cooperative learning, pair work, group work, accuracy, grammar skills


The article presents the results of the experimental enquiry aimed at studying the impact of cooperative learning on improving grammar skills. The research focused on two interaction modes – pair work and group work, which were compared in terms of their potential to address accuracy. The experiment was carried out in the first term of the 2020-2021 academic year (September-October). The participants included 23 third-year students of the Foreign Philology Faculty of H. S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University and constituted two academic groups, with one being offered pair-work activities and the other working in small groups. The experimental study comprised three phases: pre-experiment testing, teaching, post-experiment testing. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. The results demonstrate the validity of the assumption about the efficacy of pair work and group work in promoting accuracy, at the same time indicating no statistically significant difference between the two modes. The presented evidence suggests that grammar instruction can clearly benefit from incorporating both pair work and group work into classroom practices, however further research might be advisable to maximize the effectiveness of these interaction patterns by refining the procedure involved and improving students’ cooperative learning skills.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Nataliia Odehova, H. S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University

Associate Professor at the Department of English Phonetics and Grammar

Yuliia Nevska, H.S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University

Associate Professor at the Department of English Phonetics and Grammar

Viktoriia Perlova, H.S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University

Associate Professor at the Department of English Phonetics and Grammar


  1. Ammar, A., Lightbown P. M., & Spada N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: does it matter? Language Awareness, 19(2), 129–146.
    | |
  2. Baydikova, N. L. & Davidenko, Y. S. (2019). Teaching communicative grammar to technical university EFL learners. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 272(3), 1–6.
  3. Bespalko, V. P. (1989). Slagaemye pedagogicheskoj tehnologii [Components of pedagogical technology]. Moscow: Pedagogika.
  4. Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
  5. Byram, M. & Hu, A. (Eds.). (2013). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
  6. Celce-Murcia, M. (2013). Language teaching approaches: An overview. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (4thed., pp. 3–11). Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
  7. Dobao, A F. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497–520.
    | |
  8. Gilbert, J. (2021). Mentoring in a Cooperative Learning Classroom. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(2), 2, 1–7.
  9. Hampshire, S. & Anoro, M. (2004). The siren call of the task. ELT Journal, 58(1), 71–74.
  10. Herrmann, K. J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(3), 175–187.
    | |
  11. Hsiung, C. M. (2012). The effectiveness of cooperative learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 119–137.
  12. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning: The teacher’s role. In R. M. Gillies, A. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The Teacher's Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom (pp. 9–37). Springer.
  13. Kasumi, H. (2015). Communicative language teaching and its impact on students’ performance. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(1 S1), 155–161. doi:10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n1s1p155
  14. Lightbown, P., Halter, R., White, J., & Horst, M. (2002). Comprehension-based learning: The limits of “do it yourself”. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 427–464.
    | |
  15. Laal, M. & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490.
  16. Mayo, M. & Zeitler N. (2017). Lexical language-related episodes in pair and small group work. IJES, 17(1), 61–82.
  17. Namaziandost, E., Homayouni, M. & Rahmani, P. (2020). The impact of cooperative learning approach on the development of EFL learners' speaking fluency. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7, 1–13.
  18. Otienoh, R. O. (2015). Implementation of pair work and group work for creation of interaction opportunities for learners in large classes: The viability of the two strategies. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(10), 171–179.
  19. Rambe S. (2017). Communicative language teaching. English education, 5(2), 54–66.
  20. Raja, N. (2012). The effectiveness of group work and pair work for students of English at undergraduate level in public and private sector colleges. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(5), 155–163. Retrieved from
  21. Rakab, M. B. (2016). Pair work and group work activities: Myth or reality? International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(6), 82–100.
  22. Renou, J. (2001). An examination of the relationship between metalinguistic awareness and second-language proficiency of adult learners of French. Language Awareness, 10(4), 248–267.
  23. Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (3d ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  24. Sidorenko, E. V. (2000). Metody matematicheskoj obrabotki v psikhologii. [Methods of mathematical treatment in psychology]. SPb: Rech.
  25. Simard, D. & Wong, W. (2004). Language awareness and its multiple possibilities for the L2 classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 96–110.
  26. Swain, M. & Lapkin, Sh. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 99–118). Longman.
  27. Teng, M. F. (2017). The effectiveness of group, pair and individual output tasks on learning phrasal verbs. The Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 187–200.
  28. Yavuz, O., Arslan, A. (2018). Cooperative Learning in Acquisition of the English Language Skills. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 591–600.
  29. Zarrabi, F. (2016). A study on cooperative language learning: the impact of CLL approach on English language proficiency of EFL learners. European Journal of Education Studies, 1(2), 119–132.




How to Cite

Odehova, N., Nevska, Y. ., & Perlova, V. (2022). THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN DEVELOPING GRAMMAR SKILLS. Advanced Education, 9(20), 25–34.