Tellez (1994) who reported that certain facets of teachers’ interpretive beliefsystems actually discriminate between frequent and infrequent implementersof CL. Along similar lines, the results are in agreement with those reportedby Anders and Richardson (1991), Duffy and Roehler (1986) and Richardsonet al. (1991) regarding the link between teachers’ interpretive orientations andthe implementation of whole language as an instructional innovation in thelanguage classroom.

Second, the results indicate that teachers’ attitudes towards STAD as wellas the attitudes of others (subjective norms) or what others think about STAD,influence teachers’ implementation of this instructional method. That is, if tea-chers value STAD and perceive that other stakeholders such as school admin-istrators, other teachers, parents, and students are likely to endorse STAD andrecognize its benefits, then teachers may use it in their instruction more thantheir counterparts who perceive STAD as difficult, noisy, time consuming, andcounterproductive to student achievement. These results further validate thetenets of the Theory of Planned Behaviour proposed by Ajzen and Madden(1986) and underscore the need to build a common and cohesive school cul-ture whereby all stakeholders work together to achieve shared goals based ona common cooperative vision. This may entail some change in the status quoof individualistic and competitive practices within schools as well as necessi-tate the presence of a strong school leadership and a team-based and highperformance school, in which all the stakeholders work as teams in order tobuild the cooperative school.

Third, the results indicate that certain external and internal factors influenceteachers’ use of STAD. Specifically, the availability of funding, curriculummaterial, supplies and equipment as well as staff development programmes,less emphasis on standardised assessment, and smaller classes influence teach-ers’ use of STAD. Likewise, teachers’ sense of personal teaching efficacy andtheir own expectations that they will be able to perform the tasks that willlead to the successful implementation of STAD also influence their use of thisinstructional method. These findings suggest that the external and internalfactors that influence STAD implementation should be addressed and incor-porated as an integral component of the efforts to build the cooperative school.Of particular importance in this regard would be making available the neces-sary material and resources as well as conducting staff development pro-grammes to enhance teachers’ sense of personal teaching efficacy and to givethem autonomy and peer support in order to become innovative.

Fourth, the results indicate that the professional experience of teachers whoparticipated in the present study did not influence their implementation ofSTAD in their instruction. This suggests that teachers may use instructionalinnovations irrespective of how long they have been teaching, which contra-dicts the findings of Ghaith and Yaghi (1997) who reported that teachers’experience was negatively correlated with their willingness to implementSTAD in their instruction. A possible explanation of these findings could bethat the teacher characteristics that influence implementation of instructionalinnovations may be context-specific whereby in-service and other staff devel-opment programmes may keep teachers receptive to instructional innovationsdespite many years of teaching experience. This is especially so given that the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

288 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

participants in the Ghaith and Yaghi (1997) study ‘were delegated by 16schools’ to participate in an ‘announced in-service training program on coop-erative learning’ (c: 454); whereas the participants in the present study camefrom a sample of schools that may or may not need to delegate teachers toparticipate in announced workshop programmes for in-service teacher edu-cation. That is, it could be that the participants’ in the Ghaith and Yaghi (1997)study were generally experienced teachers who needed to develop andincrease their knowledge of the dynamics and procedures of innovativeinstructional methods such as STAD. Consequently, those teachers delegatedby their schools might have perceived STAD as difficult and less importantthe longer they stayed in the profession, unlike their counterparts in thepresent study who seem to implement STAD in their instruction irrespectiveof their teaching experience.

ConclusionThe results reported in the present study have a number of implications for

educators and EFL educational programmes interested in including CL, ingeneral, and STAD in particular as an instructional model in the professionaldevelopment and preparation of teachers. Chief among these implications isthat CL specialists and pre-service and in-service course organisers need toprovide opportunities for teachers and student teachers through discussion,interviews, and journals to reflect on the implicit assumptions in CL regardingteachers’ roles, locus of control and sense of authority, decision making, andthe nature of knowledge and knowing and how these match or mismatchteachers’ beliefs. According to Sapon-Shevin (1991), CL provides an ‘idealentree’ into the exploration of the possible in education as well as an ‘opport-unity’ for considering the ramifications of education. Specifically, the dynam-ics of CL maximise opportunities for negotiation of meaning, practice of socialskills, development of positive interdependence among learners, which arehallmarks of the belief systems of interpretive teachers. As such, CL is morelikely to appeal to interpretive teachers who view education as a process ofself-directed problem solving, social development, and personal actualisationrather than just transmission of intact and error-free knowledge ‘whose exist-ence is unrelated to human subjectivity’ as described by Brody and Davidson(1998, c: 28).

Furthermore, CL teacher educators and programme developers need to con-sider the belief systems of teachers and student teachers who are more likelyto participate in and benefit from their programmes. In this regard, advocatesof CL in second language education ‘may do well to avoid the prescriptive,teacher-as-a-technician approach of which teacher-proof material is a vitalpart’ (Cohen & Tellez, 1994: 11). Rather, the learning theories on which CL isbased should be discussed and the participating teachers and student teachersshould be encouraged to elicit and assess their own beliefs about their rolesas teachers and their views about knowledge and language acquisition andhow these relate to CL practice, instead of only focusing on the technicalitiesof the procedures and dynamics of CL implementation.

The results also suggest that the admission procedures to CL courses and in-service programmes should include a screening process in order to prioritise

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

289Implementation of Cooperative Learning

admission to training by taking into consideration the beliefs of prospectiveparticipants. This is especially so in the case of massive in-service programmeswhen time and other constraints might render the training of teachers whoadhere to transmission rather than interpretive beliefs impractical.

The results of the present study underscore the role of teachers’ interpretivebeliefs regarding knowledge and language acquisition and their attitudestowards CL, subjective norms, and certain external and internal factors as cor-relates of STAD implementation in the EFL classroom. The results also suggestthat teachers’ transmissive beliefs and their experience do not influenceimplementation of STAD in their instruction. However, further naturalisticstudies that employ objective observation measures are needed in order tovalidate the results of the present study and examine their robustness in othereducational and linguistic settings.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Dr Ghazi Ghaith, Department of

Education, American University of Beirut, PO Box 11-0236, Riad El Solh Beirut,1107 2020, Lebanon (gghaith@aub.ed.lb).

Notes1. The number of participants was reduced to 55 with the introduction of list-wise

deletion of missing cases when applied to statistical analyses run in the study.

ReferencesAjzen, I. and Madden, T.J. (1986) Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: Attitudes,

intentions, and perceived behavioural control. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-chology 22, 453–474.

Anders, P.L. and Richardson, V. (1991) Research directions: Staff development thatempowers teachers’ reflection and enhances instruction. Language Arts 68, 316–321.

Anderson, R., Greene, M. and Loewen, P. (1988) Relationships among teachers’ andstudents’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. The AlbertaJournal of Educational Research 34 (2), 148–165.

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, C. and Snapp, M. (1978) The Jigsaw Classroom.Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Barnes, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum. Great Britain: Penguin Books.Brody, C. (1998) The significance of teacher beliefs for professional development and

cooperative learning. In C. Brody and N. Davidson (eds) Professional Developmentfor Cooperative Learning Issues and Approaches (pp. 25–48). New York: State Universityof New York Press.

Brody, C. and Davidson, N. (1998) (eds) Professional Development for Cooperative Learn-ing Issues and Approaches. New York: State University of New York Press.

Clapp, D. and Flood, J. (1992) Teaching Reading to Every Child. New York: McMillanPublishing Company.

Cohen, M. and Tellez, K. (1994) Variables Affecting the Teacher Implementation of Cooperat-ive Learning Methods in ESL/EFL and Bilingual Classroom. Washington, DC (ERICDocument Reproduction No. ED373-562).

Cummins, J. (1986) Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Har-vard Educational Review 56 (1), 18–36.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990) Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bot-tom over the top. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12 (3), 233–241.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

290 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Duffy, G. and Roehler, L. (1986) Constraints on teacher change. Journal of Teacher Edu-cation 37 (1), 55–58.

Feimen-Nemser, S. and Folden, R.E. (1986) The cultures of teaching. In M.C. Wittrock(ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd edn) (pp. 505–506). New York: Macmillan.

Ghaith G.M. and Yaghi, H. (1997) Relationship among experience, teacher efficacy,and attitudes towards the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching andTeacher Education 13 (4), 451–458.

Ghaith, G.M. and Yaghi H. (1998) Effect of cooperative learning on the acquisition ofsecond language rules and mechanics. System 26, 223–234.

Gibson, S. and Dembo, M. (1984) Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal ofEducational Psychology 76, 569–582.

Isenberg, J.P. (1990) Reviews of research. Teachers’ thinking and beliefs and classroompractice. Childhood Education 66 (5), 322, 324–327.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Holubec, E. (1991) Cooperation in the Classroom.Edina: Interaction.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Holubec, E. (1992) Advanced Cooperative Learning (2ndedn). Edina: Interaction.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Holubec, E. (1994) The New Circles of Learning:Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Stanne, M.B. (2000) Cooperative Learning Methods:a Meta Analysis. Online document: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods. html

Kagan, S. (1989) The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership47 (4), 12–15.

Kagan, S. (1996). We can talk – cooperative learning in the elementary ESL classroom.Newsletter English as a Foreign Language 16 (Serial No. 1 and 2).

Kessler, C. (1992) (ed.) Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource Book. Engle-wood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.

Kluge, D., McGuire, S., Johnson, D. and Johnson, R. (1999) (eds) Cooperative Learning.Tokyo: JALT.

Krashen, S.D. (1988) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. PrenticeHall: Englewood Cliffs.

Lumpe, A.T., Haney, J. and Czerniak, C. (1998) Science teachers’ beliefs and intentionsregarding the use of cooperative learning. School Science and Mathematics 98 (3),123–135.

McGroarty, M. (1989) The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in secondlanguage instruction. NABE Journal 13 (2), 127–143.

McGroarty, M. (1993) Cooperative learning and second language acquisition. In D.D.Holt (ed.) Cooperative Learning (pp. 19–46). Washington, DC: Center for AppliedLinguistics and ERIC clearing-house on Languages and Linguistics.

Rich, Y. (1990) Ideological impediments to instructional innovation: The case of cooper-ative learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 6 (1), 81–91.

Richards, J.C. and Lockhart, C. (1996) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, R., Anders, P., Tidwell, D. and Lloyd, C. (1991) The relationship betweenteachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension. American EducationalResearch Journal 28 (3), 559–586.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1991) Cooperative learning in inclusive classrooms: Learning tobecome a community. Cooperative Learning Magazine 12 (1), 4–7.

Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S. (1992) Expanding Cooperative Learning Through Group Investi-gation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Slavin, R.E. (1995) Cooperative Learning Theory, Research, and Practice. Massachusetts:Simon & Schuster.

Slavin, R., Leavey, M. and Madden, N. (1986) Team Accelerated Instruction: Mathematics.Watertown: Charlesbridge.

Young, R. and Lee, S. (1984) EFL curriculum innovation and teacher attitudes. In P.Larson (ed.) On TESOL ’84. Brave New World for TESOL. Teachers of English to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

291Implementation of Cooperative Learning

Speakers of Other Languages, Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction No.ED 274 166).

Appendix: Mean and Standard Deviation of Items on theQuestionnaire

Part 1 Please indicate the degree to which you agree each statement below.Circle the appropriate numeral to the right of each statement.

Key: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

Item Mean sd

1. The English teacher should correct language mistakes 2.68 0.89through direct instruction in the rules of correct English.

2. Pupils should frequently be given the opportunity to 3.28 0.74express themselves orally in an exploratory manner,without having to pay too much attention to the formof their spoken language.

3. The teacher should correct all or most of the errors in 2.72 0.85the pupil’s written and oral language.

4. Direct instruction in the rules and terminology of 2.53 0.95grammar is essential for pupils to communicateeffectively.

5. A major role of classroom teachers is to help students 3.64 0.61raise their self-esteem, relate more positively to oneanother, and get to know one another better.

6. Pupils do their best work when taught as a whole class 2.40 0.92by the teacher. Small group work may occasionally beuseful to vary the routine, but it can never replaceformal instruction by a competent teacher.

7. If pupils are to benefit from their lesson the teacher 2.50 0.94must keep firm control, ensure that pupils payattention, and keep informal and anecdotal talk to aminimum, as this is likely to be distracting.

8. Teachers should be prepared to tolerate and even 3.65 0.81encourage the discussion of personal experiences thatmay not seem strictly relevant to the lesson.

9. Textbooks exercises in writing should be assigned 3.02 0.71regularly by the teacher so that pupils can learn theskills and conventions of written expressions as well asunderstand common errors in usage.

10. Pupils expand their vocabulary through speaking, 3.81 0.48listening, reading and encountering words in contextrather than through word lists.

11. A major purpose of schooling is for students to acquire 3.38 0.78knowledge, which may include facts and concepts aswell as basic analytic skills.

12. Small group work is valuable since it allows pupils to 3.43 0.62have some measure of control over their own learning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

292 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

13. The teacher should concentrate on helping pupils to 3.51 0.63formulate, express and deepen their own individualinterpretations and responses to subject matter.

14. Formal vocabulary work, in which pupils examine 3.10 0.83words and their meanings, and practice using them insentences, is essential for language growth and shouldbe part of the ESL or bilingual curriculum.

15. When pupils write, the teacher’s role is to create a 3.27 0.72context for their writing, and to help them make theirown decisions about such things as the purpose, theaudience, and the form the writing is to take.

16. Teachers should emphasise the teaching of subject 2.04 0.64matter rather than encourage students’ socialdevelopment.

17. Learning a subject involves mastering a body of ideas, 2.50 0.76facts, and opinions through participating in formallessons, making summaries, studying textbooks,reference books and teachers’ notes.

18. Children learn spelling best from standardised word 2.20 0.95lists.

19. Learning involves pupils in expressing their 2.50 0.76understanding of new ideas in their own words.Provision should therefore be made for conversationand informal talk as a necessary part of classroomactivities.

20. Pupils should frequently be given the opportunity to 3.42 0.65express themselves orally in an exploratory manner,without having to pay too much attention to the formof their spoken language.

Part 2 My implementing STAD into my English classroom instructionwould…

Key: 1 = very unlikely, 2 = slightly unlikely, 3 = neither, 4 = slightly likely, 5= very likely

Item Mean sd

1. Increase student learning because students learn from 4.64 0.59each other in a social situation.

2. Make English more fun and interesting. 4.73 0.473. Increase the number of ideas and problem-solving 4.53 0.69

techniques students could use in English.4. Make English more student-directed. 5.54 0.585. Help students learn cooperative skills (leadership, 4.72 0.63

compromise, communication, sharing, responsibility,etc.).

6. Let some children dominate the English lessons and 2.81 1.32allow others just to follow along.

7. Be difficult because children lack social skills. 2.66 1.38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

293Implementation of Cooperative Learning

8. Be problematic because some students would be off-task 3.07 1.33and noisy.

9. Take time away from covering important English 2.50 1.27content.

10. Cause me more planning time for designing curriculum 3.65 1.17and arranging groups of students.

11. Make it harder for me to measure outcomes. 2.94 1.25

Part 3 Indicate the likelihood that the following people think you shouldimplement STAD in your classroom.

Key: 1 = very unlikely, 2 = slightly unlikely, 3 = neither, 4 = slightly likely, 5= very likely

Item Mean sd

1. School administrators (principal, curriculum director, 4.17 1.17superintendent, etc.)

2. Students 4.13 1.143. Our teachers, especially team teachers 3.98 1.084. People in the Ministry of Education 3.83 1.135. People interested in inclusion (therapist, speech teachers, 4.22 1.67

special education teachers, etc.)6. Parents in general 3.05 1.067. Parents of academically gifted students 3.12 1.318. Traditional teachers who are teacher-directed 1.54 0.89

Part 4 Indicate the likelihood that the following factors will be availablefor you to use STAD.

Key: 1 = very unlikely, 2 = slightly unlikely, 3 = neither, 4 = slightly likely, 5= very likely

Item Mean sd

1. Having available resources (funding, curriculum 3.67 1.33materials, supplies and equipment, etc.)

2. Staff development opportunities on cooperative learning 3.91 1.093. Less emphasis on testing and assessment 3.16 1.204. Team teaching and collegial support 3.92 1.015. Curriculum ideas for cooperative learning 4.16 0.826. Administrative support 4.35 0.767. Time to plan and implement cooperative learning 3.60 1.308. Classroom space and arrangements that facilitate 2.83 1.56

cooperative learning9. Smaller classes of students and/or more adult help in 2.63 1.56

the classroom10. Students who have cooperative skills 3.73 1.10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

294 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Part 5 Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each statementbelow. Circle the appropriate numeral to the right of each statement.

Key: (1) SD = Strongly Disagree, (2) MD = Moderately Disagree, (3) DSMA= Disagree Slightly More Than Agree, (4) ASMD = Agree Slightly Morethan Disagree, (5) MA = Moderately Agree, (6) SA = Strongly Agree

Item Mean sd

1. When a student does better than usual many times it is 4.26 1.19because I exerted a little extra effort.

2. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I 4.69 1.20am usually able to adjust it to his/her level.

3. When a student gets a better grade than he/she usually 4.39 1.17gets, it is usually because I found better ways of teachingthe student.

4. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult 4.85 1.22students.

5. When the grades of my students improve it is usually 4.97 1.09because I found more effective teaching approaches.

6. If a student masters a new concept quickly, this might be 4.94 1.04because I knew the necessary steps in teaching thisconcept.

7. If students did not remember information I gave in a 5.00 1.12previous lesson, I would know how to increase retentionin the next lesson.

8. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I 5.09 1.01feel assured that I know some techniques to redirecthim/her quickly.

9. If one of my students couldn’t do a class assignment, I 4.69 1.36would be able to accurately assess whether theassignment was at the correct level of difficulty.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

19 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013