合作学习在我国高职二语习得中的运用
摘要
本文运用自然实验法和访谈等研究方法，对高职英语教学中运用合作学习进行了尝试性研究，重点探究合作学习对英语口语教学的影响、高职学生对合作学习的态度以及合作学习对口语教学以及其他方面影响的看法。
实验的对象是扬州环境资源职业技术学院82名商务英语班一年级的学生。为了不影响正常教学秩序，实验班和对照班都采用自然班级，没有进行随机抽样。研究者根据前测成绩从四个班级中选择了英语口语水平相近的(2)班和(4)班参加实验。在前测中(2)班成绩略低于(4)班，因此把(2)班作为实验班，(4)班作为对照班。在实验班的口语教学中，研究者运用合作学习，即以小组为单位，以合作学习为形式，以小组共同完成学习任务为目标开展各项口语教学活动。在对照班的口语教学中研究者仍采用传统的教学法，即以班级为单位，以独立学习为形式，以个人达标为目的开展各项口语教学活动。研究者根据前测成绩将实验班学生分成好、中、差三组，并且依据所占比例分别从各组中随机抽取2名、6名和4名学生，在实验结束时，对他们进行访谈，了解学习者对合作学习的态度以及合作学习对口语教学及其他方面影响的看法。最后运用定量和定性分析的手段对所收集的数据进行分析，研究结果表明：
1、合作学习有助于提高学生的英语口语表达能力。实验前对照班与实验班的英语口语成绩没有显著差异，但经过十六周的合作学习的教学，实验班英语口语成绩明显高于对照班，与对照班有了显著的差异。
2、实验结果表明，就提高英语口语成绩而言，差生从合作学习中受益明显大于好生。经过十六周的合作学习的教学，实验班差生的英语口语成绩与实验前相比有了大幅度的提高，而好生则未有明显提高。
3、绝大多数学生对合作学习持肯定的态度，他们认为合作学习有以下优点：1)有助于解决学习中的困难；2)有助于降低学习中的焦虑；3)有助于激发学习兴趣；4)有助于增强自信心；5)有助于促使学习者更加努力学习。与此相反，少数好生对合作学习持否定态度，他们认为合作学习有以下不足：1)不利于调动他们口语学习的积极性；2)影响他们口语学习中创造性的发挥；3)差生过多依赖好生。个别学生对合作学习持无所谓的态度。
vl ThesisofMasterDegreeinYangzhouUniversity
4、学习者对合作学习的影响看法不一。大多数认为合作学习有助于提高他们
的英语口语水平，但部分好生则认为合作学习对提高他们的口语水平帮助不大;
所有访谈对象一致认为合作学习有助于增强合作意识、提高合作能力、增进小组
成员间的交流，从而有助于建立融洽的人际关系。
本研究的启示:合作学习有利于提高英语口语教学质量，但如何让合作学习
适合所有的学习者还有待进一步研究和探讨。
This paper reports a study about the effects of cooperative learning on oral English learning and teaching in Chinese vocational college context. It aims at exploring whether CL is helpful in improving oral English of vocational college learners, whether CL is as effective to the low achievers as it is to the high in terms of improving their oral English, what attitudes the learners adopt toward CL and what their opinions are about the effects of CL.
In this study, two research designs were adopted: the quantitative and the qualitative. In the quantitative design, in order to find out whether CL was more efficient and effective than the traditional one in oral English learning and teaching in CVC context, an experiment was conducted with two intact classes of participants totaling 82. The participants were the first-year learners of Business English program in Yangzhou Vocational College of Environment and Resources. Of the two classes, one was an Experimental Class, the other was a Control Class, each with 41 learners involved in the oral English course over a period of sixteen weeks. In CC, the researcher still employed the traditional method-teachers' spoonfeeding or one-way transmission with little or no time for the participants to practice together. In EC, the researcher employed CL-learning cooperatively. In the qualitative design, the interviews were employed to find out the subjects' attitudes towards CL and their opinions about its effects. The
researcher then quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed all the data collected in the course of her study. Detail analyses of all the data yield the findings as follows:
1. CL has positive effects on the oral English learning and teaching in CVC context. Quantitatively, there were no significant differences between EC and CC in the pre-test. After CL had been used in EC for sixteen weeks, the results of the
post-test showed significant differences between the two classes and the mean of the post-test in EC was higher than that in CC. Qualitatively, the researcher found that the climate of EC was more animate than before and the subjects participated in oral English practice more actively and confidently.
2. CL is more effective to the low achievers than it is to the high in terms of improving their oral English, because there are greater differences for the low achievers between the post-test and pre-test than there are for the high achievers. In other words, the low achievers benefit more from CL than the high do.
3. The subjects' attitudes towards CL are mainly positive. Most of the average and low achievers have a preference for CL. They think CL has the following advantages: 1) helping them solve learning difficulties; 2) reducing anxiety in the oral English classroom; 3) arousing their interest in oral English learning; 4) enhancing their self-confidence; 5) motivating them to work harder. However, there are some high achievers who think differently. To their mind, CL has the following disadvantages: 1) dampening their enthusiasm for oral production; 2) limiting their creativity in oral production; 3) the low achievers' over-dependence on the high. There are still some high achievers who take a neutral stance, with likes and dislikes mixed up.
4. The subjects, especially those who speak positively of the effects of CL in CVC context, admit that CL, in addition to its academic effects, is also helpful in improving their interpersonal relationship, that is to say, it can help the subjects to develop mutual tolerance, acceptance, closeness and solidarity.
It is proved that CL is efficient and effective in improving oral English learning and teaching in CVC context. However, it needs further studies on how to improve CL and make all the learners benefit from it.
实验的对象是扬州环境资源职业技术学院82名商务英语班一年级的学生。为了不影响正常教学秩序，实验班和对照班都采用自然班级，没有进行随机抽样。研究者根据前测成绩从四个班级中选择了英语口语水平相近的(2)班和(4)班参加实验。在前测中(2)班成绩略低于(4)班，因此把(2)班作为实验班，(4)班作为对照班。在实验班的口语教学中，研究者运用合作学习，即以小组为单位，以合作学习为形式，以小组共同完成学习任务为目标开展各项口语教学活动。在对照班的口语教学中研究者仍采用传统的教学法，即以班级为单位，以独立学习为形式，以个人达标为目的开展各项口语教学活动。研究者根据前测成绩将实验班学生分成好、中、差三组，并且依据所占比例分别从各组中随机抽取2名、6名和4名学生，在实验结束时，对他们进行访谈，了解学习者对合作学习的态度以及合作学习对口语教学及其他方面影响的看法。最后运用定量和定性分析的手段对所收集的数据进行分析，研究结果表明：
1、合作学习有助于提高学生的英语口语表达能力。实验前对照班与实验班的英语口语成绩没有显著差异，但经过十六周的合作学习的教学，实验班英语口语成绩明显高于对照班，与对照班有了显著的差异。
2、实验结果表明，就提高英语口语成绩而言，差生从合作学习中受益明显大于好生。经过十六周的合作学习的教学，实验班差生的英语口语成绩与实验前相比有了大幅度的提高，而好生则未有明显提高。
3、绝大多数学生对合作学习持肯定的态度，他们认为合作学习有以下优点：1)有助于解决学习中的困难；2)有助于降低学习中的焦虑；3)有助于激发学习兴趣；4)有助于增强自信心；5)有助于促使学习者更加努力学习。与此相反，少数好生对合作学习持否定态度，他们认为合作学习有以下不足：1)不利于调动他们口语学习的积极性；2)影响他们口语学习中创造性的发挥；3)差生过多依赖好生。个别学生对合作学习持无所谓的态度。
vl ThesisofMasterDegreeinYangzhouUniversity
4、学习者对合作学习的影响看法不一。大多数认为合作学习有助于提高他们
的英语口语水平，但部分好生则认为合作学习对提高他们的口语水平帮助不大;
所有访谈对象一致认为合作学习有助于增强合作意识、提高合作能力、增进小组
成员间的交流，从而有助于建立融洽的人际关系。
本研究的启示:合作学习有利于提高英语口语教学质量，但如何让合作学习
适合所有的学习者还有待进一步研究和探讨。
This paper reports a study about the effects of cooperative learning on oral English learning and teaching in Chinese vocational college context. It aims at exploring whether CL is helpful in improving oral English of vocational college learners, whether CL is as effective to the low achievers as it is to the high in terms of improving their oral English, what attitudes the learners adopt toward CL and what their opinions are about the effects of CL.
In this study, two research designs were adopted: the quantitative and the qualitative. In the quantitative design, in order to find out whether CL was more efficient and effective than the traditional one in oral English learning and teaching in CVC context, an experiment was conducted with two intact classes of participants totaling 82. The participants were the first-year learners of Business English program in Yangzhou Vocational College of Environment and Resources. Of the two classes, one was an Experimental Class, the other was a Control Class, each with 41 learners involved in the oral English course over a period of sixteen weeks. In CC, the researcher still employed the traditional method-teachers' spoonfeeding or one-way transmission with little or no time for the participants to practice together. In EC, the researcher employed CL-learning cooperatively. In the qualitative design, the interviews were employed to find out the subjects' attitudes towards CL and their opinions about its effects. The
researcher then quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed all the data collected in the course of her study. Detail analyses of all the data yield the findings as follows:
1. CL has positive effects on the oral English learning and teaching in CVC context. Quantitatively, there were no significant differences between EC and CC in the pre-test. After CL had been used in EC for sixteen weeks, the results of the
post-test showed significant differences between the two classes and the mean of the post-test in EC was higher than that in CC. Qualitatively, the researcher found that the climate of EC was more animate than before and the subjects participated in oral English practice more actively and confidently.
2. CL is more effective to the low achievers than it is to the high in terms of improving their oral English, because there are greater differences for the low achievers between the post-test and pre-test than there are for the high achievers. In other words, the low achievers benefit more from CL than the high do.
3. The subjects' attitudes towards CL are mainly positive. Most of the average and low achievers have a preference for CL. They think CL has the following advantages: 1) helping them solve learning difficulties; 2) reducing anxiety in the oral English classroom; 3) arousing their interest in oral English learning; 4) enhancing their self-confidence; 5) motivating them to work harder. However, there are some high achievers who think differently. To their mind, CL has the following disadvantages: 1) dampening their enthusiasm for oral production; 2) limiting their creativity in oral production; 3) the low achievers' over-dependence on the high. There are still some high achievers who take a neutral stance, with likes and dislikes mixed up.
4. The subjects, especially those who speak positively of the effects of CL in CVC context, admit that CL, in addition to its academic effects, is also helpful in improving their interpersonal relationship, that is to say, it can help the subjects to develop mutual tolerance, acceptance, closeness and solidarity.
It is proved that CL is efficient and effective in improving oral English learning and teaching in CVC context. However, it needs further studies on how to improve CL and make all the learners benefit from it.
引文
1. Arnold J & Brown D H. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold. (Ed.). Affect in language learning, pp. 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Artzt, A. F., Newman, C. M., (1990) How To Use Cooperative learning in the Mathematics Class, National Council of Teachers of mathematics: Reston, VA.
3. Battistich, V. & Watson, M.(2203). Development in preschool and early grades. In R. M. Gillies & A. F Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning.(pp.19-35). London: Routledge Falmer.
4. Bruffee, K., (1995), "Sharing our toys-Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning". Change, Jan/Feb, 1995 pp12-18
5. Chen, X. M. (2001). How teachers do qualitative research. Beijing: Education and Science Publication House.
6. Cooper, J. L., Robinson, P & McKinney, M. (1994). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. Changing College Classrooms: New Teaching and Learning Strategies For An Increasingly Complex World. pp. 74-92. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7. Crandall, J. (1999). Cooperative Language learning and affective factors. In J. Arnold. (Ed.). Affect in language learning. (pp. 226-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Dumas, A. (2003). All for one, one for all. Online. Available at:(accessed 18 November 2003).
9. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Fang, W. L. (2003). Some random remarks on the task-based approach in foreign language teaching. Journal of Foreign Language and Their Teaching. (9). pp. 17-20
12. Fosnot C. T. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. New York: Teacher College Press.
13. Gillies, R. M.(2003). Structuring cooperative learning experiences in primary school. In R. M. Gillies & A. F Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning.(pp.36-53). London: Routledge Falmer.
14. Guo,Y.B. (2002). Implement and assessment of cooperative learning in English classroom. Journal of Xiamen Educational College (3).
15. Hu, C. D. (1990). English Teaching. Beijing: High Education Press.
16. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1990). "Social skill for successful Group Work," Educational Leadership, Vol.47, No.4,December, 1989/January, 1990, pp.29-33).
17. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative competitive, and
individualistic learning (4th ed). Needham Hights, Massachustts: Allyn and Bacon.
18. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2003) Social interdependence theory. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman. Cooperative learning. (pp. 136-176). (Eds.). London: Routledge Falmer.
19. Lazarowitz, R. H., Kirkus, V. B. & Miller, N. (1992). An overview of the theoretical anatomy of cooperation in the classroom. In R. H. Lazarowitz & N. Miller. (Eds.) Interaction in cooperative groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Li, T. X. (1983). English Teaching. Beijing: High Education Press.
21. Lie, A. (1998). Cooperative Learning: Changing paradigms of College Teaching. On line.(accessed 19 November 2003).
22. Liu, A.H. (2002). Application of guidance model of teaching and cooperative learning in English listening class.
23. Liu, R. Q. & Wu, Y.A. (2000). Studies in English Language Teaching in China. Beijing: Foreign Language teaching and Research Press.
24. Lu, M. J. (2002). Tentative exploration of effect of cooperative learning group in English classroom. Journal of Guangxi Education. (9).
25. Lu, X. H. (2001). The effects of cooperation and competition on anxiety and achievement motivation of high school students. Journal of Yunmeng. (6).
26. Luo, C. M. (2001).The basic concepts of cooperative learning and application in SEFC. Journal of Primary and High School Teaching and Research. (4).
27. Lyman, L. & Foyle, H. C. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies and Children. Eric Digest. Online. Available at:(accessed 19 November 2003).
28. McWhaw, K et al. (2003). From cooperation to collaboration: Helping students become collaborative learners. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning. (pp.69-86). London: Routledge Falmer.
29. Moskowitz, G. (1999). Enhancing personal development: Humanistic activities at work. In J. Arnold. (Ed.). Affect in language learning (pp. 177-193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Numan, D. (2001). Tradition and change in the ELF curriculum. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research.(4).
31. Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: Comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, V8, No. 2.
32. Pei, D. L. (2000). Instruction strategies for cooperative learning. Journal of Subject Edcation. (2).
33. Qiu, D. L & Ji, P. Y. (2004). Reforming the content of college English test to improve students' spoken English Journal of the Foreign Language World (1) pp. 20-25.
34. Richards, J. C et al. (2000). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
35. Shachar, H. (2003). Who gains what from cooperative learning: An overview of eight studies. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning. (pp.103-118). London: Routledge Falmer.
36. Sharan, S. & Shaulov (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learning, and academic achievement. In Sharan S (Ed.). Cooperative learning: Theory and research. New York: Praeget Publishers.
37. Slavin, R. et al.(Eds.). (1985). Learning to cooperative, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum Press.
38. Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
39. Slavin, R. (1991). Student team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning (3rd ed). Washington: National Education Association.
40. Stahl, R. J. (1994). The essential elements of cooperative learning in classroom. Eric Digest. On line. Available at:accessed 19 November 2003)
41. Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Sun, W. S. (1997). Cooperative learning and transformation of low achievers. Journal of Shandong Education and Research. (5).
43. Taron, E. & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Terwel, J. (2003). Cooperative learning in secondary education: A curriculum perspective. In R. M .Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning. (pp.54-68). London: Routledge Falmer.
45. Wang, T. (1994). An introduction to cooperative learning. Beijing: Education and Science Publication House.
46. Wang, T. (1997). A review on cooperative learning. Journal of Shandong Education and Science.(2).
47. Wang, T. (2002). Brief discussions of cooperative learning. Journal of the Chinese Society of Education. (1).
48. Wang, T. (2002). The basic concepts of cooperative learning. Journal of Education and Research. (2).
43. Wang, T. & Gao, Y. (1996). A new perspective on modern methodology reform. Journal of Education and Research. (8).
44. Wang, T. Q.(2002). On cooperative group learning of University Teaching. Journal of Chinese High Education. (5).
45. Wen, Q. F.(2001). Applied Linguistics: Research methods and thesis writing. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
46. Wen,Q. F. (1999). Testing & Teaching Spoken English. Shanghai: Shanghai foreign Language Education Press.
47. Weng, H. F. (1999). Tentative application of cooperative learning in English teaching. Journal of Guangdong Educational college. (2).
48. Xu, H. (2001) Cooperative learning application in English classroom of junior middle school.
49. Xu, X.C.& Lu, H. (2002). From traditional learning to cooperative learning. Theory and Practice of Education. (11).
50. Xu, X. Z. & Wang, T. X. (2002). On group cooperative learning in University Instruction. Journal of High education and Research in China
51. Yao, Y. P. (2202). On environment education—The basic taches and application principles of Cooperative learning strategy. Environment Education Journal. (3). Pp. 14-16.
52. Yin, W. L. (2000). Cooperative learning application in English teaching. Journal of Shandong Educational College. (3)
53. Zeng, Q. (2000). The elements of cooperative learning. Journal of Subject Education. (6).
54. Zhang, J. Z. (1993): Foreign Language Education. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Education Press.
2. Artzt, A. F., Newman, C. M., (1990) How To Use Cooperative learning in the Mathematics Class, National Council of Teachers of mathematics: Reston, VA.
3. Battistich, V. & Watson, M.(2203). Development in preschool and early grades. In R. M. Gillies & A. F Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning.(pp.19-35). London: Routledge Falmer.
4. Bruffee, K., (1995), "Sharing our toys-Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning". Change, Jan/Feb, 1995 pp12-18
5. Chen, X. M. (2001). How teachers do qualitative research. Beijing: Education and Science Publication House.
6. Cooper, J. L., Robinson, P & McKinney, M. (1994). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. Changing College Classrooms: New Teaching and Learning Strategies For An Increasingly Complex World. pp. 74-92. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7. Crandall, J. (1999). Cooperative Language learning and affective factors. In J. Arnold. (Ed.). Affect in language learning. (pp. 226-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Dumas, A. (2003). All for one, one for all. Online. Available at:
9. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Fang, W. L. (2003). Some random remarks on the task-based approach in foreign language teaching. Journal of Foreign Language and Their Teaching. (9). pp. 17-20
12. Fosnot C. T. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. New York: Teacher College Press.
13. Gillies, R. M.(2003). Structuring cooperative learning experiences in primary school. In R. M. Gillies & A. F Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning.(pp.36-53). London: Routledge Falmer.
14. Guo,Y.B. (2002). Implement and assessment of cooperative learning in English classroom. Journal of Xiamen Educational College (3).
15. Hu, C. D. (1990). English Teaching. Beijing: High Education Press.
16. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1990). "Social skill for successful Group Work," Educational Leadership, Vol.47, No.4,December, 1989/January, 1990, pp.29-33).
17. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative competitive, and
individualistic learning (4th ed). Needham Hights, Massachustts: Allyn and Bacon.
18. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2003) Social interdependence theory. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman. Cooperative learning. (pp. 136-176). (Eds.). London: Routledge Falmer.
19. Lazarowitz, R. H., Kirkus, V. B. & Miller, N. (1992). An overview of the theoretical anatomy of cooperation in the classroom. In R. H. Lazarowitz & N. Miller. (Eds.) Interaction in cooperative groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Li, T. X. (1983). English Teaching. Beijing: High Education Press.
21. Lie, A. (1998). Cooperative Learning: Changing paradigms of College Teaching. On line.
22. Liu, A.H. (2002). Application of guidance model of teaching and cooperative learning in English listening class.
23. Liu, R. Q. & Wu, Y.A. (2000). Studies in English Language Teaching in China. Beijing: Foreign Language teaching and Research Press.
24. Lu, M. J. (2002). Tentative exploration of effect of cooperative learning group in English classroom. Journal of Guangxi Education. (9).
25. Lu, X. H. (2001). The effects of cooperation and competition on anxiety and achievement motivation of high school students. Journal of Yunmeng. (6).
26. Luo, C. M. (2001).The basic concepts of cooperative learning and application in SEFC. Journal of Primary and High School Teaching and Research. (4).
27. Lyman, L. & Foyle, H. C. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies and Children. Eric Digest. Online. Available at:
28. McWhaw, K et al. (2003). From cooperation to collaboration: Helping students become collaborative learners. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning. (pp.69-86). London: Routledge Falmer.
29. Moskowitz, G. (1999). Enhancing personal development: Humanistic activities at work. In J. Arnold. (Ed.). Affect in language learning (pp. 177-193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Numan, D. (2001). Tradition and change in the ELF curriculum. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research.(4).
31. Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: Comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, V8, No. 2.
32. Pei, D. L. (2000). Instruction strategies for cooperative learning. Journal of Subject Edcation. (2).
33. Qiu, D. L & Ji, P. Y. (2004). Reforming the content of college English test to improve students' spoken English Journal of the Foreign Language World (1) pp. 20-25.
34. Richards, J. C et al. (2000). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
35. Shachar, H. (2003). Who gains what from cooperative learning: An overview of eight studies. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning. (pp.103-118). London: Routledge Falmer.
36. Sharan, S. & Shaulov (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learning, and academic achievement. In Sharan S (Ed.). Cooperative learning: Theory and research. New York: Praeget Publishers.
37. Slavin, R. et al.(Eds.). (1985). Learning to cooperative, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum Press.
38. Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
39. Slavin, R. (1991). Student team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning (3rd ed). Washington: National Education Association.
40. Stahl, R. J. (1994). The essential elements of cooperative learning in classroom. Eric Digest. On line. Available at:
41. Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Sun, W. S. (1997). Cooperative learning and transformation of low achievers. Journal of Shandong Education and Research. (5).
43. Taron, E. & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Terwel, J. (2003). Cooperative learning in secondary education: A curriculum perspective. In R. M .Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning. (pp.54-68). London: Routledge Falmer.
45. Wang, T. (1994). An introduction to cooperative learning. Beijing: Education and Science Publication House.
46. Wang, T. (1997). A review on cooperative learning. Journal of Shandong Education and Science.(2).
47. Wang, T. (2002). Brief discussions of cooperative learning. Journal of the Chinese Society of Education. (1).
48. Wang, T. (2002). The basic concepts of cooperative learning. Journal of Education and Research. (2).
43. Wang, T. & Gao, Y. (1996). A new perspective on modern methodology reform. Journal of Education and Research. (8).
44. Wang, T. Q.(2002). On cooperative group learning of University Teaching. Journal of Chinese High Education. (5).
45. Wen, Q. F.(2001). Applied Linguistics: Research methods and thesis writing. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
46. Wen,Q. F. (1999). Testing & Teaching Spoken English. Shanghai: Shanghai foreign Language Education Press.
47. Weng, H. F. (1999). Tentative application of cooperative learning in English teaching. Journal of Guangdong Educational college. (2).
48. Xu, H. (2001) Cooperative learning application in English classroom of junior middle school.
49. Xu, X.C.& Lu, H. (2002). From traditional learning to cooperative learning. Theory and Practice of Education. (11).
50. Xu, X. Z. & Wang, T. X. (2002). On group cooperative learning in University Instruction. Journal of High education and Research in China
51. Yao, Y. P. (2202). On environment education—The basic taches and application principles of Cooperative learning strategy. Environment Education Journal. (3). Pp. 14-16.
52. Yin, W. L. (2000). Cooperative learning application in English teaching. Journal of Shandong Educational College. (3)
53. Zeng, Q. (2000). The elements of cooperative learning. Journal of Subject Education. (6).
54. Zhang, J. Z. (1993): Foreign Language Education. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Education Press.