Walk into almost any EFL classroom and you will find the same fundamental challenge: there is one teacher, but there may be 20, 30 or even 40 learners who all need opportunities to use English.
A teacher asks a question. One student answers. Perhaps another student adds something. Meanwhile, the rest of the class listens—or, quite possibly, doesn't.
For language teachers, this creates an obvious problem. Learners need opportunities to speak, listen, explain, question, clarify and interact in English. Yet in a traditional teacher-led classroom, the amount of time available for each individual learner to actually use the language can be remarkably limited.
This is where cooperative learning can make a real difference.
Research into cooperative learning has associated it with improvements in academic achievement, interpersonal relationships and attitudes towards learning, while studies in EFL and ESL contexts have reported benefits including increased interaction, oral language production, motivation and communicative competence (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Sharan, 1980; Azizinezhad et al., 2013; Tamimy et al., 2023; Vellayan et al., 2021).
But perhaps the most important reason cooperative learning is so well suited to the EFL classroom is much simpler: learning a language requires opportunities for meaningful interaction, and cooperative learning is designed to create them.
More Student Talk More of The Time
Imagine a class of 24 learners.
The teacher asks a question and chooses one student to answer. That's one learner speaking while 23 listen.
Now put those same learners into pairs and structure the interaction so that everyone has an opportunity to answer. Suddenly, 12 conversations can take place simultaneously.
The difference is enormous.
Long and Porter (1985) argued that group work can substantially increase both the quantity and variety of language practice available to second-language learners. Instead of communication continually travelling from the teacher to one learner and back again, pair and small-group interaction allows many learners to use the target language simultaneously.
This is particularly significant in EFL classrooms, where the classroom may be one of the only places learners regularly use English to communicate. Every minute dominated by teacher talk or by one confident student is a minute in which most of the class is not actively producing language.
Brown (2001) identified the generation of interactive language as one of the major advantages of group work in the English-language classroom. Cooperative learning can take this further by deliberately structuring that interaction so that more learners have genuine opportunities to participate rather than allowing discussion to be dominated by the most confident speakers.
Azizinezhad et al. (2013) similarly identified increased student participation and increased talk in the target language as important benefits of cooperative learning in EFL education. More recently, a review of research into cooperative learning and oral English proficiency concluded that cooperative learning can stimulate oral production and interaction and contribute to the development of speaking skills (Vellayan et al., 2021).
However, simply increasing the number of conversations is not enough. The interaction needs to be structured so that all learners—not just the most confident—have genuine opportunities to participate.
Speaking a foreign language in front of an entire class can be intimidating. A learner may know the answer but hesitate to raise their hand because they are worried about making a mistake, being corrected publicly or simply having everyone looking at them.
Foreign-language anxiety has long been recognised as a significant factor in language learning. Horwitz et al. (1986) identified communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation and test anxiety as important dimensions of foreign-language classroom anxiety. Krashen's affective filter hypothesis also proposed that factors including anxiety, motivation and self-confidence can influence second-language acquisition (Krashen, 1985).
Cooperative learning can offer an alternative to the constant pressure of public performance. Instead of answering immediately in front of 30 classmates, learners may first discuss an idea with a partner, rehearse an answer in a small team or explain their thinking to one peer at a time.
Reduced learning anxiety and the creation of a supportive, less threatening environment have been identified as potential benefits of cooperative learning in EFL education (Azizinezhad et al., 2013). Brown (2001) similarly argued that group work can provide a more supportive affective climate within the language classroom.
Research specifically examining collaborative learning and speaking anxiety has also suggested that working collaboratively can help reduce anxiety among language learners, although outcomes depend on factors including the learning environment and how collaboration is organised (Ha, 2022; Doğan & Tuncer, 2023).
That qualification matters. Not every group activity automatically reduces anxiety. Poorly designed tasks can create their own pressures, particularly when learners feel unprepared, are dominated by stronger classmates or fear being judged by their peers.
But well-structured cooperative learning can give learners something extremely valuable: opportunities to try out language in smaller, more supportive interactions before being expected to perform publicly.
For many quieter or less confident learners, that difference can be significant.
More Chances to Negotiate Meaning
One of the most compelling arguments for cooperative learning in the EFL classroom concerns what happens when learners don't understand each other.
In a traditional whole-class interaction, a teacher must pitch their language at a level appropriate for everyone. But a class is rarely made up of learners with identical levels of proficiency, vocabulary, confidence and background knowledge.
Small-group interaction works differently.
If a learner doesn't understand their partner, they can ask them to repeat. The speaker might slow down, use simpler vocabulary, give an example, gesture or try saying the same thing in another way. The listener can ask questions and check their understanding.
In other words, they negotiate meaning.
Krashen (1985) emphasised the importance of comprehensible input in second-language acquisition. Long's Interaction Hypothesis went further, proposing that interaction and the negotiation of meaning can facilitate language acquisition by connecting input, learners' internal capacities and output in productive ways (Long, 1996).
Long and Porter (1985) had earlier argued that group work creates increased opportunities for learners to negotiate meaning and practise a broader variety of communicative functions than are normally available in teacher-fronted classrooms.
This is particularly valuable because language learning involves more than simply hearing English. Learners need input they can understand, but they also benefit from opportunities to produce language, notice gaps in what they can express and modify their output when communication breaks down.
Swain's Output Hypothesis highlighted the importance of language production in pushing learners to process language more deeply and recognise gaps between what they want to say and what they are currently able to express (Swain, 1985, 1995).
A cooperative classroom can create these opportunities naturally. A learner isn't necessarily speaking simply because the teacher has told them to practise a grammatical structure. They may genuinely need to explain, clarify, question or rephrase something so that another person can understand them.
That's communication with a purpose.
Both Strong and Weaker Benefit
Mixed-ability classes are a reality for many EFL teachers. The challenge is ensuring that stronger learners remain challenged without allowing them to dominate, while less proficient learners receive support without becoming passive.
Azizinezhad et al. (2013) examined the effects of cooperative learning on both high- and low-achieving EFL learners and reported positive effects on the oral performance of both groups. The authors concluded that cooperative activities could create learning opportunities that simultaneously engage learners' cognitive, linguistic and social abilities.
There is a logical reason why both groups can potentially benefit. Less proficient learners gain access to peer models, explanations and support. More proficient learners must organise their thoughts, explain ideas clearly, respond to questions and sometimes adjust their language to make themselves understood.
Research into cooperative learning has long associated carefully structured cooperation with benefits in academic achievement, attitudes and relationships between learners (Sharan, 1980; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Research in EFL contexts has also reported positive cognitive and affective outcomes, although researchers have noted that there is still a need for more investigation into how cooperative learning is actually implemented in real EFL classrooms (Tamimy et al., 2023).
This distinction is important because the benefits of mixed-ability grouping should never be treated as automatic.
Put four learners around a table, give them a worksheet and tell them to work together, and the strongest learner may simply do everything. Another student might copy the answers. Someone else may sit quietly and contribute almost nothing.
Azizinezhad et al. (2013) acknowledge precisely this limitation: without careful structuring, one person may do most or all of the work while others effectively become passengers.
And this brings us to one of the most important distinctions in cooperative learning.
Cooperative Learning, Not Groupwork
Group work and cooperative learning are not necessarily the same thing.
Students sitting together are a group. Students completing the same worksheet are a group. But neither situation guarantees cooperation, equal participation or individual learning.
Effective cooperative learning requires structure.
Johnson and Johnson's extensive work on cooperative learning identifies five fundamental elements: positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, appropriate interpersonal and small-group skills, and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1994).
Positive interdependence means learners understand that they need one another to succeed. Individual accountability means every learner remains responsible for their own participation and learning.
Without these elements, familiar problems quickly appear: one learner dominates, one does all the writing, another copies, and someone contributes very little.
As Johnson and Johnson (1994) argued, simply placing students in groups and telling them to cooperate does not guarantee effective cooperation. The social and interpersonal skills needed to work successfully with others may themselves need to be explicitly taught.
This is why structured cooperative learning can be so much more powerful than simply saying, "Get into groups and discuss."
A well-designed cooperative structure answers important questions in advance:
Who speaks first? Who speaks next? Does everyone have an equal opportunity to contribute? Is each learner individually responsible for something? Do learners need one another to complete the task? Can one confident learner take over?
The more clearly these questions are answered, the less the success of group work depends on confidence, personality or chance.
One of the defining characteristics of cooperative learning is the shift from learners as passive recipients of information to active participants in the learning process.
Azizinezhad et al. (2013) describe cooperative learning as a system in which students become active agents rather than passive receivers of knowledge. Their study reported improvements in oral communicative competence and motivation and recommended integrating cooperative learning into school English instruction.
This fits naturally with the demands of language learning.
We cannot learn to communicate simply by listening to someone else communicate. Learners need opportunities to retrieve words, construct sentences, misunderstand one another, clarify ideas, listen carefully and try again.
Long and Porter (1985) argued that group work provides learners with increased opportunities to practise a wider range of language functions and conversational-management skills. Swain's work on output similarly emphasises the potential importance of producing language, testing ideas about how the language works and noticing gaps in one's own knowledge (Swain, 1985, 1995).
Brown (2001) proposed four major advantages of group work in the English-language classroom: it generates interactive language, offers a supportive affective climate, promotes learner responsibility and autonomy, and represents a step towards individualised instruction.
Cooperative learning doesn't remove the teacher from the learning process. The teacher remains essential in selecting appropriate content, modelling language, designing tasks, monitoring interactions and providing feedback.
What changes is who does most of the active work during the lesson.
Instead of the teacher repeatedly asking, explaining and answering while learners watch, structured cooperative activities can place more of the speaking, thinking, questioning and explaining into the hands of the learners themselves.
Motivation Matters Too
Language learning is a long-term process, and motivation plays a significant role in whether learners engage with and persist in that process.
The original study by Azizinezhad et al. (2013) reported that cooperative learning significantly enhanced junior high school learners' motivation towards learning English. Other research has similarly investigated the potential of cooperative learning to influence foreign-language motivation positively by creating greater opportunities for active involvement, peer support and shared success.
This doesn't mean that putting learners into teams automatically makes them motivated. Motivation is complex and influenced by numerous personal, social and educational factors. But a classroom in which learners are actively participating, interacting with different classmates and experiencing meaningful success can provide conditions more conducive to engagement than one in which they spend most of the lesson passively listening.
This may be particularly important for learners who are reluctant to participate in whole-class interaction. Cooperative structures can distribute opportunities to contribute more widely, reducing dependence on the same few confident volunteers.
Cooperative Learning Is Not Magic
Cooperative learning has limitations, and ignoring them does little to help teachers use it effectively.
It can take time to teach learners how to work cooperatively. Poorly structured activities may allow stronger students to dominate. Group tasks can become noisy or unfocused. Some learners may initially resist increased responsibility or prefer working independently.
Azizinezhad et al. (2013) acknowledge several of these problems and argue that many limitations arise when cooperative learning is not carefully structured—particularly when positive interdependence and individual accountability are missing.
Research into actual EFL classroom implementation also suggests that there can be a significant gap between the principles of cooperative learning and what teachers are realistically able to implement in their own classrooms. Teachers may face challenges involving time, classroom management, curriculum demands, assessment systems and learners' previous educational experiences (Tamimy et al., 2023).
This is an important point because cooperative learning shouldn't be judged by what happens when students are simply put into groups without sufficient structure.
The solution isn't necessarily more group work.
It is better-structured interaction.
Start with One Structure
For teachers new to cooperative learning, there is no need to redesign every lesson or abandon whole-class teaching.
Start with one structure.
Use it regularly. Teach learners exactly how it works. Model the behaviour you expect. Keep the first attempts short. Reflect on what worked and what didn't.
A simple structure that gets every learner speaking for two minutes can be more valuable than a complicated 30-minute group task dominated by two confident students.
The fundamental challenge facing EFL teachers is unlikely to disappear: one teacher still has to create meaningful language-learning opportunities for an entire class of individual learners.
Cooperative learning offers a practical way to change that equation.
It can create more opportunities to speak, more opportunities to listen, more chances to negotiate meaning and more responsibility for individual participation. Research has associated cooperative learning with increased target-language use, communicative competence, motivation and positive cognitive and affective outcomes (Azizinezhad et al., 2013; Vellayan et al., 2021; Tamimy et al., 2023).
But its effectiveness depends on something more than arranging desks into groups.
The interaction itself needs to be structured.
Because the real goal isn't simply to get learners working together.
It's to get every learner actively involved in learning and using English.
For readers who would like to explore the study that inspired this article in more detail, the original paper by Azizinezhad, Hashemi and Darvishi (2013), Application of Cooperative Learning in EFL Classes to Enhance the Students' Language Learning, is available online here.
References:
Azizinezhad, M., Hashemi, M., & Darvishi, S. (2013). Application of cooperative learning in EFL classes to enhance the students' language learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 138–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.166
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall Regents.
Ha, T. Y. N. (2022). The effects of collaborative learning on young ESL learners' foreign language anxiety and enjoyment. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 2(4), 12–26.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207–228.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241–271.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.
Tamimy, M., Rashidi, N., & Koh, J. H. L. (2023). The use of cooperative learning in English as foreign language classes: Theoretical and practical considerations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103948.
Vellayan, G., Singh, C. K. S., Tek, O. E., Yunus, M. M., Singh, T. S. M., & Mulyadi, D. (2021). A review of studies on cooperative learning strategy to improve ESL students' speaking skills. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 63–68.