The study now zooms into how to apply STAD as a cooperative learning technique specifically in an EFAL classroom in order to ascertain if the technique can work in these second language classrooms. Research by Kagan, Kessler, and Mcgoarty establish the theoretical relevance of cooperative learning in the teaching of a second language since opportunities of meaningful input and output within the interactive and supportive learning environment are provided (Ghaith, 2003). Their research also points out that cooperative learning integrates language and content learning and its varied applications are in harmony with the pedagogical implications of the input, socialization and interactive theories of second language acquisition by virtue of cooperative learning having the capacity to enhance the motivation and psychological adjustment of language learners. In further narrowing the scope to the real classroom application, Kagan (1995) argues that language acquisition is determined by a complex interaction of a number of critical input, output, and context variables. A graphical presentation of Kagan’s complex presentation is done below after which explanations to make them more understandable follow.
113
Figure 4.2: Complex Interaction Determining Language Acquisition
Source: Adapted from Kagan (2005)
Input:
Abdullah and Jacobs (2004) hypothesis is that as students make meaning through written and spoken words they are able to acquire a second language. Kagan (1995), the originator of the input, output, and context (complex) interaction argued that language can best be acquired when the input is comprehensible, developmentally appropriate, redundant, and accurate.
Comprehensible:
Students in groups by adjusting their input to make understanding easier for others also ensure that meaning is regulated by bringing it to an appropriate level for all team members.
Developmentally appropriate:
• The input must be within the student’s ZPD so they can understand through the help of others. INPUT: comprehensible; developmentally appropriate; redundant; accurate. CONTEXT: Supportive & motivation; communicative; referential; developmentally appropriate; feedback rich. OUTPUT: Functional & communicative; frequent; redundant; identity congruent.
114
• Cooperative learning has the tendency of helping stimulate development to the next stage of language development.
• Extra input sources can be provided by peers and this may help in the transfer of learning outside the classroom.
• Students understand better when their peers help them and this helps in motivating them and decreasing the anxiety they often experience in a typical second language classroom.
Redundant:
• Students’ retention of content is assured as they repeatedly receive input from varied sources.
• The requisition for repetition, explanation and clarification of content enable students triangulate meaning out of the content being shared.
Accurate:
• The errors groups often make may make group work inferior compared, hence the teacher should monitor how groups progress, check for accuracies and offer corrections where needed.
• Teachers should encourage students to work on their communication difficulties on their own but should also avail himself/herself when needed by the students. • Effective interaction strategies will be increased as students learn cooperative
and collaborative skills.
Output:
Language acquisition is fostered by output that is functional and communicative, frequent, redundant, and consistent with the identity of the speaker.
115
• The language used in the cooperative environment should not be different from the language used in the everyday life of students.
• Cooperative learning groups make way for expressive, functional, personally relevant, representative language output that is critical for language acquisition (Kagan, 1995).
Frequent:
• The greatest advantage of cooperative learning is its ability to maximize student’s output (Kagan, 1995) and also its appropriateness for large classes where students are allowed to engage in more talking.
Redundant:
• Students’ fluency in a language naturally increases as they speak repeatedly on a topic.
Identity Congruent:
• Increased fluency can be achieved when students practise classroom speech which projects the identity associated with the speech (Kagan, 1995).
Context:
Students can experience increased learning in a supportive and motivating, communicative and referential, developmentally appropriate, and feedback rich context. Abdullah and Jacobs (2004) added that cooperative learning can be structured in way such that the context in which it is being done will help balance opportunities that caters for individual group members.
Supportive and motivating:
Cooperative learning groups can provide a supportive and motivating context for a variety of reasons, including:
• Frequently asking questions
116
• Assigning peers to the same group (working for shared goals) • Making speech an integral part of cooperative learning
• Ensuring students are taught appropriate skill so that when they are in their task teams they won’t find it difficult exhibiting praise and encouragement to others • Students are taught to depend on one another as a way of conditioning them to
learn the same content
Communicative and referential:
• Students speak in real time, about real events and objects, to accomplish real goals which pushes them to strive for meaning and ends up facilitating acquisition.
Developmentally appropriate:
• By interacting with each other cooperatively, students are able to interact within each other’s zone of proximal development.
Feedback rich:
• Students in cooperative learning groups get immediate feedback and correction opportunities through the process of communication.
• These feedback opportunities occur in a natural context, making it easier to assimilate and reduce student anxiety.
Feedback in language acquisition is so important that Abdullah and Jacobs (2004) argued that getting feedback on the comprehensibility of a student’s second language output is essential to promote fluency, and pushes students to engage in syntactic processing of language, give them opportunities to test hypotheses about what works, and affords them with the opportunities to receive feedback from others.
Kagan’s work, with some input by Abdullah and Jacob has put into the limelight how the interplay of the input, output and outcome variables play a big role when STAD is
117
applied in the second language classroom. To clarify and put into practical perspective the work of Kagan in this study, the figure below is created.
Figure 4.3: Application of STAD in a Second Language Classroom
From the diagram above; the principles of STAD which are in line with that of cooperative learning should be the first point of call when applying STAD in a second language classroom. It is when that is done that the complex interaction of variables by Kagan can be utilized in order to arrive at the outcomes that follow. The divisions of EFAL and the modalities set out go a long way to corroborate what is being discussed. The DoE (2007) points out that EFAL develops skills to communicate effectively in both a socio-personal context and a vocational-work environment. They add that the following modalities of learning and language will be addressed:
• Listening and Speaking • Writing and Presenting • Reading and Viewing
• Language as a tool for communication and learning
The modalities set out show how practical the subject is and the need for a cooperative technique like STAD to be used for maximum success in the learning process. The DoE (2007) further places weights on the divisions of EFAL as presented in the table below.