Universidad Austral de Chile Facultad de ... - CyberTesis UACh

110 downloads 1020 Views 1MB Size Report
Chilean Ministry of Education and みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I. 1 ... and Kanji (漢字), Chinese characters that can give a complete meaning to a word . 2 ... author Alexandre Vexliard in his book “Pedagogía Comparada, Métodos y ...

Universidad Austral de Chile Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades Escuela de Pedagogía en Comunicación en Lengua Inglesa

Lead Advisor Dra. Amalia Ortiz de Zárate Fernández

Teamwork in the classroom. A comparative analysis of the textbooks used for teaching English as a Foreign Language and Japanese as a Foreign Language in Chile.

Paola Fritz Huechante Felipe Araos Muñoz

VALDIVIA – CHILE 2008

Teamwork in the classroom. A comparative analysis of the textbooks used for teaching English as a Foreign Language and Japanese as a Foreign Language in Chile.

Abstract In Chilean public education, English textbooks are an important instructional resource for English teachers. As for that matter, it is important to provide revision and probe Chilean English textbooks so as to better understand Chilean English education. This study was intended to examine and analyze the teamwork activities organization included in a unit of 5th grade elementary English textbooks from the Ministry of Education in Chile, and to compare the results with the teamwork activities organization of a unit of the beginners Japanese textbooks as a foreign language. The analysis criterion was composed of the pedagogical approach, the didactical approach and the evaluative approach to evaluate the procedures of the activities, the objectives of the activities and the roles and functioning of the members of the teams’ categories. Based on a literature review, a hypothesis was formulated. This is how Japanese textbooks are an essential key constructor for teamwork activities in classrooms and on later stages of Japanese people’s lives.

Keywords: Teamwork, Cooperative Learning, Cooperative Learning Groups, Education, Japan, Chile, Textbooks, Schools, Units.

2

Acknowledgements

We would like to express profound gratitude to our advisor, Dr. Amalia Ortiz de Zárate Fernández, for her invaluable support, encouragement, supervision and useful suggestions throughout this international comparative analysis. Her moral support and continuous guidance enabled us to complete our work successfully. We are also highly thankful to Dr. Iván Oliva Figueroa, to put our feet on the ground; without him we would be probably still dreaming. We are also grateful for the cooperation of our Japanese teachers. Mr Katsumi Matsuzaki who provided us so much important data for our analysis. Secondly, Miss Sumie Haratake; who was always willing to help answering all our questions without hesitation. Mr. Katsuhito Miura, Japanese Cultural Ambassador, who also contributed with some useful comments during our data collection. Moreover, we would like to thank Mr. Tajima Minoru for his unforgettable help when we were most in need of it.

みんなさん、ほんとうにどもうありがとうございました いつも私達の心の中で覚えています Finally, we also wish to thank Juanita Muñoz Zambrano, who aided us with impressive amounts of material from the very beginning and Mrs. Eri Sawari for her support during our research of data.

3

List of Acronyms

CLD

Constructivist Learning Design

CTADNMECH

Comité Técnico Asesor del Diálogo Nacional sobre la Modernización de la Educación Chilena

FTO

Fundamental Transversal Objectives

MEXT

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (in Japan)

MINEDUC

Ministry of Education (in Chile)

PISA

Programme for International Student Assessment

TIMSS

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pag. Abstract

2

Acknowledgements

3

List of Acronyms

4

Introduction

7

CHAPTER I: Theoretical Background

10

1. Methodology

10

2. Approaches

12

2.1. Pedagogical Approach

12

2.2. Didactical Approach

15

2.3. Evaluative Approach

16

3. Teamwork Definitions

18

3.1. In General

18

3.2. In Japan

20

3.3. In Chile

21

4. Cooperative Learning

22

4.1 Types of Teams

24

4.1.1. Pseudo Learning Group

25

4.1.2. Traditional Classroom Learning Group

25

4.1.3. Cooperative Learning Group

25

4.1.4. High-Performance Cooperative Learning Group

26

5. Team Roles. A Successful Teamwork

27

5

CHAPTER II: Comparative Analysis

33

1. Description. Data collected from both compilations related to teamwork activities.

33

1.1. Amount of teamwork activities used in both units.

33

1.2. Steps to develop teamwork activities in the classrooms.

43

1.3. Types of cooperative learning groups

50

1.4. Variables to decide the roles of the members of the group

52

2. Interpretation. Methodological approaches.

53

2.1. Pedagogical Approach

53

2.2. Didactical Approach

58

2.3. Evaluative Approach

63

3. Juxtaposition. Results table.

65

3.1. Similarities

65

3.2. Differences

67

4. Proper comparison. Final comparative results.

71

Conclusion

76

Limitations and Future Research Agenda

78

References

81

6

I. Introduction

Recently, education has been affected by great levels of competitiveness due to Globalization. Therefore, all nations seek for a change in the educational systems encouraging greater commitment concerning the institutions related to education. Today, education is regarded as the fundamental building block of a society. In the 32nd General Conference of UNESCO (2008-2009), this organization established that education is not only considered a basic human right, but its importance and contribution to economic and social development are also important attributes for countries to achieve sustainable development (p. 5). Then, investing in education is one of the main means by which individuals and societies improve their well-being. Japan’s foreign aid policy in education has been typifying this international trend. The MEXT (2007) has been investing on new ways to approach a better education as well as competing for the highest positions on international tests, such as PISA and TIMSS. In addition, according to Jaime Lavados Montes, Universidad de Chile’s director, a country that has gone through one of the most successful experiencies on the economical field is Japan (CTADNMECH, 1995, p. 13). But not only that, Mr. Lavados has also agreed that Japan has been investing on education as well as encouraging the development and knowledge of social values and intellectual abilities as key concepts of their national curriculum (CTADNMECH, 1995, p. 13). The development of elementary English textbooks and their related resources such as students' workbooks and teachers' guidebooks is tightly related to the change of the national curriculum. In both countries, educational leaders have attempted to provide material resources (textbooks) to lead to directive, coherent and uniform classes. In that 7

sense, Japanese has a centralized education system since Japan has only one kind of elementary Japanese as a foreign language textbooks and guidebooks authorized by JICA and Japan Foundation. In other words, all students of Japanese as a foreign language study that language with the same textbooks, which are the bottom line for teaching and learning. Due to that, teamwork activities are developed for the understanding of Japanese. Then, it is of great importance to explore how the principles and the development concerning teamwork activities are patterned on textbooks. On the other hand, the majority of public Chilean schools are provided with the textbooks from the Chilean Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) as an important resource for their English classes. This study attempts to analyze the development of teamwork activities included in one pedagogical unit used by both textbooks: My World 5th grade English textbooks by the Chilean Ministry of Education and みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I1, Japanese as a foreign language textbooks by the JICA and the Japan Foundation. This analysis will be done in order to find similarities and differences between the units in their application inside the classroom environment and how these differences aid or hinder the proper development of cooperative learning. Then, the hypothesis on how Japanese textbooks are an essential key constructor to develop teamwork activities in classrooms will be presented and analyzed under Comparative Pedagogy2 (Pedagogía Comparada). In addition, this study will compare the pedagogical, didactical and evaluative criteria used in both units from the textbooks to develop the teamwork methodologies.

1

Minna no Nihongo is the romanization of the Japanese characters みんなの日本語 for occidental people to read them. It is also worthy of mention that the Japanese language is composed of three writing systems: Hiragana (ひらがな), to write native Japanese words; Katakana (カタカナ), to write foreign words; and Kanji (漢字), Chinese characters that can give a complete meaning to a word. 2 Comparative Pedagogy is the English term for Pedagogía Comparada methodology suggested by the author Alexandre Vexliard in his book “Pedagogía Comparada, Métodos y Problemas” (1970).

8

Finally, this paper will introduce the directions in developing elementary English and Japanese textbooks and their related instructional materials, including teachers’ guidebooks. It will also present the main characteristics of the textbooks analyzed under the pedagogical, didactic and evaluative approaches. Consequently, this paper will be organized as follows. In Chapter I, the theoretical background, with all the concepts and literature review, will be discussed to analyze the characteristics of the teamwork activities on Japanese and Chilean textbooks as foreign languages. Chapter II will provide the findings of such characteristics and the analysis of both units in the textbooks under the pedagogical, didactical and evaluative approaches. Finally, conclusions about the results, limitations during the study as well as a future agenda with new areas to be studied will be presented. This is in order to provide research on the international comparative studies that will help teachers and readers in their seeking for succeeding in their tasks. Hypothesis The textbook for Japanese as a foreign language is likely to include improved key elements for teamwork activities in the classroom in contrast with the ones used in the textbook for English as a foreign language provided by the MINEDUC.

9

II. Theoretical Background 1. Methodology

In order to answer the question of how Japanese textbooks are an essential key constructor to develop teamwork activities in classrooms, document analysis will be employed. For a better understanding of this study, both qualitative and quantitative methods are to be used to obtain data since both complement the data needed to develop the research. The comparative analysis will be done on the following textbooks: 1. Lazzeri & Marsland (2007). My World. Teacher’s Edition from MINEDUC. 2. 3A Corporation (1998). みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I. All Editions from JICA and Japan Foundation. In relation to the characteristics of the compilation of Chilean textbooks, My World is composed of the teacher and the student’s editions and a tape. On the other hand, みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I is a compilation of 12 textbooks (including the teacher’s edition) and 4 audiovisual materials. Originally, the purpose of this paper was to compare both textbooks in general terms. However, due to the organization of the activities extended in the whole composition of the Japanese resource, the comparative analysis will be focused on one pedagogical unit from both textbooks. This is because the difference in the length of the compilations would make an analysis on materials of such characteristics too extensive for a paper of this nature. The comparative analysis will be developed under the comparative pedagogy methodology. In his book, Pedagogía Comparada, Métodos y Problemas, Alexander

10

Vexliard (1970), gives a definition of this method of research that is considered highly suitable for the purposes of this piece of research: “La pedagogía comparada es una disciplina que investiga y tiende a extraer conocimientos nuevos, de orden teórico y práctico, por medio de la confrontación de dos o más sistemas de educación en uso en diversos países, regiones o en distintas épocas históricas. La comparación consiste en descubrir y analizar las similitudes y diferencias entre distintos sistemas de educación, entendiendo por esto la organización, la estructura y la administración de la enseñanza, como así también los programas, los métodos pedagógicos, didácticos y de control que se usan en los diversos niveles y especialidades de la enseñanza” (p. 18). According to the previous definition, the study of the units will follow a specific comparative analysis which lays under the comparative pedagogy parameters. The methodology has many different approaches and theories that delimitate the process of comparing two or more educational systems. Consequently, Vexliard (1970) suggests the most important tendencies to develop such a study; among them he mentions Los Grados de Comparación by Frank Hilker. Following his ideas, the methodology proposed in The Categories of Comparisons by Frank Hilker3 is the one chosen to elaborate the steps to follow in the research. With that in mind, there are four categories as established by Hilker: description, interpretation, juxtaposition and (proper) comparison. 1. “Description of the chosen subjects of comparison, based upon the collection of data and other sources” (as cited in Lauterbach & Mitter, 1998, p. 12). In this step,

3

The categories of Comparisons by Frank Hilker is the English translation suggested by Uwe Lauterbach and Wolfgang Mitter in their paper “Theory and methodology of international comparisons” based on Frank Hilker’s work.

11

this study will inform in detail about the data collected from the two textbooks and units to analyze. 2. “Interpretation of each subject of comparison in the framework of overall educational as well as political, economic and cultural conditions, with special regard to the historical factor” (Ibid., p. 12). For this step, three approaches will be used to interpret the data: pedagogical, didactical and evaluative. 3. “Juxtaposition consisting of the descriptive and interpretative results of the preceding inquiries on the individual subjects, primarily by the application of schemes in tabular form” (Ibid., p. 12). Then, the results of the analysis or interpretation of the units will be provided in a table specially made for such comparison, in which the similarities and/or the differences of the teamwork activities found between the units will be presented. 4.

“Comparison (proper) as the comparative interpretation of the inquiry on the whole” (Ibid., p. 12). Finally, from the analysis and results of the study, the most relevant data will be presented as a summary of the core contents in relation to the comparative analysis of the units.

2. Approaches 2.1. Pedagogical Approach This study will be based on the constructivism theory which will sustain the basis of the pedagogical approach to be developed in this paper. According to G. W. Gagnon Jr. & Collay (2006) in their paper Constructivist Learning Design, based on their book with the same name, the constructivism emphasizes the learner or the student rather than the teacher or the instructor.

12

“Constructivist refers specifically to the assumption that humans develop by engaging in the personal and social construction of knowledge. . . Thus, humans construct knowledge; we do not receive and internalize predigested concepts without simultaneously reacting to them and engaging them within our own mental maps and previous experiences” (Gagnon, Collay & Schmuck, 2006, p. x). Since the objective of study is the comparative analysis of a unit of the Chilean and Japanese textbooks related to teamwork activities, the constructivism theory fits the purpose of the analysis. Teamwork activities set students in more realistic situations. Then, students have to fit the new information – in this case the set of the activity – together with what they already know or learned. The learning process is better since students are actively constructing their own understanding of the situation. In teamwork activities, students are also affected by the context, their beliefs and attitudes. They are also encouraged to solve problems and to try out new ideas. They can build on prior knowledge. During the development of the comparative analysis of the units, the Constructivist Learning Design [CLD] and its six elements will be used as patterns of analysis. G. W. Gagnon Jr. & Collay (2006) say, there are six important elements in the CLD: Situation, Groupings, Bridge, Questions, Exhibit, and Reflections. Then, they summarize them as: Teachers develop the situation for students to explain, select a process for groupings of materials and students, build a bridge between what students already know and what they want them to learn, anticipate questions to ask and answer without giving away an explanation, encourage students to exhibit a record of their thinking by sharing it with others, and solicit students' reflections about their learning (Constructivist Learning Design, para. 1).

13

Then, inspired on their model and taking most part of it, the analysis will have the following steps: 1. Situation: what situation/s is/are arranged/designed for the students to explain or learn in teamwork activities? The situation/s should include what students are expected to do and how they will make their own meaning. 2. Groupings: a. Students: how are the students going to make groups? For example, as a whole class, in pairs, groups of three, four, five students, etc. Also, the teamwork activity should include how the teacher will group the students. For example, counting off, by their names, by their date of birth, etc. b. Materials: how are the materials going to be arranged? Materials usually set the amount of people in a group. 3. Bridge: an activity that helps students makes the connection between what they already know (prior knowledge) and what they might learn. For example: a problem to solve through teamwork, discussing a situation, playing games, making a project, etc. 4. Questions: questions that lead students towards teamwork situations, group learning, set up the bridge, encourage reflections and solve problems, etc. It is also necessary to ask questions that encourage students to have critical and creative answers. 5. Exhibit: for teamwork activities, this is the best way a teacher can evaluate students’ capacity to solve problems, have critical and creative answers as well as showing the organization inside the group. Students will exhibit the product of their work by giving a verbal presentation; writing a description, a chart, or other visual 14

presentations; acting out a role play; making a video tape; using photographs or audio tape for display. 6. Reflections: the students’ reflections while they are working out the teamwork activity and while paying attention to their classmates’ presentations. Thus, what students learnt today they will not forget tomorrow. What they knew before, what they wanted to know, and what they learnt. However, this last step will not be used during the comparative analysis of the teamwork activities since the textbooks do not show this process (reflections) by themselves. 2.2. Didactical Approach The didactical approach of this study will be based on the Theory of didactical situations in mathematics by Guy Brousseau, but applying it to the English contexts of the teamwork activities of the textbooks to be analyzed. According to Brousseau (1997), there are three situations in the teaching process: the non-didactical situation, the didactical situation and the a-didactical situation (as cited in Flores and Victoria, n.d., p. 3). However, this study will be focused on the last two ones. Then, as Brousseau (1997) says in his work, teaching, as a new concept, is the teacher creating judicious problems and encouraging his/her students to adapt themselves to those situations. Then, these problems “must make the students act, speak, think and evolve by their own motivation” (Ibid., p. 3). But not only that, the students must also know that a circumstance that presents difficulty has been created for them to acquiere a new piece of knowledge. They realize that they have gained that knowledge only when they are able to apply it in outside-the-classroom’s context and without any direction by their teacher. Therefore, that is an a-didactical situation. Then, that chosen problem is “an essential part of the broader situation in which the teacher seeks to devolve to the student an a-didactical 15

situation which provides her with the most independent and most fruitful interaction possible” (Ibid., p. 3). In this case, students are comprised in a system of reciprocal interactions; a game where they can act on the problems and have a result that changes the circumstances. Therefore, this broader situation is the didactical situation. Relevant words will be taken from these two definitions in order to make the comparative analysis of the units. Then, special attention will be paid on the following questions to analyze the teamwork activities: 1. Does the activity make students perform in the exercises? 2. Does the activity make students speak? 3. Does the activity make students think? 4. Does the activity make students evolve by their own motivation? 5. Do students know the purpose of the activity? What is the activity’s goal to be acquired by the students? 6. Is the activity applicable in outside-the-classrooms’ context? 7. Can students interact with the activity? Finally, the answers to these questions will be compared between the two units in order to find similarities or differences. 2.3. Evaluative Approach According to Atkin, Black & Coffey (2001), the general concept of evaluation (or assessment) not only implies and end-of-unit test, a quarterly report card, a state level examination on basic skills or the letter grade for a final laboratory report (p. 23). Classroom assessment also focuses upon “the daily opportunities and interactions afforded to teachers and students for collecting information about student work and understandings, then uses that information to improve both teaching and learning” (Ibid., p. 23). Then, and 16

as stated by Atkin et al. (2001), it can also be said that teamwork activities can be evaluated since students are exposed to a situation where they have to gather their previous knowledge (acquired in class), interpret the situation and use that information to solve a classroom problem. For example, The teacher decides that the class will revisit an earlier completed laboratory activity and, in the process, examine the connections between that activity and the discussion at hand. As groups of students conduct experiments, the teacher circulates around the room and questions individuals about the conclusions drawn from their data. (Ibid., p. 23). However, the analysis of this study will be focused on two more specific definitions that are within the general one, formative and summative assessments. This is because these two types of evaluations are worldwide known. According to Atkin et al. (2001): . . . formative assessment refers to assessments that provide information to students and teachers that is used to improve teaching and learning. These are often informal and ongoing, though they need not be. Data from summative assessments can be used in a formative way. (p. 25) . . . summative assessment refers to the cumulative assessments, usually occurring at the end of a unit or topic coverage, that intend to capture what a student has learned, or the quality of the learning, and judge performance against some standards. (p. 25) In addition, Atkin et al. (2001) also suggest that this type of assessment should not only be considered as traditional objective tests since the accumulation of evidence of a student collected over time (as in a collection of student work) can also be defined as a summative assessment.

17

With these two definitions in mind and due to the restrictions that the textbooks give to the comparative analysis, the study of the teamwork's activities in the two units will be done as follows: 1. It will be considered formative assessment when the teamwork activity: a. is important because of the development of the activity rather than its result/s or final product/s; b. can be used in any time throughout the course. 2. It will be considered summative assessment when the teamwork activity: a. is important because of the result/s or final product/s rather than the development of the activity; b. can be used at the end of the year, a unit or a pre-determined time. Since the scales used to score assessments differ from the two countries to be analyzed (Chile and Japan), and due to not being able to face a Japanese teamwork activity in class and consequently not having the opportunity of observing how Japanese teachers evaluate students, our comparative analysis will be based on what the textbooks suggest as evaluations for the units as well as the interpretations that can be taken from the analysis by following the theoretical background. 3. Teamwork Definitions 3.1. In General In this analysis of teamwork a general definition of the concept will be given. Then, the analysis of the steps behind the group formation will be based on Bruce Tuckman’s Developmental Sequence in Small Groups (1965). Finally, the importance of the implementation of teamwork in education will be explained.

18

The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2009) has defined teamwork as “work done by several associates with each doing a part but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole.” Aditionally, the NDT (n.d.), resource center (http://www.ndt-ed.org) explained that “this does not mean that the individual is no longer important; however, it does mean that effective and efficient teamwork goes beyond individual accomplishments” (teamwork in the classroom, para. 1). Then, as teamwork is seen as a more effective way to complete a task, it is important to know how this process of creating a team unfolds. According to the model suggested by Tuckman (1965), group formation goes through four stages of development. These phases are as follows: • Stage One: Forming. The newly formed group searches for orientation, as there are no clear roles and responsibilities. They test the limits of their actions/interactions within the team and create a dependency on a leader, members of the group or a pre-designed model of development (p. 396). • Stage Two: Storming This is the moment where conflicts and differenciation occurs. Members impose their points of view and responsibilities within the task. An impression of the type of group is formed (p. 396). • Stage Three: Norming In this point the members of the team know themselves better. Roles and responsibilities are accepted or tolerated. The objective of the group becomes

19

clearer and joint decisions are made. At this stage social interaction not related to the common goal can also happen between the participants (p. 396). • Stage Four: Performing The group is already consolidated, roles become more flexible and little disagreement is shown. Everyone knows their participation is fundamental for the completion of the task (p. 396). Finally, the idea behind the implementation of teamwork in education was promoted by several authors like Johnson & Johnson (n.d.) who believed that “cooperation, compared with competitive and individualistic efforts, typically results in (a) higher achievement and greater productivity, (b) more caring, supportive, and committed relationships, and (c) greater psychological health, social competence, and self-esteem.” (Why Use Cooperative Learning? para. 2). In this sense, the concept of teamwork has been changed into cooperative learning. 3.2. In Japan According to Sugie Shuji4 (1999), cooperative learning in Japan was greatly influenced by the ideas presented by Dewey and other Western thinkers (p. 2). Nevertheless, in order to fit the Japanese curricular needs, different approaches of cooperative learning had to be created throughout the years (p.40). In this sense, cooperative learning was implemented to promote the idea that human relations were essential for the development of education, in contrast with the existing individualism and competition of the Japanese educational context. Sugie explains how this cooperative learning methodology was primarily called “group dynamics,” which was later changed to

4

In Japan, names are referred with the last name first and the first name as second. Also, they usually have only one first name and one last name.

20

the name of “Buzz Learning” (バズ 学修), or small group learning (p. 38). Buzz Learning focused on the importance of the use of small group activities during the learning period to accelerate the acquisition of knowledge and improve the learning process. In addition, Sugie (1999) explains how these relationships “between the students and their teacher, the teachers and the school, and the school and the local community needed to be nurtured from the very beginnings to expand the motivational effect for learning” (p.40). 3.3. In Chile In the Chilean context the concept of cooperative learning has been analyzed in different sources. On the one hand, authors like Johnson & Johnson and McGroarty guided researchers in the comprehension of this methodology. For example, Correa (2005) used the Johnson et al. definition to say “es el empleo didáctico de grupos reducidos en los que los alumnos trabajan juntos para maximizar su propio aprendizaje y el de los demás” (1.2., para. 2). On the other hand, educarchile, created by the Chilean Ministry of education and Fundación Chile (http://www.educarchile.cl), examined the research on a publication from the Ministry of education of Navarra, Spain. In this book, Bidegáin et al., (1999) defines cooperative learning as: . . . cuando se organizan tareas en las que la cooperación es la condición para realizarlas. Son tareas de aprendizaje que no se pueden realizar si no es colaborando entre los compañeros. No se puede tener éxito si los compañeros no lo tienen. Se liga el éxito propio al éxito del resto. (p. 18) Nevertheless, all this research denotes an important difference from what the Japanese ministry of education has done. The main difference is that they have not only studied the concept of teamwork but they have created methodologies that fitted their

21

educational reality and social structure. In Chile, there are only a few instances of the applicability of cooperative learning to the educational reality. For example, one project of cooperation throughout the web between a Chilean and an Argentinean classroom (La Tercera, 2004). 4. Cooperative Learning The students’ generations between 1980 and 1990 have gone through individualized experiences in classrooms. Those students did their own work, got their own grades, and did not interact with their peers too much. However, the very little experience of cooperative learning took place outside the classroom; usually on a sports team, with a scout troop or youth group associated with a church or temple. Those cooperative experiences were probably memorable because of the final product, a winning season or the members of the “team” that became friends (even though they were different from each others). Then, the cooperative learning definition works on those experiences that make learning a new process. According to Hilke (as cited in Clemen and Hampton, 1994), cooperative learning is “an organizational structure in which a group of students pursue academic goals through collaborative efforts. Students work together in small groups, draw on each other’s strengths, and assist each other in completing a task” (p. 2-3). Nevertheless, the definition this research will be focused on is from D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson & Holubec (1994). According to them, “cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups through which students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning” (What Is Cooperative Learning?, para. 2). In addition,

22

cooperative learning is divided on three types of cooperative learning groups5: Formal Cooperative Learning Groups, Informal Cooperative Learning Groups and Cooperative Base Groups (Ibid., para. 3). Formal Cooperative Learning Groups consist of “students working together to achieve shared learning goals by ensuring that they and their group mates successfully complete the learning task assigned” (Ibid., para. 3). This kind of group usually lasts from one class period to several weeks. According to D. W. Johnson et al. (1994), there are also some steps teachers should follow to successfully acquire formal cooperative learning experiences: 1. Specify the objectives for the lesson, 2. Make a number of pre-instructional decisions, 3. Explain the task and the positive interdependence to students, 4. Monitor students’ learning and intervene in the groups to provide task assistance or to increase students’ interpersonal and group skills, and 5. Evaluate students’ learning and help students process how well their groups functioned. Formal cooperative learning groups ensure that students are actively involved in the intellectual work of organizing material, explaining it, summarizing it, and integrating it into existing conceptual structures. (Ibid., para. 3). Informal Cooperative Learning Groups as well as Formal Cooperative Learning Groups help teachers make sure that students organize, explain, summarize and integrate material into existing conceptual structures during direct teaching (Ibid., para. 4). “Informal cooperative learning groups are often organized so that students engage in three- to five-

5

“Learning groups” is a concept that will be worked later on in this research for the theoretical background.

23

minute focused discussion before and after a lecture and two-to-three-minute-turn-to-yourpartner discussions throughout a lecture” (Ibid., para. 4). This type of group can last from a few minutes to one class period and it can be used for different kinds of activities such as lectures, demonstrations, films and videos, among others. Finally, the Cooperative Base Groups provide students with long-term committed relationships that allow group members to give each other the support, help, encouragement, and assistance needed to consistently work hard in school, make academic progress (attend class, complete all assignments, learn), and develop in cognitively and socially healthy ways (as cited in Ibid., para. 5). This type of group can last a long term (a year). Thus – no matter the definitions –, authors establish that cooperation carries on when placing small groups of students to accomplish a common goal during the class, unit, or term. In cooperative learning, students are placed in groups from two to six individuals to work on a specific task. Likewise, cooperative-learning tasks can vary widely, ranging from understanding and explaining a new concept to solving a new problem, analyzing a situation, or confronting a dilemma. 4.1. Types of Teams According to D.W. Johnson et al. (1994) and to the experience of any teacher in any ordinary classroom, there are types of groups that can facilitate and increase the learning experience of students whereas others can make that learning process more difficult to develop. They create disharmony and dissatisfaction in the classroom. In that sense, it is important for teachers to know what kind of cooperative learning groups they are dealing with. D.W. Johnson et al. (1994) suggest the following categories.

24

4.1.1. Pseudo Learning Group As D.W. Johnson et al. (1994) say, this kind of group is the one where “students are assigned to work together but they have no interest in doing so” (How Do You Know a Group Is Cooperative?, para. 3). They seem to be working together, but in reality they hide answers from each other. “They believe they will be evaluated by being ranked on individual performance” (Ibid., para. 3), that is why they see each other as rivals who must be defeated. In that attempt, “they block or interfere with each other’s learning, try to mislead and confuse each other, and distrust each other” (Ibid., para. 3). This is a group whose students work better individually. 4.1.2. Traditional Classroom Learning Group In this situation, all students are assigned a common task and they accept that they have to accomplish it. However, these assignments are structured and that requires very little joint work. As students think that they will be assessed and also rewarded individually, they do not act as members of a team (Ibid., para. 4). They have no motivation to teach what they know to their group mates and some students like to work little since they know the more conscientious students will do most of the work. “The result is that the sum of the whole is more than the potential of some of the members, but harder working, more conscientious students would be better off working alone” (Ibid., para. 4). 4.1.3. Cooperative Learning Group “Students are assigned to work together and are happy to do so. They know that their success depends on the efforts of all group members” (Ibid., para. 5). This type of group has a clear and well-defined format: • First, they have a clear group goal and they are all high-motivated to accomplish the task. 25

• Second, the members of the group believe and count on each others work to achieve a high quality task. • Third, the members of the group work face-to-face and promote each other’s success through helping, sharing, assisting, explaining and encouraging. • Fourth, group members are taught teamwork skills and are expected to use them to coordinate their efforts and achieve their goals. • Finally, groups analyze how effectively they are achieving their goals and how well members are working together (Ibid., para. 5). Since the team as a whole is more important than its parts, students work better than working individually. 4.1.4. High-Performance Cooperative Learning Group This is the ideal group in class since it has all the necessary characteristics to work as a cooperative learning group and meet all the students and teacher’s expectations. The difference between this group and the cooperative learning one is the quality of work the members perform, their commitment with each other, and their success (Ibid., para. 6).

26

For better understand the performance of these groups, see the following table.

The Learning Performance Curve (D.W. Johnson et al. 1994)

All these definitions will be used to finally give a conclusion on what the characteristics and curves of the Chilean and Japanese teamwork activities shown on their respectively units are. 5. Team Roles. A Successful Teamwork A successful team is compounded of individuals with different skills in different areas. Then, there is always somebody who is more diligent at a particular task than someone else. Based on Meredith Belbin’s research, Howard Hills (2001) cites Belbin’s nine roles involved in a successful teamwork.

27

1. Co-ordinator: this person is in charge of organizing the people within the team. He/she has the important task of defining the roles and distributing the tasks people will have to perform. He will also set the individual as well as the team objectives. He is in charge of supervising that all the activities must be performed with reciprocal respect (p. 21). 2. Plant: this member is the one who is most likely to come out with original ideas and challenge the traditional way of thinking about things. They are imaginative and creative people, some are difficult to manage and can be easily hurt. The plant's strength is in providing major new insights and ideas for changes in direction and not in contributing to the detail of what needs to be done (p. 22). 3. Shaper: the shaper is full of drive to make things happen and get things going. They want to take the plant’s ideas and shape them so they can make the difference. Since they are competitive, other people may think they are rude and annoying (p. 22). 4. Resource investigator: the resource investigator is the group member with the strongest contacts and networks, and he/she is excellent at bringing in information and support from the outside. They are cheerful, outgoing and diplomatic. They can easily modify their ideas to fit other people’s principles. They are considered as “butterflies” since they change from one task onto another, losing interest if something more tempting comes up (p. 22). 5. Monitor evaluator: this member may be considered as cold and unfeeling because of his/her analytical perspective of the ideas. They are intellectual and critical and have an unnatural ability to judge situations accurately. They know how to set realistic goals for the team not to waste time (p. 22). 28

6. Completer: completers are like editors, they check every little detail in grammar or any other thing that needs to be done. They like flawless pieces of work, not minding whether this means taking the hard and long way to complete it. They may be seen as inflexible by others (p. 22). 7. Implementer: implementers’ ability is to take the plant’s ideas and make them something that is liable to be done, that is realistic and practical. They are effective at turning big ideas into manageable tasks. They can be seen as pedants by others due to their severe logical and methodological way of organizing the work (p. 22). 8. Team worker: this member is the type of person that wants everything to be done in harmony. They are people easy to talk with. They do not like and avoid any kind of conflict in the group. They are also loved by others. The team worker is the one who is most aware of the members in the team, their needs and their concerns (p. 22). 9. Specialist: this person provides specialist skills and knowledge for the team to perform in a determined area (p. 21). Having a group of 8 to 9 members with all the previous described roles is not that easy to find. Even more, having this type of team in a class and due to the students’ diversity of personalities and abilities it is difficult to have a selection of all the roles to form a team. To solve that problem, Hills (2001) suggests a simple distribution of the roles in different areas in group work. In an attempt of making this administration of people more straightforward, he provides the following two figures:

29

Figure 1. Team Composition (Hills, 2001, p. 23).

Figure 2. Team Member Types (Hills, 2001, p. 24).

Then, Figure 1 explains the types of tasks and people’s attitudes towards them. On one dimension (related to the kind of work), there is the conceptual and creative part of the assignment (idea generator) facing another one that is well organized, detailed and practical (get things done type). On the other dimension, which is related to the interpersonal relationships, one side is focused on the harmony with the members of the team (maintain 30

good relationships); and the other side is in charge of the challenge and debate (organizes others). Figure 2 makes clear the members of the team that can fit the four dimensions explained in Figure 1. Hills (2001) presents this in four extremes as follows: • On one end of people dimension, the team worker and the resource investigator can be placed. In this section, people must be sociable working in a cheerful and enjoyable atmosphere. The resource investigator will be focused on having things done (p.25). • On the other end of people dimension, the shaper, the implementer and the coordinator can be found. In this section, the fact that the task must be done is more important than having a good social environment. The shaper’s work will be related to pushing people and getting ideas across to achieve those goals. The implementer and co-ordinator will be concentrated on a proper organization of the tasks (p. 25). • In relation to the task dimension, the plant and the monitor evaluator can be located. These two types of roles represent the way in which ideas can be treated. On the one hand, there is the creative member, the one who originates the ideas and creates a harmonious atmosphere (the plant). On the other hand, there is the critical and analytical individual, the member who stimulates a challenging environment (the monitor evaluator) (p. 25). • On the opposite side of the task dimension, the completer is placed. His/her duty is to provide well-organized, detailed and practical tasks (p. 25). With this new organization, a team of four people, more suitable for a classroom, can be easily formed. Then, the teacher can include the one who is going to be cheerful and

31

keep the team working in a friendly way; the one that will provide tangible ideas to achieve; the other individual who will organize those ideas in practical solutions; and the one who will encourage the other three to acquire their objectives. Moreover, according to Hills (2001), “any team which is heavily dominated by one of these four roles will have weakness” (p. 25).

32

III. Comparative Analysis

1. Description. Data collected from both compilations related to teamwork activities. The two units taken from both textbooks for the comparative analysis have gone through two particular ideas: • The unit to be chosen must be representative from the book. That means, it must include an average number of teamwork activities. • The unit must have an equivalent in both textbooks; that is, it must cover a similar topic, grammatical structure and vocabulary to be taught. This is to provide reliable information during the comparative analysis. 1.1 Amount of teamwork activities used in both units. Chilean Textbooks The compilation of My World 5th grade (2007) is oriented to the teaching of English for 5th grade in primary public schools. This is the first English material for the students to have an initial approach to the language. In that sense, the textbook is an essential tool for the development of their English learning process. The textbook compilation is made up of: 1. My World 5th grade, teacher’s edition: containing the plan of the book, the learning outcomes and the FTO for each lesson, as well as the objectives and instructions to develop the units. 2. My World 5th grade, student’s edition: this book contains grammatical structures and exercises to practice them. 3. My World 5th grade, cassette: it includes all the audio tracks from the “Starting point” unit to the “Classroom Language” section.

33

In relation to the teamwork activities, the textbooks present pair work, as well as group work and whole class activities and projects including 4 to 5 students. • Pair work activities: they are composed of word maps, vocabulary recognition (picture labeling), reading comprehension, matching, Act Out (mini dialogues), questions with alternatives, fill-in the blanks/table, true & false, word search and crossword puzzles. • Group work activities: they are composed of brainstorming to introduce new topics, matching, dialogues and play time (games). • Whole class activities: composed of songs, chants and rhymes. • Projects: teamwork activities which main purpose is having a product or result related to the topic of the unit. For example: make a family album, make a dream house, etc. The unit to be analyzed is Unit 7, At Home. According to the plan of the book, the vocabulary to be learned is related to the parts of the house/apartment and furniture. This vocabulary is presented in lists of furniture, advertisements, comics and simple descriptions. The students will be able to identify specific information, vocabulary and grammatical structures. In relation to the grammatical structures, adjectives, prepositions of place (in, on, under, near, behind) and the constructions “there is” and “there are” will be worked. In addition, functions such as “let’s do it together” will be learned. Finally, the FTO to be reinforced will be family values, respect to each other’s privacy and property, and reading as an important mean of discovering the world. The amount of teamwork activities used in the unit is as shown in the following chart:

34

Unit

Pair work activities

Group work activities (4 to 5 students)

Whole Class activities

Projects

Unit 7 At Home

7

3

0

1

All units start with group work activities using the brainstorming modality to introduce the new topics and/or concepts. In addition, all units are finished with a project closely related to the information given. The other two categories (Pair work and Whole class activities), are used in between to reinforce the new knowledge. Pair work activities of unit 7 are composed of picture labeling (furniture vocabulary), vocabulary recognition (parts of the house), reading comprehension (advertisements), matching words (rooms of the house, adjectives and furniture; description of pictures), true and false statements (comic), and Act Out (mini dialogue about castles). For example, the activity of vocabulary recognition (parts of the house) is presented as follows:

Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 59, student’s edition

Group work activities are composed of brainstorming questions to introduce the topic of the lesson (housing and adventures). The textbook provides the following

35

questions: “Do you live in a house or in a flat? How many rooms are there in your house? Which is your favourite room?” (Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 59, student’s edition). In relation to whole class activities, the unit does not have any type of tasks. However, the unit ends up with a project. This project is called “My Dream House” and it is developed as follows:

Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 65, student’s edition

Japanese Textbook The textbook to be analyzed is oriented to the teaching of Japanese as a foreign language for beginners. This is the first Japanese material for Spanish speakers’ students to have a first approach to the language. In that sense, the textbook is an essential tool for the development of their Japanese learning process. みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I is a compilation of several volumes, which were published on 2000. All of them are designed to help teachers to create a wide variety of activities for the multiplicity of student’s needs and interests. The goal of the

36

series is to build up and develop basic speaking abilities within 25 units. みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I suggests activities throughout 12 books. These are as follows: 1. みんなの日本語 I、 教え方の手引き – Minna no Nihongo I, Oshiekata no Tebiki (Teacher’s Manual): contains the objectives, how to work with flashcards (E-cards), and oral exercises related to the grammatical structures of every unit. 2. みんさなの日本語 I, 初級 ほんさつ – Minna no Nihongo I, Shokyu Honsatsu (Main Textbook): this book contains exercises for the students to practice the grammatical structures of the units and an answer sheet for the teachers. 3. みんさなの日本語 I, Roomaji-ban – Minna no Nihongo I, Roomaji-ban: this book is the romanization of みんさなの日本語 I, 初級 ほんさつ (Minna no Nihongo I, Shokyu Honsatsu - Main Textbook) 4. みんさなの日本語 I, 本やくぶんぽ解説 – Minna no Nihongo I, Honyaku Bunpo Kaisetsu (Translation & Grammatical Notes): this book is oriented to Spanish learners. The vocabulary of every unit is presented in Spanish and in Japanese. It also has the grammatical structures explained in the learner’s first language and examples in the second one. 5. みんさなの日本語 I, 練習ーC 会話 イラストシート – Minna no Nihongo I, Renshu-C Kaiwa Irasuto Shiito (Drill C Illustration Sheets): it only has illustration exercise sheets according to every unit presented in the compilation. 6. みんさなの日本語 I, イラスト集 – Minna no Nihongo I, dounyuu renshyuu Irasuto shuu: a book with extra illustration sheets to exercise every unit.

37

7. みんさなの日本語 I, みんさなの日本語、聴解タスク25 – Minna no Nihongo I, Chokai Tasuku 25 (Listening Comprehension Tasks): this book contains a CD and activities to work the listening skills. 8. みんさなの日本語 I, 初給I標準ほん題集 – Minna no Nihongo I, Hyojun Mondaishu (Basic Workbooks): this book has the tests for the 25 units. 9. みんさなの日本語 I, 初級で読めるトッピク25 – Minna no Nihongo I, Shokyu de Yomeru Topikku 25 (Reading Comprehension Texts): a book with short stories, letters and articles to practice the reading skills 10. みんさなの日本語 I, 書いて覚える文型練習帳 – Minna no Nihongo I, Kaite Oboeru Bunkei Renshucho (Sentence Pattern Workbooks): this book works out the “particles” (connectors inside a sentence). 11. みんなの日本語 I, 漢字練習帳 – Minna no Nihongo I, Kanji Renshucho (Kanji Exercise Books): this book contains exercises to practice the writing and recognition of Kanjis (Japanese symbols). 12. みんなの日本語 I, 漢字カードブック – Minna no Nihongo I, Kanji Kaado Bukku (Kanji Card Book): it has flashcards with Kanjis and their use in sentences. 13. みんなの日本語 I, 会話ビデオス – Minna no Nihongo I, Kaiwa Bideos (Conversation Videos): a videotape as a support for the Minna no Nihongo I, Shokyu Honsatsu (Main Textbook) 14. みんなの日本語 I, B4 サイズ E 巨材 – Minna no Nihongo I, B4 saizu E Kyozai

38

(B4 Size Picture Cards): big flashcards with pictures of the vocabulary and the main grammatical structures of each unit. 15. みんなの日本語 I, けいたいよ E 巨材 – Minna no Nihongo I, Keitaiyo E Kyozai (Handy Picture Cards): small flashcards with pictures of the vocabulary and the main grammatical structures of each unit. In relation to the teamwork activities, these contain pair work activities (as the main type) as well as group work exercises including 3 to 5 students. • Pair work activities: they are composed of mini dialogues (reinforcement of the pronunciation and intonation of the language), illustration sheets and flashcards (visual aids with no written words), “Renshuu C” (activities that practice specific vocabulary or grammatical patterns included in short closed written dialogues). • Group work activities: they include dialogues (to reinforce the pronunciation and intonation of the language), illustration sheets (the same as the ones used for pair work activities), games (such as すごろくガーム – sugoroku gamu6) and flashcards activities related to interviews that encourage students to use all the knowledge learned during each unit. The unit chosen from the 25 proposed in the textbook as the Japanese equivalent to the Chilean resource is 第 10 課 – Dai 10 Ka (lesson 10). The activities for this unit are distributed in four textbooks. For the purpose of this study, only the ones that contain teamwork activities will be analyzed. These books are as follows: • みんなの日本語 I、 教え方の手引き – Minna no Nihongo I, Oshiekata no Tebiki

6

Sugoroku gamu is a board game where the players have to go through steps using different vocabulary and grammatical structures

39

(Teacher’s Manual). • みんさなの日本語 I, 初級 ほんさつ – Minna no Nihongo I, Shokyu Honsatsu (Main Textbook). • みんさなの日本語 I, 練習ーC 会話 イラストシート – Minna no Nihongo I, Renshu-C Kaiwa Irasuto Shiito (Drill C Illustration Sheets): Illustration Sheets Book I.7 • みんさなの日本語 I, イラスト集 – Minna no Nihongo I, Irasuto sheets shuu: Illustration Sheets Book II.8 As expressed in the lesson, the vocabulary to be learned is related to the parts of the house, furniture and parts of the city. This vocabulary is presented in pictures, dialogues and simple descriptions. The students will be able to identify specific information, vocabulary and grammatical structures. Flashcards are used to direct dialogues as well as teacher’s examples which will be provided orally and, there is an entire section of the unit especially made for practicing the grammatical structures. The use of prepositions of place上、 下、前、 うしろ、 右、 左、 中、 外、 隣、 近く、 間 (ue, shita, mae, ushiro, migi, hidari, naka, soto, tonari, chikaku, aida)9 and the constructionsいます and あります(imasu and arimasu)10 will be worked throughout the compilation. In addition, functions such as

7

From now on, the name “Illustration Sheets Book I” will be used to make a difference between the two Japanese Illustration Sheets Books. 8 From now on, the name “Illustration Sheets Book II” will be used to make a difference between the two Japanese Illustration Sheets Books. 9 The translation of these preposition into English is: ue (on), shita (under), mae (in front of), ushiro (behind), migi (right), hidari (left), naka (in, inside), soto (outside), tonari (next to), chikaku (near), aida (between). 10 These are the constructions equivalent to “there is” and “there are.” However, there is no distinction between singular and plural. Therefore, “imasu” corresponds to singular or plural used for people or animals and “arimasu” corresponds to singular or plural in relation to plants, objects and materials.

40

[どうも] すみません (domo sumimasen = thank you) will be presented. Finally, the objective of the unit is to describe, with as many characteristics as possible, the students’ countries, cities and the places where they are currently living. The amount of teamwork activities used in the unit is as shown in the following chart: Unit

Lesson 10 第 10 課 DAI 10 KA

Pair work activities

Group work activities (4 to 5 students)

12

3

In all books, with the exception of the Illustration Sheets Book II, the starting point is individual activities to present the topics and vocabulary. Then, the use of dialogues (as pair and group work) is necessary to practice the grammatical structures and intonation of the language. It is also important to mention that all units are designed in the same way; that means, all of them start with the vocabulary section, grammatical structure explanation, a short dialogue, followed by sentence pattern exercises, fill-in the blanks and listening activities. All units end up with a reading comprehension task. Pair work activities, 第 10 課 – Dai 10 Ka (lesson 10) are composed of flashcards and illustration sheets with prepositions and names of places that encourage the dialogue using the proper vocabulary and the grammatical structures “imasu” and “arimasu.” It includes the activity “Renshuu C,” also focused on practicing the structures previously mentioned, the vocabulary related to the names of the places and objects and prepositions of places. For example, for the last activity, the exercise is as follows:

41

3A Corporation, 1998, p. 85, main textbook.

3A Corporation, 2000, p. 85, main textbook.

Group work is presented only in three types of activities related to each other. First, as a model to follow, a written dialogue of 3 students is taught. Then, the same dialogue is shown, but through an illustration sheet. In this case, the student must remember some vocabulary and sentence patterns, but he/she can also make up the story. Finally, the students have to create a similar dialogue, but applying it to their own context.

42

3A Corporation, 1998, p. 81, main textbook.

1.2. Steps to develop teamwork activities in the classrooms. The structures and organization of both units for the Japanese and the Chilean activities will be presented later for the comparative analysis. For this purpose, the procedures will be exposed according to the different categories of teamwork activities previously mentioned for both units. Chilean Textbook • Pair work: there is no written instruction to infer that the activities will be worked in pairs, however an icon (

) is placed above the instructions. Next to this, another

icon is placed to specify the type of task (

). This occurs in the teacher and the

student’s edition. Also, as extra information, in the teacher’s book an icon with the 43

degree of difficulty of the activity (

) is shown. The exercise to be performed is

also explained. After that, the procedures to develop the pair work are expounded. Finally, the answers for the activity are given when necessary.

Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 65, teacher’s textbook

Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 64, student’s textbook

The symbology used in the textbook is presented in the following list:

Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 3, student’s textbook

The teacher’s textbook emphasizes the instructions on how to perform the activity, but there is no mention about how to group the students. In addition, the book states that the pupils must be in pairs but working individually. However, checking the answers with their peers before doing it with the teacher and the rest of the class is the only instruction that infers the students will work as a team. There is also some incongruence between the teacher and the student’s book icons. For

44

example, the student’s textbook in exercise “I”11 suggests working in pairs and the teacher’s edition gives instructions to perform the activity in groups or as a whole class (Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 64, teacher’s edition). • Group work: the ways in which the instructions are presented are similar to the pair work instructions. Nevertheless, this time the amount of students to work in group is specified. Again, the textbook emphasizes the instructions on how to develop the activity instead of how the students are going to work in groups. Even more, they are asked to form teams, but the products must be done individually, with no collaboration between each other. For example, exercise B says, “Pídeles que se agrupen de de [sic] a 4 o [sic] 5, pero que cada uno realice el trabajo asignado en sus cuadernos” (Ibid., p. 63, teacher’s edition). • Project: it suggests the number of the students in the groups and materials as well as choosing the leader of the group beforehand. However, the role of the leader is not explicitly explained. It is up to that student to act with responsibility towards the task. The OFT (Fundamental Transversal Objectives – FTO)12 objectives of the project and materials are established. Then, the procedures of how to work the project out are presented. Once again, there are no specific instructions on how the students are going to choose the roles. In this case, the activity is about making “My dream house.” The textbook says the students are to make a draft of the house, but it does not explain which one is going to be in charge of drawing each room, labeling the rooms, etc. For example: “Explícales que ellos/ellas van a realizar el plano de la 11

From now on, the exercise I will be written between quotation marks (“I”) to avoid confusion with the personal pronoun I. 12 According to Gloria Mulsow in her article Estudios pedagógicos (Valdivia) ISSN 0718-0705 versión online, the English translation for Objetivos Fundamentales Transversales is FTO = Fundamental Transversal Objectives.

45

casa de sus sueños . . . Diles a los estudiantes que bosquejen . . . Recuérdales que deben poner los nombres . . .” (Ibid., p. 66, teacher’s edition). Japanese Textbook • Pair work: the teacher’s book indicates how the exercise will be performed with the flashcards. For example, there is a set of flashcards for 第 10 課 – Dai 10 Ka (lesson 10). Then, the teacher’s edition gives clear examples about the sentence patterns that are going to be used for each student. However, there is no written instruction about the steps to follow in the task.

3A Corporation, 2000, p. 123, teacher’s edition. 1 These are the objectives of the activity and what the teacher expects to achieve. ○ 2 This is an example that the teacher orally gives to the students as a pattern to follow. ○ 3 This is an example to be done with a student. The teacher gives the keywords (ドア = door スイッチ ○

= switch), for a student to construct a sentence using the correct preposition.

46

4 Finally, this is the activity to be developed only by students. Again, the teacher gives the keywords ○

(テ–ブルの上 / 何 = “on the table” and “what”) for a student to ask a question and the other to answer it.

It is also important to mention that the teacher is always monitoring the pair activities, as he/she provides the role and keywords to develop the mini dialogues; and states that the exercises are to be done orally. The Illustration Sheets Book II has a section explaining that the activity will be performed in pairs and also presents the sentence patterns and vocabulary that are needed for the development of the dialogue. Once again, it is the teacher the one who is monitoring the activity by giving the roles and the keywords to start the exercise.

3A Corporation, 2003, p. 16, irasuto shuu.

47

1 Objectives of the activity. In this exercise, the goal is giving instructions to another student on the ○

phone to get to his/her home. 2 Contents of the activity. The illustration sheet is divided to be used by two students. Therefore, it has ○

A and B section 3 Activity. It gives examples on how to develop the dialogue. ○ 4 References. It gives instructions on how to use the visual aids of the exercise. ○ 5 Extra Vocabulary or vocabulary explanation. It explains characteristics of some words used in the ○

dialogue. For example, it clarifies that the word “convenience store” (コンビニスストア – konbinisu sutoa) is used in its contraction form for Japanese (コンビニ = convenience store)

The activities in the Illustration Sheets Book I do not provide any type of instructions. It only provides the transcripts for the dialogues that the students are supposed to create. In addition, the students and the teacher know the activity will be performed in pairs because of the visual help provided in the pictures (two people in a conversation).

3A Corporation, 2000, p. 43, irasuto shiito.

Finally, the “Renshuu C” activity does not have any written instruction. It only provides model examples to work the activity out. For instance, each exercise 48

indicates the pair work through the pictures and letters for the roles. It also gives the grammatical structures or vocabulary to be worked in the dialogue; this by underlining the keywords.

3A Corporation, 1998, p. 85, main textbook. 1 The letters A & B designate the role for each student in the dialogue. They also imply how many ○

students will participate in this activity (two people). Furthermore, the underlined words ノ–ト– noto and いちばん上 – ichiban ue are the vocabulary structures that will be replaced. 2 The picture is a visual indication of the purpose of the dialogue. In this case, the exercise is about two ○

characters: one of them is asking about the location of a certain item (ノ–ト= handbook), the other one has to answer where this item is. 3 This is the vocabulary to be replaced in the dialogue. For example, 電池 – denchi can be exchanged ○

for ノ–ト– noto.

Finally, the compilation provides a section with the answers. • Group work: this activity corresponds with a sequence related to the main dialogue, チリソースはありませんか – Chiri-soosu wa arimasen ka. For the first exercise 49

(the written dialogue), there is no instruction that indicates the activity will be performed with a certain amount of students, just the name of the people in the dialogue that label the roles. For the second exercise, the illustration sheet gives the pointers that indicate the roles of the students. Finally, for the third activity, the teacher’s book provides a similar idea inspired in the previous two tasks, but this time the students have to apply the dialogue to their own context. 1.3 Types of cooperative learning groups The teamwork activities from both textbooks will be presented according to the definitions and categories of cooperative learning groups proposed by D. W. Johnson et al. (1994). Chilean Textbook • Pair work: Informal Cooperative Learning Group. This type of activity falls under this category due to two characteristics only. First, all activities developed in pairs have a short length of time that is not specified in the textbooks; however it can be inferred because of the difficulty of the exercises. Second, activities also include integrating material into existing conceptual structures, such as exercise H where the students match descriptions with pictures (Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 64, student’s edition). • Group work activities: Informal Cooperative Learning Group. In this section, all the activities imply a greater amount of time that the book does not specify. In this case, the exercises are focused on brainstorming about the topic of the lesson, so students have the opportunity to have small guided discussions.

50

• Project: Formal Cooperative Learning Group. Even though there is no clear pointer that suggests the reader that this is a real formal cooperative learning group, there are some instructions that give him/her a hint to suppose that this belongs to this type of group. For example, the book states: “Es aconsejable que designes un ‘jefe de grupo’, quien será responsable del trabajo que se realice. Lleva un registro de los/las ‘jefes/as de grupo’ para asegurarte de que todos han asumido esa responsabilidad” (Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 28, teacher’s edition). This activity has a specific learning goal that is to learn the vocabulary related to rooms of the house and furniture. Besides that, a final product must be presented to the rest of the class. In relation to time, there is no indicator that specifies it. Japanese textbooks In the case of the activities included in 第 10 課 – Dai 10 Ka (Lesson 10), most of them fall under the Informal Cooperative Learning Group category. This is due to the amount of time that each activity lasts during the class, as well as their types and difficulties. For example, the pair work exercise “Renshuu C” is structured in a way in which students have only to change a certain grammatical structure or vocabulary in the dialogues. There are no elements for the activity to go further than expected. The only exception is チリソースはありませんか – Chiri soosu wa arimasen ka dialogue that the students have to create according to their own context. Since the difficulty is bigger and they have to provide a final product, this activity falls under the Formal Cooperative Learning Group category.

51

1.4 Variables to decide the roles of the members of the group For all the activities presented in both texts, there are no variables, rules or patterns that help decide the roles of the members of the groups. However, one exception has been found in the Chilean textbook. The project activity presents a short explanation which says that a leader of the group has to be chosen. As the book establishes: Recuerda pedir los materiales y organizar los grupos con anticipación (ojalá una semana antes). Como son actividades grupales, los/las niños/niñas pueden distribuirse los materiales para después compartirlos. Es aconsejable que designes un “jefe de grupo”, quien será responsable del trabajo que su grupo realice. Lleva un registro de los/las “jefe de grupo” para asegurarte que todos han asumido esa responsabilidad (Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p.23, teacher’s edition). Clearly, this paragraph gives some useful tips for the teachers to form successful groups in class. It gives hints to manage the organization of the materials, the choice of the leader and a certain sense of responsibility towards the role. Nevertheless, it does not give hints about what characteristics that person must have and what his/her responsibilities are.

52

2. Interpretation. Methodological approaches. 2.1 Pedagogical Approach According to the definition of Pedagogical Approach stated in the theoretical background (the Constructivist Learning Design), the teamwork activities from each unit in both textbooks will be analyzed under 6 categories: Situations, Grouping (of students and materials), Bridge, Questions, and Exhibit. The last category, Reflections, will not be used in this analysis since both books do not let us appreciate that function. Chilean textbook • Pair work: • Situation: throughout the pair work activities, there is a clear instructional command for teachers as well as for students. They know how to accomplish the goal of the activity. They can also make their own meaning of what they are expected to learn from the activity since they work the information out (such as vocabulary) in context. On the contrary, the situations are not expounded for the students to explain or learn in teamwork activities. This is due to they will be placed in pairs but working individually. Ejercicio H Localizan información pareando ilustraciones con frases. 1 Pídeles que observen las ilustraciones de los castillos y que describan qué ven en cada ilustración. 2 Diles que deben leer las descripciones y unirlas con la ilustración que les corresponde escribiendo el número de la descripción en el dibujo (Ibid., p. 65, teacher’s edition).

53

- Grouping: there is only a symbology for the teachers and the students to understand when an activity should be worked in pairs or in groups. However, there is no mention about how they should be organized. In relation to the grouping of the material, there is no instruction about it. - Bridge: all the activities help students to make a connection between what they learned in class and what they are expected to learn with the activity. They follow related topics throughout the exercises of the unit.

Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 59, student’s edition

- Questions: all activities encourage students to answer questions related to previous knowledge and the current activity. For example, in exercise C, “Pregúntales si conocen el nombre de algunas de las piezas en una casa que se usan en castellano (living, hall, garage)” (Ibid., p. 62, teacher’s edition). - Exhibit: this section applies to all of the pair work activities since the students will have a product (the answers to the exercises) at the end of the work.

54

• Group work: - Situation: all group work activities have clear instructional commands for teachers as well as for students. They know how to accomplish the goal of the activity. They can also make their own meaning of what they are expected to learn from the activity since they work the information out in context. In addition, the exercises promote teamwork (such as questions for brainstorming before a new topic or idea). - Grouping: this section is the same as in pair work. - Bridge: this section is the same as in pair work. - Questions: all activities have questions that lead students to group learning. For example, in exercise A, “Do you live in a house or in a flat? How many rooms are there in your house? Which is your favorite room?” (Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 59, student’s edition). - Exhibit: this section applies to all of the group work activities since the students will have a product (answering the questions) at the end of the work. • Project: - Situation: this section is the same as in group work. - Grouping: the amount of students for each group is clearly specified; however, it does not mention how to make the groups. It also states the choice of the leader. The distribution of the material is specified, too. For example, “Como son actividades de pares o grupales, los estudiantes pueden distribuirse los materiales para después compartirlos” (Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 28, teacher’s edition). - Bridge: this section is the same as in pair work.

55

- Questions: the project leads students to questions through the teacher’s instructions and the teamwork process. - Exhibit: all the products from the project must be exhibited. Japanese textbook • Pair work: - Situation: all the flashcards activities are designed for the students to know how to develop them. They also help students make their own meaning through the process of the activity and the teacher’s instructions. In addition, students clearly know their roles to work as a team (teacher’s monitoring).

3A Corporation, 2000, p. 123, teacher’s manual. 1 A model of the flashcard to be used in the exercise (taken from みんなの日本語 I, けいたいよ E ○

巨材 – Minna no Nihongo I, Keitaiyo E Kyozai (Handy Picture Cards). 2 Keywords provided by the teacher for the students to construct the sentences. In this exercise the set ○

of words are: “table” (テブル – teburu), “over” (上 – ue) and “what” (何 – nani). 3 This is the question student 1 (S1) has to construct following the teacher’s suggestion of words. In ○

this case, the question is: “what is over the table?” (テブルの上に何がありますか – teburu no ue ni nani ga arimasu ka). 4 This is the answer student 2 (S2) must provide for student 1’s question: “there is a backpack” ○

(かばんがあります – kaban ga arimasu).

56

In the case of “Renshuu C” activity, students can infer what they are going to do and how they will do that just because of the pictures and the examples. They will also work as a team since the roles are specified by letters (A & B).

3A Corporation, 1998, p. 85, main textbook.

For the illustration sheets activities, there are clear instructions on how to perform the activity, what is expected to achieve and the roles of the members. - Grouping: for all activities, it is clearly specified the amount of students for each group; however it does not mention how to make the groups. In relation to the grouping of the material, there is no instruction about it. - Bridge: all the activities help students to make a connection between what they learned in class and what they are expected to learn with the activity. They follow related topics throughout the exercises of the unit.

57

- Questions: all activities do not have questions that lead students to group learning. In that sense, the exercises do not let the student have further reflections or discussions. - Exhibit: this section applies to all the pair work activities since the students will have a product (the answers of the tasks) at the end of the work. • Group work: - Situation: in this section, there is only one activity that shows clear instructions for teachers as well as for students (チリソースはありませんか – Chiri soosu wa arimasen ka, applied to the pupils’ context). They know how to accomplish the goal of the activity. They can also make their own meaning of what they are expected to learn from the task since they work the information out in context. - Grouping: for the written dialogue and the illustration sheets activities, students and teachers can infer the amount of members in the group because of the name of the people and the pictures. Nevertheless, there are no written instructions about how to make the groups. The last one also applies for the grouping of materials. - Bridge: this section is the same as in pair work. - Questions: this section is the same as in pair work. - Exhibit: this section applies to all the group work activities since the students will have a product (the performance of the dialogue) at the end of the work. 2.2 Didactical Approach This section will be analyzed following the didactical approach definition stated in the theoretical background. Then, this analysis will answer the following questions:

58

1. Does the activity make students perform with the exercises? 2. Does the activity make students speak? 3. Does the activity make students think? 4. Do students know the purpose of the activity? What is the activity’s goal to be acquired for the students? 5. Is the activity applicable in outside-the-classrooms’ context? 6. Can students interact with the activity? 7. Does the activity make students evolve by their own motivation? Question number 7 will not be analyzed since the data collected from the textbooks is not enough to answer it. On behalf of not being repetitive, only the answers to the previous questions will be provided. Each question will be abbreviated with the following symbols: Q1 = Question 1, Q2 = Question 2, Q3 = Question 3, and so on. Chilean Textbook • Pair work: Q1: all activities presented in this section make students react to the exercises. For example, in exercise C, “Pídeles que completen las cajas con los nombres de las piezas de la casa en el dibujo” (Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 62, teacher’s edition). Q2: only the activities that are related to reading comprehension and mini dialogues. The other types of categories may make the students speak. However, that is up to the teacher's criterion and that is out of the limits of this study. Q3: all the activities are created for the students to think and elaborate their answers with the exception of the mini dialogue.

59

Q4: through the teacher’s textbook instructions the students are able to know the goal to be acquired in the activity. Otherwise, they are not able to get that information by the activity itself. Q5: some of the activities are highly applicable outside-the-classroom’s context, as for example, the mini dialogue as well as the vocabulary recognition. However, the rest of the tasks are not exactly reproduced outside-the-classroom, but the objectives to be acquired in those activities can be useful for students in all kind of contexts. Q6: most of the activities let the students have an active role. For example, the teacher’s book gives instructions to ask the students to brainstorm about the vocabulary or the topic of the activity. Exercise C, “Pídeles que observen los tres textos y pregúntales si han visto otros textos similares y dónde (periódicos, revistas, ficheros, etc.” (Ibid., p. 63, teacher’s edition). • Group work: Q1: these activities here are created for a high performance of the students since they have to brainstorm about the new topics. Q2: one more time, all the activities here are designed for the students to have discussions and perform speaking activities. Q3: since brainstorming is one of the activities for group work, it gives the students an important opportunity to express their thoughts about different topics. Q4: in the case of this task, the students clearly know the goals of these exercises. Q5: all the activities are applicable in outside-the-classroom’s context since the skills worked through these exercises are in a social context level. Q6: all the activities here are focused on a reciprocal interaction. 60

• Project: Q1: this activity is designed for a high performance of the students since they have to finish the task with a product. Q2: in this unit, the exercise does not require from students to speak since they will only hang the product on the wall. Q3: the main purpose of the project is that students have to interact with each other and organize themselves; that is choosing roles, leaders and make the teamwork properly. Due to these processes, students are encouraged to think. Q4: the students know the goal of the activity since they have to finish with a final product. Q5: the project is applicable in outside-the-classroom’s context because it gives students the necessary skills to interact in different kinds of teams outside the school. Q6: the project is designed to create products. In that sense, the students must interact with each other and with the materials. Japanese Textbook • Pair work: Q1: all activities presented in this section make students react to the exercises. For example, they usually have to replace grammatical structures and vocabulary in closed dialogues. Q2: all the activities in Dai 10 Ka are formulated for the students to have an important speaking role.

61

Q3: all the activities are created with certain patterns of structures and keywords for the students to develop them. In that sense, the exercise is done rather mechanically with not much reflection involved. Q4: the teacher’s book provides instructions for the students to be able to know the goal of the activity in the flashcards and only in one of the exercises in the Illustration Sheets Book II. On the contrary, for “Renshuu C” and the Illustration Sheets Book I, the students may infer the goal to be acquired from the pictures and written examples. Q5: all of the activities are highly applicable outside-the-classroom’s context. This is because of the conversational nature of the whole compilation. Q6: all the activities make students interact with each other. • Group work: Q1: these activities are created for a high performance of the students since they have to act out dialogues. Q2: all the activities here are designed for the students to have question-answer interaction and perform speaking activities. Q3: for the two first activities, the students have a more passive role when thinking and elaborating the dialogue. However and due to the last task is focused on the student’s contextualization of the exercise, they must think about the situation. Q4: the teacher’s book states the goal of the activity just for the last exercise. Q5: all the activities are applicable in outside-the-classroom’s context since the skills worked through these exercises are in a social context level. Q6: all the activities here are focused on a reciprocal interaction. 62

2.3 Evaluative Approach This section will be analyzed following the evaluative approach definition stated in the theoretical background. Then, this analysis will be focused on two types of evaluation: the formative and evaluative assessments. Chilean Textbook • Pair work All the activities in this section fall under a summative assessment due to the importance of getting the final product which is the answer. However, the mini dialogue activity is evaluated under a formative assessment because of the significance of getting a good performance of the pronunciation and intonation of the words. • Group work All the activities in this section follow a formative assessment; for the teacher is more relevant the process of brainstorming rather than the results. • Project In this case, the project adheres to both types of assessments; the formative one, since the development of the activity makes the students apply all their previous knowledge and skills for the success of the team; and the project may also apply a summative assessment since the teacher asks the students to end up with a tangible final product.

63

Japanese Textbook • Pair work a) Flashcards and illustration sheets activities: these exercises fall under both assessments the formative and the summative ones. In this case, it is important to have a good development of the task, which is to get a good pronunciation of the words and a correct use of the grammatical structures and vocabulary. It is also relevant to end up the activity with a product, which can be led by the teacher. b) Renshuu C: in this case, the activity adheres to a summative assessment since the goal is the correct replacement of the grammatical structures and vocabulary. • Group work a) Written dialogue: the purpose of this activity is the proper pronunciation and intonation of the dialogue. Therefore, this type of exercise falls under the category of formative assessment. b) Illustration sheet dialogue: in this case, what matters is not the development of the dialogue but that students get a final product; being no relevant what the vocabulary applied or the setting are. In that sense, this type of activity is evaluated under the summative assessment category. c) Dialogue in context: for this activity both assessments apply, the formative and the summative ones. It is significant how the students will perform and get the exercise done as well as the final presentation which is the product.

64

3. Juxtaposition. Results table.

This section will provide information concerning the similarities and differences found during the analysis of the units from My World and みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I. This information will be presented in tables for a better understanding of the comparative analysis. 3.1 Similarities Categories of the

Similarities found in My World and

Analysis

みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I

• They include pair work and teamwork activities. Teamwork activities used throughout both units.

• Pair work: 3 activities. • Pair work: mini dialogues (Act Out and “Renshuu C”) • Pair work:

Steps to develop teamwork

- No written instructions stating that the activity will

activities in the classrooms.

be worked in pairs. The only exception is for the illustration sheets task in the Japanese textbook みんさなの日本語 I, イラスト集 – Minna no Nihongo I, dounyuu renshyuu Irasuto shuu. - Instructions to develop the activities (with the exception of みんさなの日本語 I, 初級 ほんさつ – Minna no Nihongo I, Shokyu Honsatsu (Main Textbook) and みんさなの日本語 I, 練習ーC 会話 イラストシート – Minna no Nihongo I, Renshu-C Kaiwa Irasuto Shiito (Drill C Illustration Sheets). - Answers to the activities 65

- No instructions on how to develop teamwork. • Group work: - Textbooks emphasizing instructions on how to develop activities instead of how students will work in groups. • Pair work and Group work activities: Informal Types of cooperative learning groups.

Cooperative Learning Groups. The only exception is チリソースはありませんか

– Chiri soosu wa

arimasen ka, included as a group activity in the Japanese textbook. • There are no variables, rules or patterns to decide the Variables to decide the roles of

roles of the members of the groups. The only

the members of the group.

exception is the project activity presented in the Chilean textbook. • Pair work: Situation (with the exception of the

Pedagogical Approach.

Chilean teamwork), Grouping (no instructions about materials), Bridge, Exhibit. • Group work: Grouping (with the exception of the written dialogue and the illustration sheets activities in the Japanese unit), Bridge, Exhibit. • Pair work: Q1 (perform), Q6 (activities make students

Didactical Approach.

interact). • Group work: Q1 (perform), Q2 (speak), Q5 (applicable outside-classroom’s context), Q6 (reciprocal interaction). No similarities found.

Evaluative Approach.

66

3.2. Differences Unit 7

第 10 課 Dai 10 Ka (Lesson 10)

My World

みんなの日本語 I – Minna no

Categories of the analysis

Nihongo I • Pair work:

• Pair work:

Teamwork activities

- 7 activities focused on written - 12 activities (focused on

used throughout both

tasks (with the exception of the

units.

speaking skills).

mini dialogue). - Includes picture labeling,

- Includes flashcards/

vocabulary recognition,

illustration sheets, “Renshuu

reading comprehension,

C”.

matching words, true and false statements.

Steps to develop teamwork activities in the classrooms.

• Group work:

• Group work:

- Only brainstorming

- Only a dialogue in three

questions.

modalities.

• Projects: 1

• Projects: 0

• Pair work:

• Pair work:

- Icons referring to pair work

- Flashcards activities:

activities.

teacher’s book instructions.

- Students in pairs but working

- Teacher provides the roles

individually.

and keywords to develop the mini dialogues. - Teacher always monitoring activities.

• Group work:

• Group work:

- Amount of students to work

- No amount of students

in group specified.

specified, just the name of the characters and pictures that label the roles.

67

• Project: - Amount of people in groups specified. - Materials to be worked with provided. - Objectives of the project established. - Suggestions to choose the leader of the group. - No instructions on how to choose the roles of the members of the team. In this category it was found Types of cooperative learning groups.

no significant differences in both compilations. • The project activity presents

• There are no variables, rules

a short instruction to choose

or patterns to decide the roles

the leader of the group.

of the members of the groups.

• Pair work:

• Pair work:

Pedagogical

- Questions (encouraging

- Questions (exercises do not

Approach.

students’ participation).

let students have further

Variables to decide the roles of the members of the group.

reflections or discussions). • Group work:

• Group work:

- Situation (goal of the

- Situation (no instructions and

activity, make their own

goals). The exception is

meaning, promote teamwork).

(チリソースはありませんか – Chiri soosu wa arimasen ka, 68

applied to the pupils’ context). - Questions (leading students

- Questions (exercises do not

to group learning).

let students have further reflections or discussions).

• Project: - Situation (choose the leader of the group). - Grouping (students and materials). - Bridge, Questions, Exhibit.

Didactical Approach.

• Pair work:

• Pair work:

- Q2 (with the exception of the

- Q2 (important speaking role).

reading comprehension and mini dialogue, the rest of the activities may lead to speak). - Q3 (think).

- Q3 (automatically done).

- Q4 (teacher’s book gives the

- Q4 (only flashcards and

goal of the activity).

illustration sheets books give the goal of the activity).

- Q5 (some activities

- Q5 (all activities are highly

applicable outside the

applicable outside the

classroom).

classroom).

• Group work:

• Group work:

- Q3 (think).

-Q3 (passive role with the exception of the in-contextdialogue).

- Q4 (clear goals).

- Q4 (teacher’s book states the goal for the in-contextdialogue).

69

• Project: - Q1 (perform). - Q2 (no speaking). - Q3 (think). - Q4 (clear goal). - Q5 (applicable outside the classroom). - Q6 (interaction).

Evaluative Approach.

• Pair work:

• Pair work:

- Summative assessment with

- Flashcards and illustration

the exception of the mini

sheets activities (summative

dialogues (formative

and formative assessment).

assessment).

- “Renshuu C” (summative assessment).

• Group work:

• Group work:

- Formative assessment for all

- Written dialogue (formative

activities.

assessment). - Illustration sheet dialogue (summative assessment). - Dialogue in context (summative and formative assessments).

• Project: - Formative and summative assessments.

70

4. Proper comparison. Final comparative results.

The results obtained through the analysis of the data collected from both units in the textbooks showed that the differences were more than the similarities. The comparative study produced results that were significantly relevant for both compilations. In that sense, the Chilean and Japanese textbooks contributed with positive as well as negative aspects for the treatment of teamwork activities in any classroom. The most significant finding of this analysis was the fact that the answer to the hypothesis presented could not be found. Both units did not reveal clear patterns of how to develop teamwork activities. Instructions on how to achieve the goals of the assignments were explicit, but meticulous steps for achieving a successful cooperative learning group were not met. Furthermore, for the parameters of this study, it seemed that the Chilean textbook worked the definition of teamwork inaccurately. According to Bidegáin et al., cooperative learning is when cooperation is a fundamental condition to perform any type of task (1999, p.18). Then, My World presented some activities as “Pídeles que se agrupen de de [sic] a 4 o [sic] 5, pero [sic] cada uno realice el trabajo asignado en sus cuadernos” (Lazzeri & Marsland, 2007, p. 63, teacher’s edition). However, the exception was shown in the project assignment of the same book. It is worthy of mention that mainly all the Japanese activities, even though they did not present written steps for performing the tasks or choosing the roles of the members, were structured in a way that allowed an understanding – though not overtly explicit – of the development of the assignments. Another significant fact found in relation to the types of teamwork activities used in the Chilean book was the “project”. This kind of work was meaningful since it

71

encompassed all the vocabulary, grammatical structures and themes seen in the unit. Yet, the main problem of this activity was the lack of instructions on how to work in teams. It only gave indications about how to achieve the result of the task. For example, the textbook stated the amount of students working together but it did not mention what the roles and/or type of work that each member would develop were. Another important result was the one related to the statistics which reflected the amount and nature of the activities of みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I. On the one hand, the analysis revealed that the Japanese unit was composed of 15 tasks, all of them focused on working speaking skills. Furthermore, “Renshuu C”, which was a written assignment, led to the possibility of presenting each dialogue orally. On the other hand, My World concentrated six exercises out of ten on practicing vocabulary and grammatical structures in a written form. The only exceptions were the Act Out dialogue and the brainstorming tasks which were done orally. The Japanese flashcards and their use in activities were also meaningful. This was a visual aid that the Chilean compilation did not have. In addition, the structure of the exercises (including this aid) facilitated the teacher’s monitoring, the designation of the roles and the classroom management for a proper use of the grammatical structures and vocabulary required. In relation to the signs denoting the classification of the activities, the Chilean book provided a useful symbology that was more explicit for teachers and students than the Japanese compilation. The Japanese only presented examples and pictures that helped to infer that an activity was to be performed in pairs, groups, or if it was a reading, speaking or a listening task. Nevertheless, みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I, presented two exceptions. Elaborated instructions were found in みんなの日本語 I、 教え方の手引き – 72

Minna no Nihongo I, Oshiekata no Tebiki (Teacher's Manual), and みんさなの日本語 I, イラスト集 – Minna no Nihongo I, dounyuu renshyuu Irasuto shuu (Illustration Sheets Book II). A meaningful characteristic found in the types of cooperative learning groups was that both units (the Chilean and the Japanese one) fell under the category of Informal Cooperative Learning Group. In that sense, the two books emphasized the evaluation of the same goals, implied a similar amount of time, an average difficulty and also the students had to integrate material into existing conceptual structures. Exceptions were discerned in both compilations; on the one hand, the project of the Chilean book; and on the other, チリソースはありませんか – Chiri soosu wa arimasen ka (Do you have Chili sauce?). Due to their formal structure, the difficulty and the amount of time that these types of activities required both fell under the category of Formal Cooperative Learning Group. In relation to the approaches used in this comparative study, the results were as follows. The pedagogical approach showed in its situation category analysis that both units of the textbooks clearly stated what each activity tried to pursue. In addition, students were able to make their own meaning through the development of the exercises. Nevertheless, the Chilean book had an individualistic treatment of the assignments. The grouping category demonstrated that there were no patterns on how to group neither the students nor the materials for the activities. However, all the tasks presented in both compilations had a bridge connecting what the students already knew and what they were expected to learn. A significant difference was that the Chilean activities allowed further reflections; on the contrary, the Japanese ones were structured in a way that led students to have specific answers. The fact that the Chilean group situation promoted real cooperative work within 73

their members is worthy of mention. For the first time during this analysis, the Chilean book showed proper teamwork tasks which were more in accordance with the definitions used in the theoretical background. The didactical approach produced significant results in different areas. Chilean and Japanese pair and group work activities were the same in allowing students to perform the exercises. In both textbooks, the tasks encouraged the students to the expected intellectual and physical adaptation and reciprocal interaction towards the assignments. In addition, the exercises worked in the Japanese compilations showed to be of a high performance-outsidethe-classroom due to their conversational nature. This type of work allowed students to practice their social skills in small dialogues, reflections and discussions. Nevertheless, this seldom happened in the Chilean activities. The evaluative approach showed relevant differences. The Japanese compilation had a type of evaluation that fell under both categories the summative and the formative ones. The activities were designed in a way that was meaningful due to their development; for example, enhancing the pronunciation and intonation of the language as well as their results. On the contrary, the type of evaluation presented in the Chilean unit applied to either category depending on the nature of the exercises. However, one exception appeared to have similar characteristics with the Japanese evaluative approach: the project. This activity also fell under the summative and formative evaluations because of its development and the expected result. Finally, a difference found in relation to the corpus of both compilations was that in size they were completely unbalanced. On the one hand, the Chilean textbooks were composed of only two volumes (teacher and student’s editions) and one cassette, as an

74

audio aid. On the other hand, the Japanese material consisted of 12 books and four audiovisual aids (CD, VHS and flashcards). To conclude, and even after having conducted a thoroughly comparative study, the analysis produced results that were not relevant to answer the hypothesis: the textbook for Japanese as a foreign language is likely to include improved key elements for teamwork activities in the classroom in contrast with the ones used in the textbook for English as a foreign language provided by the MINEDUC.

75

IV. Conclusion

This study intended to answer the hypothesis that the textbook for Japanese as a foreign language (みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I) was likely to include key elements for teamwork activities in the classroom in contrast to the ones the Chilean textbook (My World) used to teach English as a foreign language. In doing so, the collection of data from a unit of both compilations as well as a comparative analysis was conducted. The analysis included descriptions of the units, interpretation of the data through three different approaches, the yuxtaposition of the results and a comparison of the final and most relevant information obtained. The comparative study of the Chilean and Japanese units revealed that there were some significant differences as well as similarities in the development of teamwork activities; however, none of them could lead the analysis to a satisfactory answer of the hypothesis presented. The Japanese unit showed a communicational structure of the activities (pair and group work) that allowed students to be part of a real cooperative learning group. Despite there were no clear written instructions on how to conduct teamwork, the activities were designed to fit the cooperative learning concept, and instructions were visualized through the arrangement of each exercise (pictures and keywords for dialogues). On the contrary, the tasks of My World, demonstrating evident written indications and symbology on working with a specific amount of students, were structured and focused on individual work. No matter whether there were cooperative learning designed activities or not, as in the Japanese compilation, the steps to develop a proper and successful teamwork with all its elements were not proposed in any of the above

76

mentioned activities. The same result was produced with the similarities between both compilations; no instructions to develop a successful teamwork as the main one. Despite all the data collected, the approaches studied and the comparisons made, the units by themselves could not explain why Japanese teamwork activities seemed to achieve teachers’ expectations while performing cooperative learning groups. The Japanese unit had similar types of teamwork activities as the ones proposed in the Chilean one. However, it seemed that My World had a contradictory use of the cooperative learning definition; all the activities were proposed to sit in pairs/groups, but having an individual assignment done. There are other types of variables affecting the performance of students in group work for an analysis of this nature, but they will not be discussed here. It seemed that みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I was designed in a way that did not allowed any kind of teacher to perform and direct learning groups. In that sense, the compilation may have a cultural code only understandable for Japanese teachers to develop successful teamwork. Furthermore, the students’ characteristics must play a significant role while performing activities. Due to the characteristics of the Japanese society, students are pushed to have academic excellence, give their best in any type of task and always participate in class work. Some other important variables considered relevant for the analysis of Japanese material may be their educational and social organization. According to Katsuhito Miura, Japanese cultural ambassador in Chile, in Japan students are not taught how to work in teams. It seems natural for them to organize themselves, passing responsibilities to each other, delegating roles and working together to achieve a goal effectively and efficiently.

77

Moreover, since their first years of education, students are encouraged to work in groups for cleaning their classrooms and even helping in the cafeteria distributing their meals. Finally, as the hypothesis was not answered, some other characteristics should be considered that are not included in this paper. Motivational, cultural and cognitive aspects were not analyzed due to the parameters of this study. It is important to point out that みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I is not the only book for the teaching of the Japanese language. Then, there are some other compilations that could have the characteristics this hypothesis was pursuing. Limitations and Future Research Agenda There were two significant limitations in the comparative analysis of this study. First of all, the difference in extension from both compilations made the data hard to analyze. The organization of みんなの日本語 I – Minna no Nihongo I textbooks was distributed in 12 books and four audiovisual aids, creating a noticeable unbalance in contrast with the Chilean editions of My World (two books and one cassette). Secondly, not having the opportunity to observe the teamwork activities’ development in classrooms, teachers’ methodologies while applying cooperative learning and criteria for choosing members and leaders, the comparative analysis was only focused on the structures of the activities presented in the compilations that were available. Then, the categories that were not empirically analyzed were left out of the study. In that sense, ideas such as: students’ reflections towards the process of teamwork activities, students’ motivations towards those tasks, the students’ cognition involved in the exercises, the organization of roles and the respect towards the members within the teams were impossible to analyze. In addition, the effective use of time and materials from the students,

78

the communication between each participant and their leaders, the monitoring of the students done by the teacher while performing teamwork activities and how the groups worked towards achieving the tasks’ goals were also out of the parameters of this study. Future Research Agenda In the attempt of answering the hypothesis presented, the study also led to other types of premises that can be further elaborated. Then, it would be interesting to conduct a case study having the experience of facing both context Japanese and Chilean classrooms. Firstly, the contrastive analysis of the units did not answer why Japanese textbooks have a key element for performing teamwork activities in class. This study revealed that it might be possible that the effectiveness of the activities is due to a cultural background. Then, further research in the respective countries may identify what the advantages Japanese and Chilean strategies towards teamwork are. Secondly, this study also led to the hypothesis that the training received by Japanese teachers while studying at universities might give them the necessary tools for developing teamwork activities in classrooms. Then, it would be interesting to identify and analyze the programs that Japanese universities offer to students of their teachers’ major. Thirdly, the theoretical background and information research demonstrated that students’ skills, motivation towards learning, achieving goals, and helping other members for the benefit of the group (Belbin, 1993) definitely help to achieve the success of the teamwork activities. Further studies might take place in classrooms where all these aspects are developed. They might be conducted by observing classes, making interviews and gathering information about the quality of performance of the students. Finally, the comparative analysis also demonstrated that both textbooks, the Chilean and the Japanese ones, did not have any kind of instructions for a proper development of 79

cooperative learning groups. Then, it would be useful to develop a teacher’s guide on how to manage different types of successful teamwork activities in the books.

80

V. REFERENCES

Books 3A Corporation, (2000). みんなの日本語 I、 教え方の手引き – Minna no Nihongo I, Oshiekata no Tebiki (Teacher's Manual). Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author 3A Corporation, (1998). みんさなの日本語 I, 初級 ほんさつ – Minna no Nihongo I, Shokyu Honsatsu (Main Textbook). Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author 3A Corporation, (2000). みんさなの日本語 I, Roomanji-ban – Minna no Nihongo I, Roomaji-ban. Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author 3A Corporation, (1999). みんさなの日本語 I, 本やくぶんぽ解説 – Minna no Nihongo I, Honyaku Bunpo Kaisetsu (Translation & Grammatical Notes). Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author 3A Corporation, (2000). みんさなの日本語 I, 練習ーC 会話 イラストシート – Minna no Nihongo I, Renshu-C Kaiwa Irasuto Shiito (Drill C Illustration Sheets). Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author 3A Corporation, (2003). みんさなの日本語 I, イラスト集 – Minna no Nihongo I, dounyuu renshyuu Irasuto shuu. Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author 3A Corporation, (2003). みんさなの日本語 I, みんさなの日本語、聴解タスク25 – Minna no Nihongo I, Chokai Tasuku 25 (Listening Comprehension Tasks). Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author

81

3A Corporation, (1999).みんさなの日本語 I, 初給I標準ほん題集 – Minna no Nihongo I, Hyojun Mondaishu (Basic Workbooks). Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author 3A Corporation, (2000). みんさなの日本語 I, 初級で読めるトッピク25 – Minna no Nihongo I, Shokyu de Yomeru Topikku 25 (Reading Comprehension Texts). Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author 3A Corporation, (2000). みんさなの日本語 I, 書いて覚える文型練習帳 – Minna no Nihongo I, Kaite Oboeru Bunkei Renshucho (Sentence Pattern Workbooks). Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author 3A Corporation, (2004). みんなの日本語 I, 漢字練習帳 – Minna no Nihongo I, Kanji Renshucho (Kanji Exercise Books). Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author 3A Corporation, (2000). みんなの日本語 I, 漢字カードブック – Minna no Nihongo I, Kanji Kaado Bukku (Kanji Card Book). Tokyo: 3A Corporation: Author Comité técnico asesor del diálogo nacional sobre la modernización de la educación chilena designado por S.E. el Presidente de la República (1995). Los desafíos de la educación Chilena frente al siglo XXI. Informe de la comisión nacional para la modernización de la educación. comisión nacional para la modernización de la educación designada por S.E. el presidente de la república. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Universitaria. Lazzeri, G., & Marsland, S. (2007) My world, Inglés 5 año de educación básica. Guía didáctica para el profesor. Pearson Education Ltda. Lazzeri, G., & Marsland, S. (2007) My world, Inglés 5 año de educación básica. Texto para el estudiante. Pearson Education Ltda.

82

Vexliard, A. (1970). Pedagogía comparada. Métodos y Problemas. (I. Ucha de Davie, Trans.). Buenos Aires: Editorial Kapelusz, S.A (Original work published 1967) Online documents Flores, A., & Victoria, S. (1999) Brousseau in Action: Didactical Situation for Learning How to Graph Functions. Retrived from http://www.atcminc.com/mPublications/EP/EPATCM99/ATCMP020/PAPER/paper.pd f Lauterbach, U., & Mitter, W. (1998) Theory and Methodology of International Comparisons. Retrieved from http://www.trainingvillage.gr/etv/Upload/Projects_Networks/ResearchLab/ResearchRe port/RR1_Lauterbach.pdf Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology MEXT (2007) MEXT Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/mext_2007_e.pdf National Science Foundation (1994) Cooperative Learning and Decision Making Arlington, Virginia. Robert T. Clemen & Heidi Hampton. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/13 Tuckman, Bruce. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63, 384-399. Retrieved from http://virtual2002.tau.ac.il/users/www/111542/‫בקבוצה בינאישיים יחסים‬/Developmental Sequences in Small Groups.pdf United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNESCO (2008-2009). Quality Education, Equity and Sustainable Development: A holistic vision through 13

This article was downloaded from the servers provided by Emule.com

83

UNESCO’s four World Education Conferences 2008 -2009. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/Synergies4conferences.pdf Shuji, Sugie (1990) Cooperative Learning in Japan: History and Present Situation of Research and Implementation. Cooperative Learning Based on the Systematic Learning Method. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/08 /fc.pdf Online Books Atkin, J., Black, P., & Coffey, J. (2001) Classroom Assessment and the National Science Educational Standards. Retrieved from http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9847 Bidegáin, N. Ú., Biain, S. I., Cutrín, P. C., Elcarte, E. M. P., Etxaniz, G. M. J., Fresneda, J., et al. (1999) Aprendizaje Cooperativo. Departamento de Educación y Cultura: Navarra: Gráficas Lizarra. Retrieved from http://www.gestionescolar.cl/Portal.Base/Web/VerContenido.aspx?GUID=5a4c2c2768c2-4c86-9633-a1e200e9c0bf&ID=130694 Bradburn, N., & Gilford D. (1990) A framework and principles for international comparative studies in education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9220&page=5 Gagnon, G. W. Jr., Collay, M., & Schmuck, R. (2006) Constructivist Learning Design. Retrieved from

84

http://books.google.cl/books?id=WoAmB4S3xU0C&dq=Constructivist+Learning+Desi gn+pdf&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Y_TGuG7uc7&sig=RinIfkg4U4rdhqrmd NhE1tQD9_8&hl=es&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA110,M1 Hills, H. (2001) Team-based Learning. Retrieved from http://books.google.cl/books?id=3pKT7NHf_7wC&pg=PA16&dq=a+successful+team work+Meredith+Belbin#PPA16,M1 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec E. (1994) Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/194224.aspx Online Articles Database Correa, L. M. Z. (2005) Aprendizaje colaborativo: una nueva forma de Diálogo Interpersonal y en Red. Retrieved from Educrea database. Gagnon, G. W. Jr., & Collay, M. (2006) Constructivist Learning Design. Retrieved from Prairie Rainbow Company database. NDT Resource Center (n.d.). Teamwork in the Classroom. Retrieved January 1, 2001, from NDT Resource Center database. Online Encyclopedia or Dictionary Teamwork. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved February 13, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teamwork

85

Suggest Documents