穨Review. Pdf

partner, highlighting the most interesting points.
In Three-Step Interview, students interviewed each other in pairs, first one way, 
and then they switched their roles as interviewers and interviewees. Students could 
share with the interviews about information they had learned. 
The Three-Step 
Interview was used in this study as means to help students gain competence in 
language skills of speaking, listening, and summarizing.
2.5.2 Inside-Outside Circle 
The Inside-Outside Circle, first developed by Spencer Kagan (1989), helped 
students review information while they got to know their classmates. It was 
particularly useful for review and for mastering new vocabulary and sentence 
patterns.
To form an Inside-Outside Circle, students worked in groups of four or six.
Students stood in pairs in two concentric circles, with the inside circle facing out and 
the outside circle facing in. Students could use flash cards or respond to teacher 
questions as they rotate to each new partner. It could be a good strategy for checking 
understanding, reviewing, processing, practicing dialogues in the textbooks, and 
meeting classmates. 

---

37
The Inside-Outside Circle used in this study was mainly for group practice of the 
dialogues in the textbooks. It was a powerful strategy for the redundant input and 
output, which were necessary in the acquisition of a foreign language. Besides, the 
practice was done in a group of students forming circles, students were endowed with 
the opportunities to interact with different partners each time they stepped one or two 
steps to their right, or to their left, depending on the teacher’s instruction. With the 
frequent encounter of new partners, the students’ social perspective taking as well as 
paralinguistic competence could gradually develop. 
2.5.3 Learning Together 
Learning Together was based on the social psychology (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson 
& Johnson, 1994). The key concept was “interdependence.” This was investigated 
by Deutsch (1949), a mentor of David and Roger Johnsons who developed Learning 
Together. Interdependence concerned people’s perceptions of how they affected and 
were affected by what happened to others (Deutsch, 1949). Deutsch divided 
interdependence into two types: positive and negative, with a third possibility being 
that no interdependence existed between people in a given situation. In his research, 
Deutsch (1949) found that positive interdependence led to superior performance on 
objective and subjective measures. 
The explicit emphasis that Learning Together placed on improving group 
functioning was one important way that this method differed from STAD. Without 
using the term interdependence, another social psychologist, Allport (1954), described 
related concepts in his classic work The Nature of Prejudice. Allport (1954) stated 
that in order for contact between different groups to lead to a reduction of prejudice, it 
must be between people of equal status, sanctioned by institutional supports, be in 
pursuit of common ends, and lead “to the perception of common interests and 
common humanity” (p. 281). Allport (1954) contended that simply by contact with 

---

38
group members did not promote goodwill unless there was a shared goal.
2.5.4 Student-Team Achievement Division 
Based on a review of the research on cooperative learning, Slavin (1987) argued 
that group contingencies are essential if small-group structures are to enhance 
achievement. By group contingencies, Slavin meant that, “the behavior of one or 
more group members brings rewards to a group” (Slavin, 1987, p. 30). Group 
contingencies worked in two steps. First, the teacher offered rewards or 
punishments to the groups. Then, the group members applied rewards or 
punishments to each other.
Group contingencies motivated students to hope their teammates do well. In 
contrast, Slavin (1990) believed that practices in conventional education, such as 
having students study alone and grading on a curve, create a climate in which students 
hoped their classmates would fail.
Another important behaviorist concept behind STAD was vicarious 
reinforcement (Bandura, 1971), which meant that students learned not only by being 
rewarded or punished themselves, but also by seeing other people receive rewards or 
punishments. Cooperative learning, especially when students were heterogeneously 
grouped, offered many opportunities for students to experience positive models who 
were rewarded for their efforts.
There were two types of motivation involved in STAD: (1) intrinsic motivation 
which flowed from within a person, and (2) extrinsic motivation that came from 
outside the person (Slavin, 1987). While not denying the importance of intrinsic 
motivation, Slavin (1987) believed that extrinsic motivation had to be used.
“Students receive about 900 hours of instruction every year. It is unrealistic to 
expect that intrinsic interest and internal motivation will keep them enthusiastically 
working day in and day out” (Slavin, 1987, p. 30). Slavin saw cooperative learning 

---

39
as a more efficient way of delivering extrinsic motivators.
The method of STAD was utilized in the first and the second phase of this study.
It served as a strong enticement to enhance the participants’ motivation, as the 
discussion on the results showed in Chapter Five. Therefore, STAD would be 
explained in more details. 
In STAD, the teacher first lectured on the topic. Then, students were assigned 
to heterogeneous teams in which they studied the learning material provided by the 
teacher in preparation for a quiz. Each student’s grade was based on his or her own 
score on the quiz. But, at the same time, each student could contribute to a group 
score by making improvements. Each student’s contribution to their group’s score 
was based on how well they did on the quiz compared to their own average score on 
past quizzes. Thus, a relatively low achiever can contribute as much to their team as 
a high achiever without doing as well on the quiz as their higher-achieving teammate.
The group score was used to determine which groups receive rewards, such as 
certificates and recognition in newsletters.
The message that students got from the positive reinforcement of STAD 
conformed Slavin’s (1987) view on the humanistic perspectives on cooperative 
learning. While Slavin (1987) stressed the importance of group contingencies, he 
also saw the appeal of cooperative learning to those with a humanistic perspective, 
which focused on the affective benefits of cooperative learning, e.g., increases in 
self-esteem, improved ethnic relations. Slavin’s review of the research found that 
group contingencies were not necessary for achieving these goals. Humanists were 
attracted to cooperative learning for its other essential ingredient: group interaction.
Slavin’s conclusion is that “Cooperative learning represents an odd but happy 
marriage between behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom motivation” 
(Slavin, 1987, p. 35).

---

40