Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 13. Number1. March 2022 Pp.38- 55
Effects of Cooperative Learning on Cognitive Engagement and Task Achievement:
A Study of Omani Bachelor of Education Program EFL Students
Moosa Ahmed Ali Sulaiman
Director, Department of Postgraduate Studies
Dhofar University, Salalah, Sultanate of Oman
Corresponding Author: firstname.lastname@example.org
Vijay Singh Thakur
Department of English Language and Literature
College of Arts and Applied Sciences
Dhofar University, Salalah, Sultanate of Oman
Received: 11/15/2021 Accepted: 1/29/2022 Published: 3/24/2022
Led by a premise that effective cooperative tasks play a vital role in enhancing Cognitive Engagement (CE) and task achievement in ESL/EFL teaching, this study investigates the effects of Cooperative Learning (CL) on Omani Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) students’ CE and task achievement. This quasi-experimental study has three objectives: (i) To find out the level of awareness of CE skills required during EFL learning sessions; (ii) To examine whether there are any statistically significant differences between the mean scores of students’ responses taught through CL strategies and taught in normal setting; and (iii) To investigate whether there are significant differences among EFL students’ CE levels attributed to their gender. A total of 36 B. Ed. students were assigned to Experimental Group and Control Group with 18 students in each. Analytical results of the study found that (a) The overall CE levels of the students was low at the mean score of 2.20; (b) On statistical grounds, significant differences were found at the level of <0.01 between the mean scores of CE responses of students taught through CL and those who were taught in a normal setting; and (c) No statistically significant differences were found at the level of <0.05 between mean scores of students’ CE responses attributed to their gender. We have discussed a number of pedagogical implications emerging from the findings of this study for raising students’ awareness, enhancing teachers’ roles and responsibilities, effective task designing and developing engaging instructional materials.
Keywords: cognitive engagement, cooperative tasks, disengaged learners, effective teaching learning practices, interactive classroom experience, Omani EFL students, task achievement, task management
Cite as: Sulaiman, M. A.A., & Thakur, V. S. (2022). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Cognitive Engagement and Task Achievement: A Study of Omani Bachelor of Education Program EFL Students Arab World English Journal, 13 (1) 38- 55.
Anderson, E. M., & Reder, L. M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In S. L. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385-395). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development 40 (5), 518-529.
Azevedo, J. R., Moos, D. C., Johnson. A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45 (4), 210-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515934
Bryan, R. R., Glynn, S. M., & Kittleson, J. M. (2011). Motivation, achievement, and advanced placement intent of high school students learning science. Science Education, 95, (6), 1049-1065. Doi:10.1002/sec.20462
Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook on research on student engagement. New York, N. Y: Springer.
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In S. L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.). Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 237-257). New York, NY: Springer.
Costley, J. (2021). How role-taking in a group-work setting affects the relationship between the amount of collaboration and germane cognitive load. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18 (24), 1-13.
Crossman, A. and Nicki, L.C. (2020). Understanding Purposive Sampling. Thought Co, 1-2. Available at https://www.thoughtco.com/purposive-sampling-3026727
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2018). What is cooperative learning? Available at http://www.co-operation.org/what-is-cooperative-learning
Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 499-567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9198-7
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20 (2), 305-25.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95 (2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Entwistle, N. J. & Entwistle, D. M. (1970). The relationships between personality, study methods and academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 132-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1970.tb02113.x
Ferguson-Patrick, K. (2020). Cooperative learning in Swedish classrooms: Engagement and
relationships as a focus for culturally diverse students. Education Science, 10 (11), 312;
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, (2), 117-142.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of
the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59–
Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego involvement and depth of processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (2), 187-194. http://dx.doi.org/1037/0022-0622.214.171.124
Garavan T.N., O’Brien F. (2012). Elaboration Strategies and Human Resources Development. In: Seel N.M. (Eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_687
Gedera, D., Williams, J. & Wright, N. (2015). Identifying factors influencing students’ motivation and engagement in online courses. In C. Koh (Ed.), Motivation, Leadership and Curriculum Design. DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-230-2_2
Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on course achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21 (2), 181-192.
Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstron, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and non-science majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1159-1176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20442
Hall, R. H. et al. (1988). The role of individual differences in the cooperative learning of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (2), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06126.96.36.199
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Helme, S. & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13 (2), 133-153.
Herrmann, K. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14 (3), 175-187. 10.1177/1469787413498035.
Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 34, 113-125.
Jenkins, R. (2004). Social identity (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2018). Cooperative learning: The foundation for active learning. In S. M. Brito (Ed.) Active Learning Beyond the Future, 1-12, IntechOpen. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.81086. Available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8387/04c00552d887b065778d5499207fc8c954e0.pdf?_ga=2.149257782.1032374373.1646011281-437543940.1646011281
Kindsvater, R., Willen, W., & Ishler, M. (1988). Dynamics of effective teaching. New York: Longman.
Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. & Makrakis, V. (2020). Developing student-driven learning activities to promote refugee quality education through the CARE methodology. Int. J. Early Years Educ., 28 (2), 176-188.
Lam, R. & Muldner, K. (2017). Manipulating cognitive engagement in preparation-to-collaborate tasks and the effects on learning. Learning and Instruction, 52, 90-101.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, D. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liao, H. C. (2005). Effects of cooperative learning on motivation, learning strategy utilization, and grammar achievement of English language learners in Taiwan, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of New Orleans, USA.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (2), 207-28.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B. & Nicols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21 (4), 388-422.http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0028
Nasser, R. (2019). Educational reform in Oman: System and structural changes, Intech Open, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.84913. Available at https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/educational-reform-in-oman-system-and-structural-changes
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5 (4), 269-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0504_2
Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990a). Motivation in studying in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (2), 115-126.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270204
Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990b). Personal and environmental influences on students’ beliefs about effective study strategies. Comtemporary Educational Psychology, 15 (2), 116-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(90)90011-O
Nwabueze, A. & Igbinedion, D. A. (2018). The implications of cooperative learning strategy on students’ achievement. African Journal of Education and Technology, 3 (1), 115-124. Available at www.sachajournals.com
Pagar, A. A. (2016). The effects of gender and perceived control on student engagement. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305305552_The_Effects_of_Gender_and_Perceived_Control_on_Student_Engagement
Pandya, S. (2017). Interaction effect of co-operative learning model and students’ implicit theory of intelligence on student engagement in mathematics. Asia Pacific Journal of Contemporary Education and Communication Technology, 3 (1), 96-107.
Pee, L. G., Kankanhalli, A. & Kim, H. W. (2010). Knowledge sharing in information systems development: A social interdependence perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11 (10), 550-575.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychological Review, 16, 385-407.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-06188.8.131.52
Rassekh, S. (2004). Education as a motor for development: Recent education reforms in Oman with particular reference to the status of women and girls. International Bureau of Education. UNESCO: IBE, 2004. Available at http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/Publications/innodata/inno15.pdf
Ravindran, B, Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. B. (2005). The role of goals and beliefs in the prediction of pre-service teachers’ cognitive engagement and knowledge integration. Journal of Educational Research, 98, (4) 222-232.
Rivers, W. M. (2000). Interaction as the key to teaching language for communication. In M. R. Wilga (Ed.), Interactive Language Teaching (pp. 3-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robyn, M. Gillies, & Michael, B. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (4), 933-940, Available at www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning: A diversified pedagogy for diverse classrooms. Intercult. Educ., 21 (3), 195-203.
Van Ryzin, Mark, J., Roseth, & Carry, J. (2021). The cascading effects of reducing student stress: Cooperative learning as a means to reduce emotional problems and promote academic engagement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 41 (5), 700-724.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press.
Sani, A., & Hashim, C. N. (2016). Evaluating the students’ level of cognitive engagement to achieve English language curriculum objectives at International Islamic School, Gombak. Advances in Research, 8 (2), 1-16.
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook on research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). New York, N. Y: Springer.
Sengsouliya, S., Soukhavong, S, Silavong, N., Sengsouliya, S. & Littlepage, S. (2020). An investigation on predictors of student academic engagement. European Journal of Education Studies, 6 (10), 124-141.
Van Dat, T. (2014). The effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement and knowledge retention. International Journal of Higher Education, 3, (2), Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1067568.pdf
Walker, C., Greene, B., & Mansell, R. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic
motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and
Individual Differences, 16, (1), 1-12, 10.1016/j.lin