INTRODUCTION Learning in the classroom is influenced by at least two significant factors: cognitive and affective domain. The cognitive domain refers to students' ability to process information and knowledge using their brains, while the affective domain refers to the more personal or individual factors that influence learning progress, such as curiosity, motivation, and selfconfidence (Brown, 2007). Many subjects content such as Science involves a range of actives that include discussion and presentation. In this case, the characteristics of students are highly operative, proactive and high self-confidence is required to fulfil the process and activities in the class. According to (Goel and Aggarwal, 2012), confident people are socially capable, emotionally mature, have ample intellect, achievement, happiness, are firm, ambitious, autonomous, confident, continuously going, and have leadership qualities. It can be noted that the presence of self-confidence in students is very necessary because it helps students to trust in their skills, not easily give up in the face of any challenge and be able to fulfil all tasks given individually and with optimum performance. As a result, it is important to instil self-confidence in students. Thus, according to (Scrivasta, 2013), confidence is one of the attitudes exhibited by any person who is optimistic about himself and his situation. Confidence is a mental mindset that trusts or relies on oneself, as well as belief in oneself and one's abilities. Therefore, this justifies the need to improve the student's confidence. Among the solutions proposed by researchers is the implementation of a collaborative learning model. Therefore, Collaborative learning (CL), According to (Laal and Laal, 2012), is a type of learning that includes grouping students to solve a challenge, task, or create a product together. With minimum guidance from the instructor, students in the group decide and learn for themselves how they can overcome a challenge, assignment, or product. As a result, the freedom provided by collaborative learning encourages students to effectively engage in shared activities. This can help students appreciate the topics they are studying and will help students gain self-confidence. Also, (Goodsell and Smith and Macgregor, 1992) stated that CL could improve students' emphasis on expressing ideas in the classroom. When they answer questions, listen closely, and respond to questions from other peers, they gain confidence and experience in sharing ideas they have learned. They improve their ability to concentrate, maintain an idea, form relationships with certain students, and learn how to respectfully refuse or consider the views of others. Considering the above claims about the collaborative learning model, this research aims to unfold the features of collaborative learning that can improve students' confidence. AIMS/RESEARCH QUESTIONS The research aim is to have an insight into the features of collaborative learning that improve students' confidence, through the following research questions. 1.what is collaborative learning and what is the theoretical foundation? 2. what are the features of collaborative learning that improves student’s self-confidence and how can it be measured? 3. what are the challenges that students face with collaborative learning? METHODOLOGY This research is based on a systematic review, that is, the research findings will be identified based on the existing documents of online resources: articles, e-books, and journals and empirical research reports. The databases used in finding relevant information includes Google scholar, the web of science, and science direct. The information gathered will then be synthesized to draw the findings and conclusion of the study. DISCUSSION AND OUTCOMES Concept of collaborative learning (CL) CL began to interest American college teachers widely only in the 1980s. The term was coined, and the basic idea first developed in the 1950s and 1960s by a group of British secondary school teachers. M. L. J. Abercrombie's Anatomy of Judgment suggested that diagnosis is better learned in small groups of students arriving at diagnoses collaboratively than it is learned by students individually (Bruffee, 1984). Therefore, CL is based on the idea that knowledge can be created within a population by leveraging one another's resources and skills. These include both face-to-face and computer-based discussions. It is frequently demonstrated when groups of students join forces to seek understanding, meaning, or solutions, or to create an artefact or product of their learning (Dillenbourg, 1999), (Chiu, 2000), (Chiu, 2008) and (Chen and Chiu, 2008). Similarly, (Gokhale, 1995), defines CL as an instructional approach in which learners of varying skill levels interact in small groups to achieve a shared objective. The students are accountable for each other's learning as well as their own. As a result, the achievement of one learner makes all students succeed. However, (Dillenbourg, 1999), argues that CL is neither a 'mechanism' nor a 'method' because the aforementioned meanings treat CL as either pedagogical or psychological; pedagogical being prescriptive: one asks two or more individuals to collaborate because it is believed that they can learn more effectively as a result. However, Because of the poor predictability of some forms of experiences, collaborative learning is not a method. The 'collaborative' condition is a form of a social contract that occurs between peers or between peers and the teacher. This contract defines the circumstances in which such forms of interaction can occur. For example, the 'collaboration' contract assumes that all learners contribute to the solution, but this is not always the case. The psychological being descriptive: two or more individuals have learned, and teamwork is regarded as the process that induces learning. Nonetheless, Individuals do not learn because they are peers, but rather because of certain behaviours that trigger learning, among which is individual cognition, which is not suppressed in peer interaction, Nevertheless, the relationship creates additional activities (explanation, conflict, mutual resolution) that result in additional cognitive processes (knowledge elicitation, internalisation and reduced cognitive load). However, there is no certainty that these structures will be present in all collaborative interactions. The confusion between descriptive and prescriptive views lead to frequent overstatements regarding the effectiveness of CL. Therefore, the terms 'collaborative learning' characterises a situation in which specific types of interaction among people are supposed to occur, triggering learning processes, but there is no certainty that the expected interactions will occur. As a result, one overarching challenge is to devise methods to maximise the likelihood of certain modes of contact occurring. These include setting up initial conditions, over-specifying the 'collaboration' with scenarios based on roles, scaffolding productive interactions by encompassing interaction rules in the medium, and monitoring and regulating the interactions. Furthermore, collaborative learning reimagines the conventional student-teacher partnership in the classroom, sparking debate over whether this model is more beneficial or harmful(Chiu, 2004), (Haring-Smith, 1993). According to Bruffee 1996, cited in (Laal and Laal, 2012)while CL shares some characteristics of conventional classroom teaching, such as teachers having more knowledge than the students, notetaking and listening, collaboration means that both the student and the tutor contribute to and benefit from the tutoring session. There is no requirement in the conventional classroom for a teacher to learn from his students. However, this discussion does not clarify how CL functions in practice. Although CL has been used in a variety of ways across different areas and fields, there is no unique definition of the term (Jenni and Mauriel, 2004). However, there are five fundamental elements of CL, according to (Johnson et al., 1990). CL is more than just a word for students who work in a group, a learning exercise is only called CL if the following elements are present: Positive interdependence is perceived; team members are obligated to rely on one another to accomplish the target. If any team members refuse to fulfil their tasks, everyone bears the consequences. Members must assume that they are tied to others in such a manner that they can all achieve together. Considerable interaction: participants support and facilitate one another in their learning. They do this by discussing what they know and by collecting and transmitting the information. Members of the group must communicate with one another, offering input, questioning one another's assumptions and logic, and, perhaps most importantly, educating and motivating one another. Individual accountability and personal responsibility; All students in a group are held responsible for doing their equal share of the job and knowledge of all subject matter. Social skills: Students are facilitated and assisted in developing and practising trust-building, teamwork, decision-making, negotiation, and dispute resolution skills. Group self-evaluating: Team participants set group goals, evaluate what they are doing well as a team regularly, and discuss improvements they can make to work more efficiently in the future. Therefore, the learning process must incorporate these components which require participants working in groups to reach a shared aim to be considered as a CL. Hence, CL, in its broadest sense, transforms classroom learning by transforming students from passive receivers of information provided by an experienced teacher to involved participants in the creation of knowledge. This style of learning can take many forms and is known by many different names, including cooperative and collaborative learning. Although cooperative and collaborative learning comes from separate backgrounds, they also offer organised group activities for students while also promoting the social skills required to work together. They vary in terms of the amount of structure offered for learners as well as the amount of constructed knowledge presented (Goodsell and Smith and Macgregor, 1992). Theoretical Foundation CL is based on Lev Vygotsky's learning principle in his sociocultural theory known as the zone of proximal growth. There are typically activities that learners can and cannot complete. Between these two areas is the zone of proximal growth, which is a category of items that a learner can learn but only with the assistance of others. The zone of proximal development shows what set of skills a learner possesses and is in the process of maturing. In his concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), Vygotsky stressed the importance of learning through contact and interactions with others rather than solely through independent work (Doolittle, 1997). This has paved the way for community learning principles, one of which is collaboration. According to this concept, a person has two developmental stages. The actual improvement refers to mental processes that have already been attained. At this step, the individual operates individually and without assistance. The possible stage of growth, on the other hand, refers to the functions that the person is unable to perform individually. When the individual collaborates alongside more competent colleagues, the individual's future level of growth increases. In other words, with the assistance of a specialist, the person may do more, which is referred to as potential growth. As a result, the ZPD principle emphasises the interdependence of persons and the social process in co-constructing knowledge in a social context (Warschauer, 1997)Thus, one’s capacity to execute cognitive functions independently is predicated on previous social processes, since this is known as a fundamental tenet of sociocultural, according to which learning is located within a given context and is influenced by the social and cultural experiences one has participated in (Oxford, 1997). However, one of the most crucial aspects of Vygotsky theory ZPD can be criticized for an unclear definition as the concept has been treated as a 'generalized term' under which many models of cognitive development could encompass. (Chaiklin, 2003), argues that the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is ambiguous because it does not allow for a clear view of a child's learning needs, current skill level, or motivating factors. The ZPD also does not clarify the implementation mechanism or how development happens. The concept of self-confidence and features of collaborative learning that improve students’ confidence. Self-confidence An increasing body of research indicates that one's sense of competence or self-confidence is the primary mediating construct of achievement goals ((Bandura, 1977, p. 199), (Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer, 1993), (Harter, 1978),(Kuhl, 1992) and (Nicholls, 1984). As per Ericsson and his colleagues, the main factor in the acquisition of expert performance is the confidence and motivation to maintain active learning for at least ten years. However, the term has been used interchangeably with other terms such as, “self-efficacy”, “perceived skill”, “perceived competence” to define a person’s perceived capacity to achieve a certain degree of success. (Bandura, 1977) defines “self-efficacy” as the confidence in one’s ability to complete a given task effectively. For instance, solving a math problem, to achieve a specific result (e.g., self-satisfaction or instructor recognition) and, therefore, may be called situationally specific. Self-efficacy is not dealing with a person's abilities, but rather with judgments on what the individual can do with those skills (Bandura, 1986). Bandura makes a distinction between "selfefficacy" and "self-confidence": Self-confidence, therefore, refers to the firmness or power of one's conviction but does not determine its direction; self-efficacy means that an aim has been defined. Hence, Self-confidence is a belief in one's skills, as well as an emotional mindset of believing or relying on oneself. People who have self-confidence have realistic expectations. Selfconfident people believe in their talents, have a general sense of power over their lives, and believe that they will be able to do what they want, intend, and hope within reason. However, being self-confident does not denote being able to do everything, but rather being relaxed with uncertainty and being able to face challenges without knowing the outcome. Also, Selfconfidence is not always a universal trait that spread through all facets of a person's existence. Individuals often feel very secure in certain aspects of their lives, such as academia and sports, while lacking confidence in others, such as personal image and social relationships (Tripathy and Srivastava, 2012). Students’ confidence and its measures Students’ confidence can be described as the degree to which students vary in their ‘strong conviction, firm trust, or sure expectation' of what the school has to offer. As a result, academic confidence is suggested as a moderating variable between an individual's innate talents, learning styles, and the resources provided by the academic atmosphere. To analyse this further, an instrument to measure this particular construct had to be created. Since the principle of academic confidence is logically based on Bandura's work on selfefficacy, the criteria for assessing self-efficacy are believed to be similarly valid in measuring academic confidence (Sander and Sanders, 2003). Academic confidence, like its parent principle, ‘self-efficacy’ can derive from the same four sources: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. The four factors which serve as determinants of one’s level of confidence as stated above will be discussed below. 1.Mastery Experience: Performance accomplishments are supposed to provide the most dependable confidence measure. One's mastery experiences affect self-confidence beliefs through cognitive processing. If one has repeatedly viewed these experiences as successes, self-confidence will increase and vice-versa. The influence that performance experiences have on perceived self-confidence also depends on the perceived difficulty of the task, the effort expended, the amount of guidance received, and one's understanding of a specific "ability" as a capability that can be learned rather than an innate talent (Bandura, 1986, p. 198). Bandura argues that performance accomplishments on challenging tasks, tasks attempted individually, and tasks completed early in learning with only intermittent errors provide a higher confidence value than simple tasks, tasks completed with external aids, or tasks in which repetitive failures are encountered early in the learning process with little evidence of improvement. 2. Vicarious Experience: A social comparison process with others may also generate confidence details (Festinger, 1954). Although Vicarious measures of confidence are considered to be less effective than that of performance achievements in general for example, the less familiar individuals are with success experiences, the more they may depend on others to assess their skills. The presumed similarity to a model in terms of success or personal characteristics has been shown to increase the impact of modelling procedures on one's selfconfidence (George, Feltz and Chase, 1992) and (Gould and Weiss, 1981) . 3.Verbal Persuasion: Teachers, administrators, coaches, guardians, and peers all use motivational strategies. Ericsson and his colleagues place a high value on parents' and teachers' aspirations and verbal persuasions that a child is "talented" as a significant influence on the child's self-confidence, inspiration, and presumed security "against concerns regarding potential achievement during the ups and downs of prolonged learning" (Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer, 1993). Examples of persuasive strategies include evaluative feedback, others' persuasion, self-talk, visualisation, and other cognitive techniques. Furthermore, persuasive strategies are considered to be more successful where the heightened assessment is marginally beyond what the individual can do but yet within reasonable limits, so people are usually conscious that better performances can be achieved by extra effort (Bandura, 1986). The strength of a persuader's persuasive effect on self-confidence has also been speculated to be based on the persuader's reputation, integrity, knowledge, and trustworthiness. 4.Psychological states: A person's physiological state may also determine one’s confidence. Such information is provided through cognitive assessment, for instance, associating physiological arousal with anxiety and self-doubt, or with being excited and ready for performance (Bandura, 1986). (Eden, 1990) also argues that work-related tension can affect confidence decisions regarding one's ability on the job. (Bandura, 1986) adds that physiological sources of self-confidence judgement are not limited to autonomic arousal. People use their health, exhaustion, and pain thresholds in strength and endurance exercises as measures of their physical inefficacy (Feltz and Riessinger, 1990) and (Taylor et al., 1985). However, Mastery Experience, Vicarious Experience, verbal persuasion and psychological states do not entirely contribute to one's confidence at the same level, rather some are more influential than others. Nonetheless, it is still unclear how these diverse measures are weighted and analysed to make judgments given different activities, circumstances, and human abilities. The results of these decisions, on the other hand, are speculated to decide people's levels of motivation, as demonstrated in the tasks they take on, the commitment they put forward in the activity, and their perseverance in the face of adversity (Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance, 1994) On the other hand, (White, 2009) pointed out three confidence measures in his concept analysis: belief in positive achievements, persistence, and self-awareness. White called them the attributes of self-confidence and they are assumed to be the basis for the measurement of self-confidence. In much empirical research, a questionnaire/interview is usually constructed seeking information from the respondents reflecting those three attributes of self-confidence. For example, “(Nokelainen, Tirri and Merenti-Välimäki, 2007) utilized the Self-Confidence Attitude Attribute Scale to measure confidence in gifted math students. This 18-item scale addresses each of the three attributes of self-confidence. For instance, the item “you can be successful in anything if you work hard enough at it” reinforces the belief in the positive achievements attribute. “My achievements would have been better if I tried harder” examines the persistence attribute. Lastly, the item “self-discipline is the key to school success” exemplifies the defining attribute called self-awareness. Students rated each item on a six-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) (Nokelainen, Tirri and MerentiValimaki, 2007, p. 71).” Therefore, it could be argued that the four confidence measures of bandura will rather be defined as what White (2009) referred to as ‘antecedents’ of self-confidence. These are incidence that precedes confidence, in other words, they bring about confidence rather than an instrument for the measurement of confidence. The antecedents as stated by White include Knowledge, support, experience, gearing-up and success. These five aspects that White called the antecedent of confidence are set to be overlapping with Bandura’s measures. For instance, success refers to mastery experience of bandura, experience goes with vicarious experience, and support can fall under verbal persuasion. Because as much as they are very important in the determination of one’s confidence, they are well hidden from an external observer and it is unclear how to measure them. Hence for CL to improve student’s confidence, some or all of the antecedents of confidence should be incorporated within the learning context. The features of CL that were said to enhance confidence are discussed below. Features of collaborative learning that improve students’ self-confidence. A. Peer feedback One of the elements of CL is social interaction which includes communication between students as well as the teacher, this is an aspect of CL that enhance student’s confidence as the students receive feedback from their colleagues. This could be in the form of verbal persuasion and support from peers which are very essential in building confidence. As reported by (Yasmin and Naseem, 2019) Participants assumed that CL can improve learners' confidence. Learners get their proposals accepted by ‘peer feedback’ which has been seen to be very effective in the learner confidence, which leads to them taking the initiative on their own later on. Involving students in small groups was considered helpful, especially for shy students who had previously been found unable to communicate. B. Create and share The idea of knowledge co-construction among learners in CL is the key. Therefore, when the students gather information or produce an artefact, they are expected to share their ideas and experience with peers, this can significantly have a positive impact on their confidence as it imposes on them to speak to a group of people. This can make them believe in positive achievement which is one of the key attributes of confidence as identified by white (2009). As (Nurhayati, Rosmaiyadi and Buyung, 2017) stated: a collaborative learning model will boost students' self-confidence. The stage of 'Create and Share' in the collaborative learning model will increase student self-confidence. Since students are expected to share their views and develop new ideas or information from the discussions they have had at a time. C. Active participation In the CL model the students are actively involved and responsible for their learning. They perform a range of activities; discussion, presentation, demonstration and many more among peers, therefore, it could be hypothesised that this range of activities can reduce self-doubt and learning anxiety which can pave the way to greater confidence. This is related to persistence one of white’s attribute of self-confidence This in line with the Statement of (Nurhayati, Rosmaiyadi and Buyung, 2017) they speculate that Students are required to be active participants in the learning process, especially in interpreting the concepts described by teachers, this will eventually boost students' self-confidence. (Lin, 2015) Also report that many students reported an increased self-confidence after the implementation of a CL model in an English class as it provides more opportunities for them to speak among peers making them less nervous. Challenges of collaborative learning faced by students in the classroom Even though Collaborative learning has a tremendous capacity for strengthening student learning and revitalising college learning. As it is a versatile and adaptable approach that can be applied to many disciplines. Nonetheless, teachers and students who use collaborative learning approaches are faced with some challenges at certain stages. They are eventually confronted with profound questions about the aims of their classes, the roles and responsibilities of teachers and students, the connection between instructional type and material, and the nature of the knowledge itself (Smith and Macgregor, 1992). However, this study will consider some challenges faced by students. Among the major problems faced by students is a lack of collaborative skills. (Wubbels and Janssen, 2018), reveals that, when they first began working in groups, the students indicate that they had no idea how to communicate efficiently. They were unable to work productively in groups due to a lack of communication skills such as embracing conflicting views, offering elaborate arguments, providing and getting support, and negotiation. This also conforms with the findings of (Li and Campbell, 2008), they point out that most of the students lack the requisite training in group communication skills, interpersonal communication skills, group standards, problem-solving, time management, and dealing with cultural, religious, language skills, faiths, ages, and desires diversity. Furthermore, (Ross, 2008) found that the consistency of students' interpretations in group engagement in primary and secondary classrooms is often below a level that allows for co-construction of knowledge. Likewise, help-seekers could be unable to devise successful demands for assistance. As a result, all help-givers and help-seekers will be unable to effectively collaborate. Another perceived problem of CL is the issue of free riding. Most collaborative learning has a downside of unequal participation by students, as there is a high tendency of some students being dominant while others contribute very little or nothing in completing the group task. Although the lack of participation by some members can be either due to intentional withholding of responsibility or due to rejection by peers, this can lead to negative collaborative experience and learning behaviours for all group members. For instance, high contributing members by not offer the necessary help to peers rather focusing on the completion of the task and low contributing students struggling to catch up (Wubbels and Janssen, 2018). Correspondingly,(Klein and Mulvey, 1998) and (Pfaff and Huddleston, 2003) also noted that free-riding can be a corrosive factor in collaborative projects. Freeriding erodes the faith, enthusiasm, morale, and faith of other team members. It hinders the achievement of team goals, creates tensions and distrust, erodes team morale, discourages other team members from participating, and reduces team success. All these can hinder the achievement of the promising benefits of CL. Ultimately, the findings have unfolded the concept of CL by critically analysing different views of the concept, a theory associated with the concept was also analysed. Nonetheless, the sociocultural theory of Vygotsky was examined from one perspective, the ZPD, other aspects of the theory like the social and cultural aspect were not included. The Confidence measures were analysed from two perspectives, Although, the analysis has presented the two-point of views of the confidence measures, more could have been done to explain explicitly the second Krista’s point of view and a clearer connection between the features of CL and the measured could have been established. REFLECTION The first drawback is the lack of extensive screening of the materials used in the analysis since it is not a peer-reviewed study. As a result, the results may be subject to some irresistible prejudice as a result of the lack of peer criticism of both the materials and the synthesis of the materials used in the study, which may influence the research findings. Second, the research approach does not require direct interaction between the researcher and the primary data (participants). As a result, the study focuses solely on data reported by other researchers, which could result in the absence of some facts that this research might consider worthy of consideration. For instance, the study may ascertain CL features that improve students' confidence by assessing the antecedents of self-confidence within CL activities to come up with a clearer view of how the model improves confidence. Therefore, this research is worth replicating in further studies in empirical research by assessing student’s confidence through a specific parameter with CL activities. Following that, the study has been constrained by insufficient time and word count limit. The study was carried out over 10 weeks. This can affect the findings of the research because more sources would have been referred to and more critical analysis might have been done. For, example the challenges of CL faced by students and teachers were only discussed superficially, also only one theory was explored in the research due to time constraint and word count limit. Nevertheless, the study design has facilitated the achievement of the stated aims, specifically, the features of CL that improve student’s confidence, through a variety of sources of both empirical research data, journal articles and e-books. This allows quick access to more information at a time that could be difficult to gather in a single empirical research. CONCLUSION Overall, the research has explored the concept of CL starting from its origin, elements of CL and one theory associated with it. The concept of self-confidence was highlighted, with more focus on student’s confidence and its’ measures. Bandura’s confidence measures and White’s attributes of confidence as the basis for measurement of confidence were critically analysed. Specifically, examine were the features of CL that improve student’s confidence. Moving forward, the study considered some challenges faced by students with the CL model which could impede the reassuring benefits of CL if not dealt with. REFERENCE Bandura (1986) ‘Social foundations of thought and action’, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Bandura, A. (1977) ‘Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change’, Psychological Review, 84(2), pp. 191–215. Brown, H. D. (2007) Principles of language learning and teaching. 5th ed. White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman. Bruffee, K. A. (1984) ‘Collaborative Learning and the “Conversation of Mankind”’, College English, 46(7), pp. 635–652. Chaiklin (2003) Criticisms of the Vygotsky Approach, Vygotsky Learning Conference. (Accessed: 10 April 2021). Chen, G. and Chiu, M. M. (2008) ‘Online discussion processes: Effects of earlier messages’ evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages’, Computers & Education, 50(3), pp. 678–692. Chiu, M. M. (2000) ‘Group Problem-Solving Processes: Social Interactions and Individual Actions’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(1), pp. 26–49. Chiu, M. M. (2004) ‘Adapting Teacher Interventions to Student Needs During Cooperative Learning: How to Improve Student Problem Solving and Time On-Task’, American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), pp. 365–399. Chiu, M. M. (2008) ‘Creating new ideas during argumentation’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, pp. 383–402. Dillenbourg, P. (1999) Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Elsevier Science, Inc. Doolittle, P. E. (1997) ‘Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development as a Theoretical Foundation for Cooperative Learning’, Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 8(1), pp. 83–103. Eden, D. (1990) ‘Pygmalion in management Lexington’, MA: Lexington Books. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T. and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) ‘The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance’, Psychological Review, 100(3), pp. 363–406. Feltz, D. L. and Riessinger, C. A. (1990) ‘Effects of In Vivo Emotive Imagery and Performance Feedback on Self-Efficacy and Muscular Endurance’, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(2), pp. 132–143. Festinger, L. (1954) ‘(1954b). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140’. George, T. R., Feltz, D. L. and Chase, M. A. (1992) ‘Effects of Model Similarity on SelfEfficacy and Muscular Endurance: A Second Look’, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(3), pp. 237–248. Goel, D. M. and Aggarwal, P. (2012) ‘A Comparative Study of Self Confidence of’, 2(3), p. 10. Gokhale, A. A. (1995) ‘Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking’, Journal of Technology Education, 7(1). Goodsell, A. S. and Smith and Macgregor (1992) ‘Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education’. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED357705 (Accessed: 24 March 2021). Gould, D. and Weiss, M. (1981) ‘The Effects of Model Similarity and Model Talk on Selfefficacy and Muscular Endurance’, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(1), pp. 17– 29. Haring-Smith, T. (1993) Learning together: An introduction to collaborative learning. HarperCollins College Publ. Harter, S. (1978) ‘Effectance Motivation Reconsidered. Toward a Developmental Model’, Human Development, 21(1), pp. 34–64. Jenni, R. W. and Mauriel, J. (2004) ‘Cooperation and collaboration: reality or rhetoric?’, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(2), pp. 181–195. Johnson, D. W. et al. (1990) ‘Impact of Group Processing on Achievement in Cooperative Groups’, The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4), pp. 507–516. Julius Kuhl (1992) ‘A Theory of Self-regulation: Action versus State Orientation, Selfdiscrimination, and Some Applications’, Applied Psychology, 41(2), pp. 97–129. Klein and Mulvey (1998) The Impact of Perceived Loafing and Collective Efficacy on Group Goal Processes and Group Performance (Accessed: 4 April 2021). Kuhl, J. (1992) ‘A Theory of Self-regulation: Action versus State Orientation, Selfdiscrimination, and Some Applications’, Applied Psychology, 41(2), pp. 97–129. Laal, Marjan and Laal, Mozhgan (2012) ‘Collaborative learning: what is it?’, ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 31, pp. 491–495. Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance (1994). Washington, DC, US: National Academy Press (Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance), pp. x, 395. Li, M. and Campbell, J. (2008) ‘Asian students’ perceptions of group work and group assignments in a New Zealand tertiary institution’, Intercultural Education, 19(3), pp. 203– 216. Lin, L. (2015) Investigating Chinese HE EFL Classrooms. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Nicholls, J. G. (1984) ‘Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance’, Psychological Review, 91(3), pp. 328–346. Nokelainen, P., Tirri, K. and Merenti-Välimäki, H.-L. (2007) ‘Investigating the Influence of Attribution Styles on the Development of Mathematical Talent’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), pp. 64–81. Nurhayati, N., Rosmaiyadi, R. and Buyung, B. (2017) ‘EFFORTS TO IMPROVE STUDENT’S SELF CONFIDENCE USING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING MODEL’, JPMI (Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Indonesia), 2(2), p. 57. Oxford, R. L. (1997) Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction: Three Communicative Strands in the Language Classroom (Accessed: 23 March 2021). Pfaff, E. and Huddleston, P. (2003) ‘Does It Matter if I Hate Teamwork? What Impacts Student Attitudes toward Teamwork’, Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), pp. 37–45. Ross, J. A. (2008) Explanation Giving and Receiving in Cooperative Learning Groups | (Accessed: 4 April 2021). Sander, P. and Sanders, L. (2003) ‘Measuring confidence in academic study: A summary report’, Electronic Journal of research in Educational Psychology and Psychopedagogy, 1, pp. 1–17. Scrivasta (2013) EBSCOhost | 89906741 | To Study the Effect of Academic Achievement on the Level of Self Confidence. (Accessed: 22 March 2021). Smith and Macgregor (1992) ‘Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education’. (Accessed: 26 March 2021). Taylor, C. et al. (1985) ‘Raising spouse’s and patient’s perception of his cardiac capabilities after clinically uncomplicated myocardial infarction’, American Journal of Cardiology, 55, pp. 635–638. Tripathy, D. M. and Srivastava, S. K. (2012) To Study the Effect of Academic Achievement on the Level of Self – confidence. (Accessed: 24 March 2021). Warschauer, M. (1997) Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice | (Accessed: 23 March 2021). White, K. A. (2009) ‘Self-Confidence: A Concept Analysis’, Nursing Forum, 44(2), pp. 103– 114. Wubbels and Janssen (2018) Collaborative learning practices: teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration (Accessed: 4 April 2021). Yasmin, M. and Naseem, F. (2019) ‘Collaborative Learning and Learner Autonomy: Beliefs, Practices and Prospects in Pakistani Engineering Universities’, IEEE Access, 7, pp. 71493– 71499. APPENDIX (Research proposal) What is your area of research? Features of collaborative learning that improves students' self-confidence. Why is it important Learners' confidence has received the researcher's attention quite recently, it has become an influential concept in a variety of learning process. Confidence is viewed as perhaps the most powerful inspirations and controllers of conduct in individuals' regular day to day existence, Bandura 1986 cited in (Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance, 1994). Some studies related to self-confidence (Fatma, 2015) in India (Sar,Avcu and Isiklar, 2010) in turkey, (Verma and Kumari, 2016) in Ludhiana (Punjab) has considered confidence as a key factor for enhancing students learning and efforts are being made to develop student’s self-confidence in learning. A research carried out by (Nurhayati, Rosmaiyadi and Buyung, 2017) claims that collaborative learning is an effective way of enhancing student’s confidence. Therefore, to maximize students' achievement there is a need for a sufficient level of selfconfidence and finding ways of improving it became paramount, which is the focus of this study. How can you justify this topic of research? The justification for my study is to gain a clear insight into how collaborative learning can improve students' confidence in learning. Research conducted by (Yasmin and Naseem, 2019), (Laal and Ghodsi, 2012), (Rao, 2019) and many other studies reveal the effectiveness of collaborative learning among which is building students' confidence. However not many pieces of research have focused on the practical aspects of collaborative learning that improves students' confidence, therefore this research seeks to investigate the specific aspect of collaborative learning that improves students' confidence. The term collaborative learning (CL) has been used in a variety of ways across different areas and fields, there is no unique definition of the term (Jenni and Mauriel, 2004) While there is no concession to what CL is, there are some concealed features that will be perceived. Participation has become a twenty-first-century design. The need in the public eye to think and collaborate on issues of essential concern has extended (Austin, 2000), moving the highlight from particular undertakings to pack work, from self-governance to neighbourhood (Leonard and Leonard, 2001). Therefore, CL is an instructional way to deal with educating and discovering that includes gatherings of students cooperating to address an issue, total an undertaking, or make an item. In the CL climate, the students are tested both socially and emotionally as they tune in to alternate points of view and are needed to convey and shield their thoughts. In this manner, the students start to make their remarkable reasoning systems and not depend exclusively on a specialist's or a book's structure. In a CL setting, students have the chance to chat with their colleagues, present and shield thoughts, trade different convictions, question other conceptual frameworks, and are actively involved in the learning process, Scrinivas (2011) cited in (Laal and Laal, 2012). Similarly, collaborative learning refers to an atmosphere of learning and it allows learners to engage in a common task where each individual depends on and is accountable to each other these includes; physical conversations (Chiu, 2008) and computer discussions (online forums, chat rooms, etc.).(Chen and Chiu, 2008) The aspect of CL that might enhance student’s confidence is the idea of "generate and share" Because at this stage students are required to express their beliefs and generate new knowledge of the discussion, they made. Self-confidence on the other hand has been defined as a belief or the perception that each person has of himself, it is a dimension of the self-representation of each person that will occur in several performance measures and is linked with the individual's understanding of his/her capacity in a particular domain, context or circumstance. This being so, it will be referenced in both internal and external factors (Marsh et al., 2006). Similarly, according to (Perkins, 2018), self-confidence is linked to success, school achievement, conciliation and the well-being of individuals, among other things, and the three factors that can affect the level of self-confidence of any person. What are your aims? What do you hope to learn by carrying out this study? The main aim of this research is to increase the clarity of the features of collaborative learning that will help to improve student’s confidence in learning through the following objectives: 1.To explore the concept of collaborative learning and its theoretical foundation. 2. To investigate the collaborative learning features that improve confidence and its measures. 3.To examine the challenges faced by students with collaborative learning. What are the key issues involved? 1.Collaborative learning 2.students' self-confidence. Methodological Approach: How did you identify the literature, research to inform your study? This research will be a systematic review i.e., literature will be identified based on the existing documents of online resources: articles, e-books, and journals. The databases used in finding relevant information includes Google scholar, the web of science, and science direct. The information gathered will then be synthesized to draw the findings and conclusion of the study. What might be the limitations of your study? 1.The first limitation is that confidence is a psychological factor that can be affected by both internal and external factors and these factors have not been included in the research. 2. Secondly, the research is secondary research therefore, the reliability and validity of some sources are uncertain as criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies will not be adopted since it is not a peer-review, this can interfere with the quality of the findings and conclusion of the study. 3.The time constrain is also a limitation to this study. REFERENCES Austin, J. E. (2000) ‘Principles for partnership’, Leader to Leader, 18(2), pp. 44–50. Chen, G. and Chiu, M. M. (2008) ‘Online discussion processes: Effects of earlier messages’ evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages’, Computers & Education, 50(3), pp. 678–692. Chiu, M. M. (2008) ‘Creating new ideas during argumentation’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, pp. 383–402. Fatma, F. (2015) ‘A study of self-confidence of adolescents in relation to their gender, locality and academic achievement’, IJAR, 1(12), pp. 541–544. Jenni, R. W. and Mauriel, J. (2004) ‘Cooperation and collaboration: reality or rhetoric?’, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(2), pp. 181–195. Laal, M. and Ghodsi, S. M. (2012) ‘Benefits of collaborative learning’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, pp. 486–490. Laal, Marjan and Laal, Mozhgan (2012) ‘Collaborative learning: what is it?’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, pp. 491–495. Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance (1994). Washington, DC, US: National Academy Press (Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance), pp. x, 395. Leonard, P. E. and Leonard, L. J. (2001) ‘The collaborative prescription: remedy or reverie?’, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), pp. 383–399. Marsh, H. W. et al. (2006) ‘Integration of Multidimensional Self-Concept and Core Personality Constructs: Construct Validation and Relations to Well-Being and Achievement’, Journal of Personality, 74(2), pp. 403–456. Nurhayati, N., Rosmaiyadi, R. and Buyung, B. (2017) ‘EFFORTS TO IMPROVE STUDENT’S SELF CONFIDENCE USING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING MODEL’, JPMI (Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Indonesia), 2(2), p. 57. Perkins, K. E. (2018) ‘The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence: Defining and Operationalizing Self-Confidence in Organizational Settings’. Available at: https://repository.lib.fit.edu/handle/11141/2534 (Accessed: 22 February 2021). Rao, P. (2019) ‘THE IMPACT OF COLLABORTIVE LEARNING ON EFL/ESL CLASSROOMS’, 2, pp. 38–53. Sar,Avcu and Isiklar (2010) ‘Analyzing undergraduate students’ self-confidence levels in terms of some variables.’ Verma, R. K. and Kumari, S. (2016) ‘Effect of self-confidence on academic achievement of children at elementary stage’, Indian Journal of Research, 5(1), pp. 181–183. Yasmin, M. and Naseem, F. (2019) ‘Collaborative Learning and Learner Autonomy: Beliefs, Practices and Prospects in Pakistani Engineering Universities’, IEEE Access, 7, pp. 71493– 71499.
