among students. Thismethod is different from traditional teaching methods, in which the teacher extendshis/her knowledge to the students, because in cooperative learning groups thestudents' resources, not the teacher's, are employed in accomplishing the task. Thestudents working in CI. groups develop educational objectives of cooperation,solidarity, responsibility and relationship that are effective also for a better quality oflearning.
……..
2.2 Methods of Correction
Researchers focus their attention on some specific methods of correctionteachers can use in their language classroom and on their effectiveness. The studieswhich have been conducted so far examined in particular the direct and indirectmethods of correction, but other methods of correction have also been taken intoconsideration. Most researchers focus their attention on two specific types of correction，directand indirect. The direct method is when the teacher corrects the errors and gives thecorrect answer, while the indirect method is when the teacher indicates the presenceof an error, but leaves correction to the students themselves.Most studies agree in the fact that indirect correction requires a greatercognitive engagement for the learners, more effort, knowledge，and reflection onlinguistic aspects that can promote language acquisition, as they have to spend timethinking about the error and about the grammar rules, while correcting the error.Hence it has been argued that indirect feedback is more helpful to student writersthan direct feedback is more helpful to student writers than direct feedback，whichdoesn't require all these skills.
……….
Chapter 3 Theoretical Foundations........29
3.lThe Social Interdependence Theory........ 29
3.2 The Cognitive Developmental Theory........ 31
Chapter 4 Experimental Design ........36
4.1 Research Hypothesis........ 36
4.2 Research Subjects........ 36
4.3 Research Instruments........ 37
4.4 Experimental Process........39
Chapter 5 Data Analysis and Discussion ........49
5.1 Results of the Data Analysis and Pre-test........49
5.2 Results of the Data Analysis and Post-test........50
5.3 Discussion of the Results of the Questionnaire........ 54
5.4 The Students' Communicative Exchanges within C.L. Groups........58
Chapter 5 Data Analysis and Discussion
5.1 Results of the Data Analysis and Pre-test
From March 2014 to July 2014，88 students were chosen from two classes as thepre-experiment objects. The pre-test was carried out at the beginning of theexperiment in March 2014, which contained listening comprehension,multiple-choice, cloze-test, filling in the blanks, reading comprehension，task readingand writing. The purpose of the pre-test was to see whether the students in sampleclass and the control class had the same English proficiency. The table above demonstrates that the mean of the sample class is almost sameas that of the control class，and the standard deviation is slightly lower than that ofthe control class. Besides, the p-value (p= 0.271>0.05) tells us all the students' scoresin the pre-test were quite similar, showing no remarkable difference between sampleand control class. That means the two classes are almost at the same level in Englishproficiency before the experiment. The table 5.1.2 shows the results of the grammar part in pre-test, indicates that thereis not any significant difference between the mean scores of the subjects in thecontrol class and the students in the sample class. According to the Mean scores, Std.Deviation of vocabulary test and the numbers
