Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Limerick
Effects of Cooperative Learning on
Student Teachers’ Communicative Competence in
Indonesia
Yanuar Dwi Prastyo
PhD 2017
Effects of Cooperative Learning on
Student Teachers’ Communicative Competence in
Indonesia
Author: Yanuar Dwi Prastyo
Thesis presented to the University of Limerick for the award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Supervisors:
Dr Freda Mishan
Dr Elaine Vaughan
Submitted to the University of Limerick, August 2017
ii
Abstract
Yanuar Dwi Prastyo
Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Teachers’ Communicative Competence in Indonesia
Cooperative learning is one of the instructional methodologies which have gained international attention in the globalization era. The approach has been found to be highly successful with over 900 research studies pointing to the effectiveness of cooperative learning over competitive and individualistic efforts (Johnson, Johnson & Stanne 2000). However, of the numerous studies that have attested to the benefits of cooperative learning, almost all have taken place in the western context. In Asia, admiration for this approach is a relatively recent phenomenon (Nguyen et al. 2009). Moreover, studies on cooperative learning in relation to communicative competence are hardly found in Indonesia‟s higher education context.
The present study aimed to find out the effect (if any) of cooperative learning (CL) on student teachers‟ communicative competence in Indonesia and on how they perceive CL will impact on their future teaching practices. The present study also aimed at exploring the student teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom. A quasi-experimental research study was developed to answer the research questions. Sixty one second year student teachers (25 in the experiment class and 36 in the control class) at a private teacher education institute in Indonesia participated in the present study. A pre-test - post-test group design was used. One experiment class received instruction through cooperative learning and the other through control treatment. Data were collected by using paired-oral interview, questionnaire, learning diary, and group interview. The quantitative data were analysed using a combination of t-tests, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), and Analysis of Variances (ANOVAs). The qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke 2012).
The results indicated that cooperative learning significantly improved participants‟ communicative competence. Their communicative competence improvements are even better compared to improvements gained by participants in the control class. Student teachers‟ perceptions of the application of CL in Indonesia‟s English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context are illustrated and organized through three central issues as suggested by the participants which include issues related to the implementation of CL, benefits of CL, and drawbacks in its implementation. The results suggest that there are opportunities for the implementation of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms. Based upon the findings, CL is thus recommended to be integrated into Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms and guidelines for effective implementation of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms are proposed. The present study continues significant contribution for researchers, teachers, and teacher educators as well as teacher education institutions in Indonesia and elsewhere in the efforts to improve education quality in Indonesia and internationally.
iii
List of Public Talks
Prastyo, Yanuar Dwi (2017) „Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Teachers‟ Communicative Competence in Indonesia‟, paper presented at the 15th ASIA TEFL and the 64th TEFLIN International Conference, Yogyakarta, State University, Indonesia, 12-15 July 2017.
Prastyo, Yanuar Dwi (2016) „Effects of Cooperative Learning in Improving Student Teachers‟ Communicative Competence in Indonesia‟, paper resented at CALS/PhD in TESOL Postgraduate Research Conference, University of Limerick, Ireland, 26 May 2016.
Prastyo, Yanuar Dwi (2016) „Effects of Cooperative Learning in Improving Student Teachers‟ Communicative Competence in Indonesia‟, poster presented at CALS/PhD in TESOL Postgraduate Research Conference, University of Limerick, Ireland, 26 May 2016.
Prastyo, Yanuar Dwi (2016) „Student Teachers‟ Perceptions on the Application of Cooperative Learning in Indonesia‟ paper presented at the 2nd AHSS Postgraduate Conference, University of Limerick, Ireland, 19 May 2016.
Prastyo, Yanuar Dwi (2015) „Effects of Cooperative Learning in Improving Student Teachers‟ Communicative Competence in Indonesia‟, poster presented at MATSDA UL PhD TESOL Summer School Conference, University of Limerick, Ireland, 20-21 June 2015.
Prastyo, Yanuar Dwi (2015) „Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Teachers‟ Communicative Competence and Motivation in Indonesia‟, poster presenter at Centre of Applied Language Studies (CALS) Research Day, University of Limerick, Ireland, June 2015.
Prastyo, Yanuar Dwi (2014) „Is Cooperative Learning Appropriate Instructional Methodology to Support the Implementation of Curriculum 2013?: Theoretical and Cultural Analysis‟, paper presented as a Keynote Speaker at the Second International Conference on Language and Education (2nd ICEL 2014), Bandar Lampung University, Indonesia, 20-22 May 2014.
Prastyo, Yanuar Dwi (2014) „Cooperative Learning in Indonesian Context: Potential Benefits and Drawbacks for Application‟, paper presented at the Third International Language Conference (3rd ILC 2014), International Islamic University Malaysia, Malaysia, 4-6 June 2014.
iv
Declaration
I declare that the work presented here is original and a result of my own work.
_______________________________
Yanuar Dwi Prastyo
v
Acknowledgements
First of all, my deepest thanks and pray go to Allah SWT for His blessings in my life.
During my doctoral study, many people have supported me and encouraged me. I
would like to acknowledge and express my heartfelt gratitude to them. First and
foremost, I would like to deeply thank my supervisors Dr Freda Mishan and Dr
Elaine Vaughan who opened my eyes and warmed my heart academically and
personally. Dr Freda Mishan and Dr Elaine Vaughan showed enthusiasm for my
research all the time start from day one. Thank you for your invaluable guidance and
expert comments offered during our many meetings. Without your guidance I never
thought that I could finish my writing.
I would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of the Directorate General of
Resources for Science, Technology and Higher Education, Ministry of Research,
Technology and Higher Education, the Republic of Indonesia which provided
funding and scholarship. Without this financial help, I would never have been able to
undertake this academic achievement.
I would like also to extend my thanks for Dr. Yusur S. Barusman, MBA., the Rector
of Universitas Bandar Lampung and Drs. Harpain, M.A.T., MM., who have always
believe in and support me to undertake my doctoral study.
I also would like to thanks STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung for the permission to carry
out this study. Many thanks also go to all participants involved in this study for their
time and enthusiasm and special thanks to Pak Aksendro and Bu Galuh who helped
me so much during the period of data collection.
Finally, I would like to thank my family who supported and encouraged me as
always. Many thanks for my Mom Hariyati for her sincere and never ending prayers
for me. I would like also to thank my wife Dina Anggraini for her supports and
prayers. Last, but not least, my gratitude to our beautiful daughter Qeisya Prastyo for
being such a gentle soul and keeping me motivated to finish this study.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... ii
List of Public Talks ................................................................................................... iii
Declaration ................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .......................................................................................................... xiii
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background of the Study .................................................................................. 1
1.3 Context of the Study ....................................................................................... 10
1.4 Research Questions ........................................................................................ 12
1.5 Significance of the Research .......................................................................... 12
1.6 Organization of the Dissertation..................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW: COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND INDONESIAN CONTEXT ..................................................................................... 15
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Theoretical Underpinning of Cooperative Learning ...................................... 15
2.3 What Differentiate Cooperative Learning from Other Learning Groups? ..... 19
2.3.1 Principles of Cooperative Learning......................................................... 22
2.3.1.1 Positive interdependence .................................................................... 22
2.3.1.2 Group and Individual accountability .................................................. 24
2.3.1.3 Promotive interaction ......................................................................... 25
2.3.1.4 Interpersonal and social skills. ........................................................... 25
2.3.1.5 Group processing. ............................................................................... 26
2.3.2 Types of Cooperative Learning Group.................................................... 27
2.3.2.1 Formal Cooperative Learning............................................................. 28
2.3.2.2 Informal Cooperative Learning .......................................................... 28
2.3.2.3 Cooperative Base Group..................................................................... 29
2.3.3 Techniques of Cooperative Learning ...................................................... 29
vii
2.3.3.1 Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) ............................... 31
2.3.3.2 Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) ..................................................... 32
2.3.3.3 Team-Assisted Individualization (TAI) ............................................. 32
2.3.3.4 Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC)................ 33
2.3.3.5 Jigsaw and Jigsaw II ........................................................................... 33
2.3.3.6 Learning Together .............................................................................. 34
2.4 Limitations of Cooperative Learning ............................................................. 35
2.5 Research Studies Implementing Cooperative Learning ................................. 36
2.5.1 Cooperative Learning Studies in International Context .......................... 38
2.5.2 Studies on Cooperative Learning in Indonesia ....................................... 42
2.6 Cooperative Learning in Indonesian Education and Cultural Contexts ......... 47
2.6.1 Cooperative Learning in Indonesian Education System ......................... 48
2.6.2 Cooperative Learning and Cultural Context in Indonesia ....................... 52
2.7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 3 - THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: DEVELOPING A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE .................................................................................................................................... 57
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 57
3.2 Theoretical Framework of Communicative Competence (CC) ..................... 57
Chomsky (1965) ...................................................................................... 58
Dell Hymes (1972) .................................................................................. 59
Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) .......................................... 60
Celce-Murcia et al. (1993; 1995) and Celce-Murcia (2008) ................... 62
Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996) ................................ 67
Savignon (1972) ...................................................................................... 71
Ellis (1991) .............................................................................................. 73
Council of Europe (2001) ........................................................................ 74
3.3 Assessing communicative competence .......................................................... 75
3.4 Empirical Studies Implementing Framework of Communicative Competence … .................................................................................................................... 77
3.5 Towards a Situational Framework of Communicative Competence ............. 79
3.5.1 Linguistic Competence ............................................................................ 80
3.5.2 Discourse competence ............................................................................. 81
3.5.3 Sociolinguistic competence ..................................................................... 82
viii
3.5.4 Strategic competence............................................................................... 83
3.6 Grading and Assessment Procedure of Communicative Competence ........... 84
3.7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 85
CHAPTER 4 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................. 87
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 87
4.2 Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Approaches .......................... 87
4.3 Methodological Framework for the Present Study ........................................ 89
4.3.1 Research Design ...................................................................................... 89
4.3.2 Research Variables .................................................................................. 91
4.3.3 Research Validity .................................................................................... 92
4.3.4 Triangulation ........................................................................................... 95
4.4 Sampling Procedure and Participants ............................................................. 95
4.4.1 Sampling Procedure ................................................................................ 95
4.4.2 Research Participants .............................................................................. 96
4.4.3 The Teacher Educator ............................................................................. 97
4.4.4 Ethical Consideration .............................................................................. 98
4.5 Research Instrument ....................................................................................... 99
4.5.1 Paired-oral Interview ............................................................................. 100
4.5.2 Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 101
4.5.3 Group Interview .................................................................................... 102
4.5.4 Diary ...................................................................................................... 103
4.6 Data Collection ............................................................................................. 104
4.6.1 Pilot Study ............................................................................................. 104
4.6.1.1 Paired-oral interview ........................................................................ 104
4.6.1.2 Questionnaire .................................................................................... 105
4.6.1.3 Group interview ................................................................................ 106
4.6.2 Procedures of Data Collection............................................................... 106
4.6.2.1 Procedure for Paired-Oral Interview ................................................ 106
4.6.2.2 Procedure for Questionnaire ............................................................. 108
4.6.2.3 Procedure for Group Interview ......................................................... 108
4.6.2.4 Procedure for Student Teachers‟ Diaries .......................................... 109
4.7 Teaching Materials and Procedures ............................................................. 110
4.7.1 Teaching Materials ................................................................................ 110
ix
4.7.2 Teaching Procedures ............................................................................. 111
4.7.2.1 Procedure for control class ............................................................... 111
4.7.2.2 Procedure for experiment class ........................................................ 112
4.7.3 Fidelity of Treatment ............................................................................. 116
4.8 Methods of Data Analysis ............................................................................ 117
4.8.1 Quantitative Data Analysis.................................................................... 117
4.8.1.1 Descriptive Analysis ......................................................................... 117
4.8.1.2 Inferential Analysis .......................................................................... 118
4.8.1.3 Test for Assumptions Underlying t-test, ANOVA and MANOVA . 119
4.8.2 Qualitative Data Analysis...................................................................... 120
4.8.2.1 Thematic analysis ............................................................................. 121
4.8.2.2 Data Transcription and Translation .................................................. 124
4.8.2.3 Process of Thematic Analysis .......................................................... 126
4.9 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 128
CHAPTER 5 - DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 131
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 131
5.2 Quantitative Data Analysis ........................................................................... 132
5.2.1 Descriptive analysis............................................................................... 132
5.2.1.1 Questionnaire .................................................................................... 133
5.2.1.2 Paired-Oral Interview ....................................................................... 141
5.2.2 Inferential Analysis ............................................................................... 144
5.2.2.1 Effects of Treatments on Communicative Competence ................... 145
5.2.2.2 Effects of CL on communicative competence .................................. 147
5.2.2.3 Effects of CT on communicative competence .................................. 148
5.2.2.4 Comparing the effects of CL and CT ............................................... 149
5.2.2.5 Effect of Treatments on Components of Communicative Competence .
.......................................................................................................... 151
5.3 Qualitative Data Analysis ............................................................................. 161
5.3.1 Background Information from the Questionnaire ................................. 163
5.3.1.1 Learning Experience ......................................................................... 163
5.3.1.2 English Learning Motivation ............................................................ 166
5.3.1.3 English skills .................................................................................... 168
5.3.2 Student Teachers‟ Perceptions of Cooperative Learning ...................... 170
x
5.3.2.1 Themes Related to Issues of Implementation ................................... 171
5.3.2.2 Themes related to benefits of cooperative learning .......................... 182
5.3.2.3 Themes related to drawbacks in implementing cooperative learning191
5.3.3 Participants‟ Future Practice ................................................................. 199
5.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 203
CHAPTER 6 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................. 205
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 205
6.2 Effects of Cooperative Learning on Communicative Competence .............. 206
6.3 How Student Teachers Perceive Cooperative Learning with Relation to Their Future Teaching Practice .............................................................................. 211
6.4 Student Teachers‟ Perceptions of Cooperative Learning in Indonesia‟s EFL Classroom ..................................................................................................... 213
6.5 Benefits and Drawbacks in Implementing Cooperative Learning in Indonesia‟s EFL Classrooms ........................................................................ 217
6.6 How to Implement Cooperative Learning in Indonesia‟s EFL Classrooms 222
6.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 229
CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS........................................................................... 231
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 231
7.2 The Study Overview ..................................................................................... 231
7.3 Significance of the Study ............................................................................. 232
7.4 Strengths of the Study .................................................................................. 234
7.5 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Study ............................................. 235
7.6 Conclusions of the Study .............................................................................. 237
Reference ................................................................................................................. 241
Appendices .............................................................................................................. 256
Appendix 1 – Information sheet given to participants ........................................ 257
Appendix 2 – Consent Form Signed by Participants .......................................... 259
Appendix 3 – Ethical Approval University of Limerick ..................................... 260
Appendix 4 – Research Approval STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung .................... 261
Appendix 5 – Paired-Oral Interview ................................................................... 262
Appendix 6 - Scoring Rubric of Communicative Competence ........................... 268
Appendix 7 – Questionnaire Pre-treatment ......................................................... 272
Appendix 8 – Questionnaire Post-treatment ....................................................... 276
Appendix 9 – Group Interview Questions ........................................................... 279
xi
Appendix 10 – Paired-Oral Interview Data ......................................................... 280
Appendix 11 – Indonesia‟s Formal Education System ....................................... 294
Appendix 12 - Curriculum Structure in Indonesian Education System .............. 295
Appendix 13 - Curriculum Structure of English Education Study Programme at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung, Indonesia .................................................. 297
Appendix 14 – Example of Lesson Plans for the Experiment Class ................... 299
xii
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Cooperative Learning Vs Traditional Learning Group ............................ 20
Table 2.2: Three Communication Strands: Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning and Interaction ............................................................................................ 21
Table 2.3: Classification of Cooperative Learning Techniques ................................ 31
Table 2.4: Studies on Cooperative Learning in Indonesia ........................................ 42
Table 2.5: Studies of Cooperative Learning in Indonesia‟s EFL Context ................ 44
Table 4.1: Research Variables ................................................................................... 92
Table 4.2: Sampling Procedures ................................................................................ 96
Table 4.3: Participants‟ Demographic Information ................................................... 97
Table 4.4: Research Instruments ............................................................................... 99
Table 5.1: Participants‟ Age and English Learning Experience ............................. 135
Table 5.2: I learn English through group-work activities........................................ 137
Table 5.3: I enjoy learning through group work activities ...................................... 138
Table 5.4: Group-work activities improve my speaking skill ................................. 138
Table 5.5: Important aspects of group-work activities ............................................ 138
Table 5.6: Group work activities are suitable for EFL classroom in Indonesia (%) 139
Table 5.7: I would consider using group work activities in my future teaching practice ..................................................................................................................... 140
Table 5.8: Participants' Self-assessed English Skills ............................................... 140
Table 5.9: Participants‟ Communicative Competence Scores ................................ 142
Table 5.10: Participants' Score on Components of Communicative Competence .. 144
Table 5.11: Independent samples t-test results on the pretest scores ...................... 146
Table 5.12: Independent sample t-test results on the posttest scores ...................... 147
Table 5.13: Paired Samples t-test Results on CL class ........................................... 147
Table 5.14: Paired-Samples t-test Results on the CT class ..................................... 148
Table 5.15: Independent Samples t-test Results on the Improvement Scores ......... 149
Table 5.16: Mann-Whitney U Test results on Improvement Scores ....................... 150
Table 5.17: ANCOVA Test Results ........................................................................ 150
Table 5.18: Descriptive Statistic on Components of Communicative Competence Scores ....................................................................................................................... 152
Table 5.19: Independent Samples t-test Results of Improvement Scores between CL and CT ...................................................................................................................... 155
Table 5.20: Independent Samples t-test Results of Improvement Scores between CL and CT ...................................................................................................................... 157
Table 5.21: Independent Samples t-test Results of Improvement Scores between CL and CT ...................................................................................................................... 159
Table 5.22: Independent Samples t-test Results of Improvement Scores between CL and CT ...................................................................................................................... 160
Table 6.1: Statistical Results Within Each Class and Between Classes .................. 209
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Development framework of communicative competence ...................... 64
Figure 3.2: Celce-Murcia's et al. (1995) model ......................................................... 65
Figure 3.3: Celce-Murcia's (2008) model ................................................................. 67
Figure 3.4: Bachman (1990) and Bachman & Palmer (1996)................................... 71
Figure 3.5: Savignon's (2002) Model ........................................................................ 73
Figure 3.6: Ellis's (1991) Framework of Communicative Competence .................... 74
Figure 3.7: Council of Europe‟s (2001) Framework of Communicative Competence .................................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 3.8: Proposed Framework of Communicative Competence .......................... 84
Figure 4.1: Quasi-experimental pretest-posttest comparison group research design 91
Figure 4.2: Flow Chart for the Data Collection ...................................................... 110
Figure 4.3: Framework of Data Collection and Analysis........................................ 130
Figure 5.1: Gender variation of the participants ..................................................... 134
Figure 5.2: Participants mother tongue ................................................................... 135
Figure 5.3: Self-Assessed Speaking Skill Pre-Post Treatment Improvement Scores .................................................................................................................................. 141
Figure 5.4: Participants' Communicative Competence Scores ............................... 143
Figure 5.5: Participants' Linguistic Competence Scores ......................................... 154
Figure 5.6: Participants' Sociolinguistic Competence Scores ................................. 156
Figure 5.7: Participants' Discourse Competence Scores ......................................... 158
Figure 5.8: Participants' Strategic Competence Scores ........................................... 159
Figure 5.9: Participants' Improvement Scores ........................................................ 161
Figure 5.10: Framework of Qualitative Data Analysis ........................................... 163
Figure 5.11: Group Implementation ........................................................................ 171
Figure 5.12: Group Management ............................................................................ 175
Figure 5.13: Benefits of Using Cooperative Learning ............................................ 182
Figure 5.14: Drawbacks in Implementing Cooperative Learning ........................... 192
Figure 5.15: Group work activities are suitable for EFL classroom in Indonesia (%) .................................................................................................................................. 200
Figure 5.16: I would consider using group-work activities in my future teaching practice (%) .............................................................................................................. 201
xiv
Abbreviations
ADB : Asian Development Bank
BANA : British, Australian, and North American
CL : Cooperative Learning
CC : Communicative Competence
CET : Chinese English Test (paling)
CLT : Communicative Language Teaching
CT : Control Treatment
DGHE : Directorate General of Higher Education
EDA : Exploratory Data Analysis
EFL : English as a Foreign Language
EFEPI : Education First English Proficiency Index
ELT : English Language Teaching
HEI : Higher Education Institution
LKS : Lembar Kerja Siswa (Students‟ Work Sheet)
LT : Learning Together
MOEC : Ministry of Education and Culture
MORA : Ministry of Religious Affair
MORTHE : Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education
OECD : Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PGRI : Persatuan Guru Republik Indonesia (Indonesian Teacher Association)
STKIP : Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (Teacher Training and
Education Institute)
TESL : Teaching English as a Second Language
TL : Target Language
TSE : Test of Spoken English
TTI : Teacher Training Institute
USAID : United States Agency for International Development
ZPD : Zone of Proximal Development
1
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This study aims to establish the effect of cooperative learning (CL) on student
teachers‟ communicative competence (CC) and to their future teaching practices in
Indonesia‟s English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. It also aims to explore the
student teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL
classroom. In what follows, the research background including the problems of EFL
teaching in Indonesia and rationale for the present study (section 1.2) will be
explored. Then the context of the study (section 1.3), the research questions (section
1.4) and the significance of the study (section 1.5), as well as the organization of the
dissertation (1.6) will be presented.
1.2 Background of the Study
Indonesia is the largest archipelago country in the world, consisting of 17,508
islands, with a total area of 1.9 million km2 (OECD & ADB 2015 p. 52). It has 34
provinces and 502 districts or municipalities, and as the fourth most populous
country in the world with a population more than 250 million people. The country is
very diverse, with more than 1,128 ethnics and 722 languages spoken as first
languages (OECD & ADB 2015 p. 55). The Indonesian education system is,
therefore, also immense and diverse. With over 60 million students and almost 4
million teachers in some 340,000 educational institutions, it is the fourth largest
education system in the world, behind China, India, and the U.S. (OECD & ADB
2015 p. 69).
In Indonesian education system (see section 2.6.1), English is taught as a compulsory
subject from secondary school level to university level. At the same time, English is
an extra-curricular subject at elementary level curriculum (Kementrian Pendidikan
dan Kebudayaan 2012). In addition, English is also examined in the Final National
Examination at secondary level. This indicates that English is a very important
foreign language to be taught and learnt at all levels of Indonesian education.
However, the importance of English is not in line with the improvement of students‟
proficiency in English. According to the Education First English Proficiency Index
(EFEPI) 2016 for English proficiency, Indonesia ranks at 32 of 72 countries – a
2
„moderate‟ proficiency rating with the score of 52.94 or improved only 0.03 points
from 2015 (Education First 2016).
Unlike in its neighbouring countries – such as Singapore and Malaysia (ranked at 6
and 12 in EFEPI 2016), where English is widely spoken as a second language –
English in Indonesia is more likely to be taught and learnt only as a foreign language
(Sulistiyo 2015, p. 12). This English as a Foreign Language (EFL) status brings
pedagogical implications for both students and teachers (Supriatna 2012, p. 40).
Supriatna (2012) in his study at five senior secondary schools in Indonesia revealed
that as students have limited opportunities to use English outside classroom, they do
not see any practical use of having English language competence, making them
unmotivated to learn English. In addition, Marcellino (2008) argues that the language
environment and the students‟ motivation to learn the language become the core
problems English teachers in Indonesia have to confront. As English is a compulsory
subject and the students are obliged to learn it, their motivation to study is subject to
question given the fact that they live in an environment in which knowledge of
English is not compulsory (Marcellino 2008). This condition challenges English
teachers to have competence that can engage the students in their learning and
motivate them to learn (Supriatna 2012).
With close to four million teachers, Indonesia has one of the largest and most diverse
cadres of teachers in the world (Chang et al., 2013 p. 5). As Metto & Makewa (2014)
argue that teachers are the most important of the school-related factors affecting
student achievement, therefore, improving the quality of English teachers in
Indonesia becomes crucial if the English education is to be successful. Lovat and
Smith (2003 in Sellars, 2014) suggest the causal relationship between student
learning outcomes and the quality of their teachers:
Teacher quality is the single greatest factor in explaining student achievement, more important than classroom related issues such as resources, curriculum guidelines, and assessment practices or the broader school environment such as school culture and organization.
(Lovat and Smith 2003 in Sellars 2014, p. 54)
Moreover, in the context of EFL teaching where input is limited, as in the case of
Indonesia, Sulistiyo (2015) contends that the role of teachers is very important
because English learning mostly occurs in classrooms. Students generally only
3
encounter small amounts of English inside and outside classrooms due to English not
being used for language instruction in classrooms, nor as a tool of communication
during social interaction. This absence places a large responsibility on English
teachers to ensure students learn English in supportive atmosphere, and bring
successful language learning into the classroom. Thus, teachers‟ language
competence and teaching skills, together with a suite of other complex skills, are
important in the teaching of EFL (Sulistiyo 2015, p. 1). In similar vein, Suryati
(2013) argues that when a target language is seldom used outside the classroom,
input and language use in the classroom are essential. The lack of a surrounding
community of English speakers outside the classroom increases the challenge for
EFL teachers in Indonesia.
Studies on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education in Indonesia (Marcellino
2008; Muamaroh 2013; Sahiruddin 2013; Sulistiyo 2015) revealed that unqualified
teachers and teaching methods used in classroom practice are two factors that
contribute to the on-going problems of EFL education in Indonesia, in addition to
other factors such as: class size, mixed level students, time allocation as well as
student‟s motivation.
A study on English language teaching in Indonesia conducted by Marcellino (2008)
through survey involving 258 students and class observations of six classes at five
Senior High Schools, for example, revealed that teachers frequently use Bahasa
Indonesia to discuss teaching topics and, to a great extent, to explain grammatical
aspects of the target language (TL) due to their poor mastery of English (Marcellino
2008, p. 63). The sample of interaction between teacher and students in his study
illustrate teacher‟s poor mastery of English. His study also revealed that monotonous
teaching technique still depicts the teacher‟s performance, a common phenomenon in
classroom practice. In addition, Marcellino (2008) also revealed that EFL teachers in
Indonesia face the problem of how to address the various needs of the mixed-level
students in a large class with limited time allocation of four hours per week at junior
secondary level and two to four hours per week at senior secondary level (see section
2.6.1 for detailed discussion on education system in Indonesia).
A quasi experiment study exploring approaches to improve the spoken English skills
of students at a private university in Indonesia conducted by Muamaroh (2013)
4
identified some factors hindering the quality of teaching English speaking skill in
Indonesia. According to her, the most important thing for English teachers to do is to
make students able to communicate genuinely, spontaneously, and meaningfully in
the target language (Muamaroh 2013, p. 16). However, she argues that teaching
English speaking skill is hard to implement in many English classrooms in Indonesia
due to two main reasons. First, many unqualified English teachers teach English and
the teachers are poor users of English. Second, many English teachers still use more
traditional approaches in their English classes (Muamaroh 2013, p. 18). Further, she
contends that most of English teaching and learning processes in Indonesia are based
on memorization, not communication. The large number of students with diverse
backgrounds and abilities were also main constraints on English Language Teaching
(ELT) in Indonesia.
A study by Sahiruddin (2013) on the implementation of the 2013 curriculum and
issues of English language teaching and learning in Indonesia discusses some
common ELT problems in Indonesia such as students‟ lack of motivation, poor
attitude toward language learning, big class size, unqualified teachers, and cultural
barriers for teachers to adopt new role of facilitator. Based on the literature reviewed
in his study, he claims that the large class size and unqualified English teachers are
two obvious factors that contribute to the on-going problems in ELT in Indonesia
(Sahiruddin 2013). In relation to the implementation of new curriculum in Indonesia,
he contends that the number of hours of learning English in class in the new
curriculum which are less than that of previous curriculum brings a big challenge for
both teachers and students to work harder in achieving the learning goal in a limited
time. However, he argues that the implementation of the 2013 curriculum which
changes the role of teachers from being information centre to be facilitator toward
students‟ learning should gear the concept of student-centred classroom. He further
suggests that learner-centeredness should be embraced since it could maximize the
students‟ focus on form and meaning and their achievement (Sahiruddin 2013, p.
571).
In relation to English teacher education, Sulistiyo (2015) conducted a study on
improving English as a foreign language teacher education in Indonesia. In his study,
information was gathered from recent teachers and beginner teachers as well as from
school principals and teacher educators through survey and interviews. Document
5
analysis was also used to explore the aims and contents of the English teacher
education program in the present study. Based on the results of his study, he argues
that one of the most direct way to improve the quality of English teachers in
Indonesia is to improve the quality of the teacher education programmes that are
responsible for preparing student teachers with adequate English proficiency and
teaching skill (Sulistiyo 2015).
These studies conducted by Marcellino (2008); Muamaroh (2013); and Sahiruddin
(2013) have generally identified unqualified teachers as the most important factor
contributing to the on-going problems of EFL education in Indonesia. Considering
and taking further the results and suggestions from a study conducted by Sulistiyo
(2015) that one of the most direct way to improve the quality of English teachers in
Indonesia is to improve the quality of the teacher education programmes that are
responsible for preparing student teachers with adequate English proficiency and
teaching skill, the present study, focuses on improving student teachers‟ English
communicative competence to provide more qualified English teachers with good
English proficiency in the future.
Other factors such as class size, mixed level students, time allocation as well as
students‟ motivation are also identified by Marcellino (2008); Muamaroh (2013); and
Sahiruddin (2013) to contribute to the on-going problems of EFL education in
Indonesia. Marcellino (2008) also revealed that teachers in Indonesia face the
problem of how to address the various needs of the mixed-level students in a large
class with limited time allocation in the new curriculum with four and two teaching
hours per week for junior secondary and senior secondary level respectively (see
section 2.6.1). One teaching hour in Indonesian education system equals to forty
minutes at junior secondary and forty five minutes at senior secondary level
(Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan 2012). Teachers, therefore, need to find
effective and efficient instructional methods to manage large class with mixed level
students and design activities which will meet each student‟s need and motivate
students to learn. While there is no agreed definition of a large class, classes of 50 or
more students in under-resourced classrooms are common in an EFL setting
(Sulistiyo 2015). This is relevant to condition in the Indonesian context where, at the
moment, classes are not likely to have less than 40 students in one classroom (see
section 2.6.1).
6
The last barrier deals with time allocation, in which classes hold more than forty
students with limited time allotment of forty to forty-five minutes for an English
lesson. As a result, it is difficult for any English teacher to have sufficient time to
review the previous lesson, introduce the new topic and discuss it in order to
maximize the expected learning outcomes (Marcellino 2008, p. 66). Therefore, the
present study also aims to equip effective instructional methodology for future
English teachers or student teachers to deal with mixed level students in large classes
with limited time allotment for English lesson.
Baker & Heather (2000) suggest that group work is very good way to manage large
classes with mixed abilities and it can improve motivation and students‟ use of
English. In Indonesia‟s EFL context, Sulistiyo (2015) suggests that in order to be
effectively teaching in large class, teacher could assign group activities and peer-
based tasks. Pair and group work allow all students to practice language and to
actively participate in classroom activities. That is why pair and group work are
important techniques to be used in large classes, where otherwise only few stronger
or more confident students have the opportunity to participate. Pair and group work
involve the whole class working separately in pairs or small groups at the same time.
Pair and group work are important because it: 1) gives students lots of practice in
using a language, 2) allows the quieter students to speak to a partner, instead of
speaking in front of the whole class, 3) teaches students to help each other with their
learning (Baker & Heather 2000, p. 131). The issue of improving English
competence and equipping effective instructional methodology for future English
teachers to deal with mixed level students in large classes with limited time allotment
as well as the potentials of using group work in large classes as suggested by Baker
& Heather (2000) and Sulistiyo (2015) led the present researcher to consider using
cooperative learning (CL) approach in English student teachers‟ classrooms.
Cooperative Learning (CL) as one of the learner-centred instructional methodologies
which use structured group work activities has been associated with gains in such
variables as achievement, motivation, social skills, intergroup relation, and attitudes
toward school, self, and others (Dörnyei 1997; Johnson, Johnson & Smith 1998;
Johnson, Johnson & Stanne 2000; and Slavin 1996b). Olsen and Kagan (1992, p. 8)
define cooperative learning (CL) as:
7
Group learning activity organized so that learning is dependent on the socially structured exchange of information between learners in groups and in which each learner is held accountable for his and her own learning and is motivated to increase the learning of others.
(Olsen and Kagan 1992, p. 8)
The application of CL to classroom teaching finds its root in the 1970s. In its
development, studies on the effects of CL have taken place in every major school
subjects, at all grade levels, and in all type of schools in many countries (Slavin
1996b; Dörnyei 1997; Johnson & Johnson 2009). Nowadays, CL has been
implemented in almost all school subject areas and, increasingly in college and
university contexts all over the world, and is claimed to be an effective teaching
method in foreign / second language education (Liao 2006).
In relation to Indonesian context, numerous efforts have been made to investigating
the use of CL in science, biology, chemistry, and mathematic in relation to
achievement, motivation, critical thinking, and creativity (see table 2.3 in section
2.5.2). Some studies have also been conducted in EFL classrooms in relation to
students‟ reading, writing, and speaking skills at primary, secondary, and higher
education levels (see table 2.4 in section 2.5.2). Regarding speaking skill or spoken
English or communicative competence, to my knowledge, there have been studies
investigated the use of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms through descriptive, action
research, and quasi-experimental studies (Kristiawan 2013; Muamaroh 2013; Sanjani
2015). However, thorough studies of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL context in relation to
speaking skill or communicative competence are still under-researched.
Comprehensive studies on the use of CL on student teachers‟ communicative
competence, as well as exploring participants‟ perceptions on the implementation of
CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms are of highly important to establish empirical
evidence of the effect of CL as well as to provide effective ways to implement CL in
Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms.
Kristiawan (2013) conducted a descriptive qualitative study on implementation of
CL at Secondary High School 5 Batusangkar, West Sumatra and investigated its
effect on students‟ achievement as well as explored the strengths and weaknesses of
CL in English class. Sixty grade VIII students from two classes participated in this
study over 3 months (September – December 2011). Observation, interview, and
8
documentation were employed to collect the data. The results indicated that CL was
effective to improve students‟ academic achievement. His study revealed some
weaknesses, which need to be considered in implementing CL in Indonesia‟s EFL
classrooms: 1) the learning process was still using the conventional model, 2)
English language usage was not maximum and 3) the process of learning tended to
lead the achievement of curriculum in terms of coverage rather than students‟
learning and understanding. These weaknesses were taken into consideration in the
implementation of CL in the present study.
Another study by Sanjani (2015) was conducted through mixed method action
research investigating the use of Think-Pair-Share (TPS) technique of CL on
students‟ speaking ability at junior secondary school in Indonesia. Data were
collected through observation, interview, and speaking tests. The results indicated
that students made a considerable improvement in some aspects of speaking skill
such as pronunciation, intonation and stress, comprehension, grammar, and
vocabulary. In addition, the study revealed that CL increases students‟ confidence to
speak English and actively participate during the teaching and learning processes.
She then suggests further research with longer duration for better results.
At higher education level, a study conducted by Muamaroh (2013) investigated the
use of CL to improve spoken English of a private university English students in
Jakarta. The study was conducted in two stages: action research and quasi-
experimental research. Data were gathered through speaking and listening tests,
questionnaires, interviews, student feedbacks, and class observations. Qualitative
data indicated that both teachers and students believed that CL can be used for
improving students‟ spoken English skill. It was supported by quantitative data
results which indicated significant improvement in students‟ speaking duration if not
in their speaking quality. However, as the teachers who implemented CL in this
study were novice teachers and only been trained over a limited number of days
which could not be utilised maximally (Muamaroh 2013, p. 70), their
implementation of CL is questionable. Further, Muamaroh (2013) also acknowledged
that the teachers were not always able to implement CL techniques properly and
consistently in their classes. Therefore, a comprehensive study with well trained and
experienced teachers implementing CL techniques is needed.
9
In addition, while some researchers have examined the effects of CL on students‟
speaking skill or spoken English, this has not been done in the context of student
teachers who will teach English at junior and/or senior high schools in Indonesia.
Moreover, to my knowledge, there is not yet study conducted to evaluate the use of
CL in promoting student teachers to integrate group work activities into their future
teaching practice.
Sentosa & Arlianti (2015) in their report to the USAID PRIORITAS1 programme on
the linking pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher training for effective
results in Indonesia claim that students educated using active and participative
learning are much more likely to use it in their own teaching. PRIORITAS is a five
year USAID funded project designed to improve access to quality basic education for
children in Indonesia working with almost 100 partner districts in eight provinces
involving 788 primary schools, 393 junior secondary schools, and 16 Teacher
Training Institutes (TTIs) (Sentosa & Arlianti 2015, p. 3). After working with 16
TTIs during PRIORITAS programme, they found that pre-service teacher training
programmes tend to be very theoretical and lecturers rarely model active learning
methodology (Sentosa & Arlianti 2015). They also found that in primary schools and
junior secondary schools many in-service teachers do not necessarily have the
required knowledge and skills to teach effectively. Many teachers still apply the
traditional methods of teaching they are familiar with (Sentosa & Arlianti 2015).
Therefore, the present study also aims to find out if participating in the CL classroom
promotes student teachers to integrate group work activities into their future EFL
teaching practices.
One of the most direct way to improve the quality of English teachers in Indonesia is
to improve the quality of student teachers with adequate English proficiency and
teaching skills (Sulistiyo 2015, p. 2). Thus, the present study focuses on improving
English student teachers‟ communicative competence and providing teaching
methods appropriate to handle large classes with mixed level students in Indonesia.
To do so, the present study investigates the effects of CL on student teachers‟
1 PRIORITAS is the acronym derived from Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, and Opportunities for Reaching Indonesia‟s Teachers, Administrators and Students. It is a USAID funded basic education project in Indonesia (2012-2017).
10
communicative competence at English Education Study Programme, Teacher
Training and Education Institute (STKIP PGRI) Bandar Lampung.
The focus of the present study is to explore the potential of CL to address unqualified
English teachers with inadequate English proficiency and provide effective
instructional methodology for English teachers to teach large classes with mixed
level students within limited time allotment in Indonesia. The present study also
explores how student teachers‟ perceive CL and its implementation in their
classroom. In other words, it aims to investigate the effects of CL in EFL setting in
Indonesia, and at the same time, explores student teachers‟ perceptions on the
implementation of CL in EFL classrooms. Based on the student teachers‟ perceptions
and suggestions, guidelines for teachers and teacher educators who wish to integrate
CL into their EFL classrooms are provided. In order to guide the inquiry, the present
study used a sequence of research questions (see section 1.4).
1.3 Context of the Study
As discussed earlier in section 1.2, Indonesia is an archipelago stretching some 5,000
km between the Indian and Pacific Oceans and encompassing three time zones from
its western to its eastern end. It comprises of 17,508 islands and divided into 34
provinces comprising 502 regencies, 6,543 districts and 75,244 villages. Indonesia is
the fourth most populous country in the world with a widely distributed population
totalling more than 250 million (OECD & ADB 2015, p. 52). Ethnically, this country
has about 300 ethnics group (Adnyani 2015, p. 4). The majority of population in the
western part of Indonesia is Malay, while in the east is Papua tribes which has roots
in the islands of Melanesia. Javanese is the largest ethnic group and politically most
dominant in the population reaching almost 42% of the Indonesian entire population
(Adnyani 2015, p. 5). Furthermore, there are also minority migrant population such
as Chinese, Indian, and Arabic. Linguistically, Indonesia is also a highly diverse with
722 languages used as a first language, of which 719 are indigenous languages.
Bahasa Indonesia is the national language and is taught at schools in the entire
nation (Adnyani 2015).
In relation to the education system in Indonesia, it is divided into pre-tertiary (basic
and secondary education) and tertiary / higher education (see section 2.6.1 for more
11
detailed discussion). Basic education consists of six years primary and three years
junior secondary education, while secondary education consists of senior secondary
and vocational senior secondary education. In relation to higher education system,
Indonesia has nearly 3,800 higher education institutions serving almost 5.4 million
students (MoEC 2013, p. 71). Among those higher education institutions, Indonesia
has 374 teacher training institutes (TTIs) or Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga
Kependidikan (LPTKs), 32 public and 342 private, which are responsible for
preparing teachers to teach at basic and secondary education levels. The site of the
present study is a private TTI in Lampung Province called STKIP PGRI Bandar
Lampung, Indonesia.
The present study was conducted at English Education Study Programme, Teacher
Training and Education Institute (STKIP PGRI) Bandar Lampung, Indonesia over a
semester period from September 2015 – January 2016. The participants in the present
study are 102 students from two classes with 55 students in the control class (class
A) and 47 students in the experimental class (class B) taking Speaking 2 subject (see
appendix 13 for detailed curriculum structure). The participants are second year
student teachers of English teacher education study programme lasting for four years.
One university semester has duration of fourteen weeks long. All students are high
school graduates and varied with regard to ethnicities, cultures, and mother tongues
(see section 5.2.1)
STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung is a private Teacher Training Institute (TTI) in
Lampung Province. It has seven undergraduate study programmes and one
postgraduate study programme. English education study programme at STKIP PGRI
Bandar Lampung is a four years full-time programme aiming at training qualified
English teachers for junior and senior secondary schools in Indonesia. Through its
English education study programme, STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung is similar to
other private TTIs in Indonesia that provide English teacher education. The present
study therefore will have broader relevance for other private TTIs that share
programme features in terms of a similar EFL context and challenges. Thus, these
research findings will provide important information to enrich the teacher education
literature both in Indonesia and International contexts.
12
1.4 Research Questions
The present study investigates the effects of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom. The
findings provide empirical evidence of the effect of CL on student teachers‟
communicative competence. The present study also explores student teachers‟
perceptions on the implementation of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL context which
contributes to English teaching and learning in Indonesia, especially in the teacher
education programme. The present study also helps student teachers and teacher
educators to understand the potential effectiveness of CL as well as provides
guidelines for adopting and implementing CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms.
Two main research questions and three secondary research questions guide the
present study. The two principle research questions are as follows:
1. What are the effects (if any) of cooperative learning on Indonesian student
teachers‟ communicative competence?
2. How do student teachers perceive cooperative learning impact on their future
teaching practice?
The main research questions centre around the effects (if any) of CL on Indonesian
student teachers‟ communicative competence and linked to this explore student
teachers‟ perceptions of CL with relation to their future teaching practice. Connected
to these broad questions are more specific questions such as:
a. What are the student teachers‟ perceptions of cooperative learning?
b. What problems (if any) do student teachers identify during their classroom
experience using cooperative learning?
c. What are the student teachers‟ suggestions to effectively implement cooperative
learning into Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms?
1.5 Significance of the Research
Investigating the effect of CL on student teachers‟ communicative competence in
Indonesia‟s EFL context is important for the following reasons. First, it provides
empirical evidence on the effect of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL context via its application.
The findings of the present study inform thinking about the quality of second year
English student teachers in terms of their communicative competence. This
13
information can be used to redesign the contents and teaching instructions of English
teacher education programme to best prepare more qualified English student teachers
in terms of their English communicative competence. Second, the research findings
related to student teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation of CL in the present
study may contribute significantly to the discussion of the feasibility of CL in
Indonesia‟s EFL context. This information can be used to propose guidelines for
student teachers, teachers, and teacher educators to effectively adapting and
implementing CL in Indonesia‟s EFL context. Overall, the findings of the present
study provide empirical evidence on the implementation of cooperative learning in
Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms.
1.6 Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation consists of seven chapters. Chapter one, this introduction chapter,
presents the background of the study (section 1.2). This chapter also provides
overview of the context of the study (section 1.3), objectives and research questions
(section 1.4), significance of the study (section 1.5), as well as the organization of the
dissertation (section 1.6).
Chapter two, the literature review chapter, explores the concept and development of
CL which is the foundation for the present study. It aims at highlighting the
characteristics which differentiate CL from other teaching methods, how CL has
been used in the broad field of education as well as in the area of English education.
This chapter reviews studies conducted on CL in international and Indonesian
contexts (see section 2.5). In addition, the relation of CL with the Indonesian
education system and cultural values are also discussed (see section 2.6).
Chapter three, the theoretical framework chapter, discusses the concepts and the
development models of communicative competence (CC) in language learning. This
chapter also discusses some empirical studies implementing different models and
assessment procedures of CC. A more situational model of CC, its assessment
processes and procedures for the present study are then proposed. Chapter four, the
research methodology chapter, presents the process through which the research
methodology has been selected before the project was launched. The present study
employs both quantitative and qualitative methods (mixed methods approach) and
14
quasi-experimental classroom-based research. Chapter four also discusses the
research design which comprises research variables, internal and external validity, as
well as triangulation. This chapter also justifies the selection of participants and
sampling methods as well as the instruments used for data collections and its validity
and reliability. The teaching materials and procedures implemented in both
experiment and control classes are also discussed in chapter four. This chapter
concludes with two different data analyses selected.
Quantitative data analysis (descriptive and inferential analysis) and qualitative data
analysis are presented in chapter five, the data analysis chapter. Those two
quantitative data analyses were used to answer the primary research questions and
the qualitative data analysis were performed to gain deeper understanding on the
implementation of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL context as well as to answer the three
secondary research questions.
Chapter six, the results and discussion chapter, presents the findings and discussions
of the data analysis. This chapter emphasizes the implications of the results from the
data analysis to answer the research questions. More importantly, it suggests how to
effectively contextualize and implement CL in EFL classroom in Indonesia. Chapter
seven, the conclusion chapter, presents the study overview and explores the
significance of the present study. This chapter also discusses the strengths of the
present study as well as limitations and suggestions for future study. Chapter seven
concludes with conclusion of the study.
15
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW: COOPERATIVE
LEARNING AND INDONESIAN CONTEXT
2.1 Introduction
This chapter starts by exploring the theoretical underpinning of cooperative learning
in section 2.2. Having set the rationale for cooperative learning as the instructional
methodology implemented in the present study (see section 1.2), details of its
principles which differentiate CL from other group work learning activities as well as
the types and techniques of CL are discussed in section 2.3. The limitations of CL are
then discussed in section 2.4. Studies implementing CL in international and
Indonesian contexts are reviewed in section 2.5. Following this, the chapter focuses
on identifying the position of the present study by exploring education system and
cultural values in Indonesia in section 2.6.
2.2 Theoretical Underpinning of Cooperative Learning
Slavin (1996) in his study on “research on cooperative learning and achievement:
what we know, what we need to know” identifies four major theoretical perspectives
to explain the achievement effects of CL. They are motivational perspective, social
cohesion perspective, cognitive-developmental perspective, and cognitive
elaboration perspective. Meanwhile, Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1998) and Johnson,
Johnson & Stanne (2000) believe that the use of CL in college classes has its roots in
the creation of social interdependence, cognitive-development, and behavioural
learning theories. This section discusses each theoretical perspective identified to
explain why and under what condition cooperative learning affect achievement.
Motivational perspective on CL focuses mainly on the reward or goal structures
under which students operate (Slavin 1996b). According to Slavin (1996b),
cooperative reward or goal structures in cooperative learning create a situation in
which the only way group members can attain their own personal goals is if the
group is successful (see section 2.3.1.1). In this structure, there is feeling that group
members can attain their personal goals if and only if the group is successful.
Therefore, to meet their personal goals, group members must both help their group
mates to do whatever helps the group as well as to encourage their group mates to
16
exert maximum efforts (Slavin 1996b). The fact that their success or outcomes are
dependent on one another‟s behaviour motivates students to engage in behaviours
which help the group to be successful because the group incentive induces students
to encourage goal-directed behaviours among their group mates. One intervention
that uses cooperative reward or goal structures is the group contingency (Slavin
1996b, p. 44) in which group rewards are given based on group members‟ behaviour.
The theoretical rational for these group rewards or goal structures is that if students
value the success of the group, they will encourage and help one another to achieve.
The motivational perspective is in some ways in line with the social interdependence
theory.
Social cohesion perspective, which is related to the motivational perspective in that it
emphasizes primarily motivational rather than cognitive explanations for the
effectiveness of cooperative learning, holds that the effects of cooperative learning
on achievement are strongly mediated by the cohesiveness of the group, in essence
that students will help one another learn because they care about one another and
want one another to succeed (Slavin 1996b p. 46). Slavin (1996b) argues that the
underlying practice of the social cohesion perspective is an emphasis on
teambuilding activities in preparation for CL processing or group self-evaluation
during and after group activities. In the present study, group members are assigned a
specific role such as group leader, spokesperson, secretary, team monitor, and
honorary member (see section 4.7.2.2) to create interdependence among group
members as suggested by Slavin (1996b). The idea is that if students value their
group mates and are dependent on one another, they are likely to encourage and help
one another to succeed.
In addition to the motivational and social cohesion perspectives which focus on
group norms and interpersonal influence, cognitive development perspective believes
that interactions among students around appropriate tasks will in themselves increase
students‟ achievement for reasons which have to do with mental processing of
information rather than with motivation (Slavin 1996b, p. 48). Cognitive
development perspective views cooperation as an essential prerequisite for cognitive
growth. It flows from the coordination of perspectives as individuals work to attain
common goals (Johnson et al. 2000). The cognitive developmental theory is mainly
based on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky.
17
Piaget (1926 cited in Slavin 1996b, p. 49) holds that “social-arbitrary knowledge –
language, values, rules, morality, and symbol systems – can only be learned in
interactions with others”. Piaget proposes that when individuals co-operate in the
environment, healthy socio-cognitive conflict occurs that create cognitive
disequilibrium, which in turn stimulate perspective-taking ability and cognitive
development. Meanwhile, Vygotsky defines the zone of proximal development
(ZPD) as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined
through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers” (Slavin 1996b, p. 48). Vygotsky believes that cooperative efforts to learn,
understand, and solve problems are essential for constructing knowledge and
transforming the joint perspectives into internal mental functioning. In this view,
cooperative activity among students promotes growth because students of similar
ages are likely to be operating within one another‟s ZPD. For both, Piaget and
Vygotsky, working cooperatively with more capable peers and instructors results in
cognitive development and intellectual growth. From the cognitive developmental
perspective, the opportunity for students to discuss, argue, present, and hear one
another‟s viewpoint is the critical element of CL. Therefore, when students are
working with others from different backgrounds and ability levels cooperatively,
they will be able to improve their communicative competence, interpersonal and
social skills, and academic achievement.
The cognitive developmental theory is closely related to social constructivism theory
which emphasizes that learning takes place in a sociocultural environment and views
learners as “active constructors of their own learning environment” (Wilson & Yang
2007, p. 51). The basic principal behind social constructivism is that the knowledge
is constructed through social interaction, and is the results of social processes
(Gergen 1995). Thus learning is interactive in the sense that learners must interact
with source of idea / knowledge in social settings, as well as in the sense that learners
must take active part in reconstructing ideas / knowledge within their own minds. In
relation to cooperative learning, teachers can play a large part in setting up learning
environment which exploit different learning activities and at the same time the
students‟ learning depends on how they view the activity as well as their purpose and
motivation for learning. Another fundamental concept in social constructivism is the
18
idea of scaffolding which refers to the support provided by other – parents, peers,
teachers or reference sources such as dictionaries – which enable students to perform
increasingly well (Wilson & Yang 2007, p. 52).
Another perspective proposed by Slavin (1996b) is cognitive elaboration perspective.
Cognitive elaboration perspective holds that if information is to be retained in
memory and related to information already in memory, the learner must engage in
some sort of cognitive restructuring, or elaboration of the material (Slavin 1996b, p.
50). Slavin (1996b) argue that one of the most effective means of elaboration is
explaining the material to someone else. He suggests peer tutoring as an elaboration
technique where one student takes the role of explaining the material or information
and the other student takes the role of listener. One practical use of the cognitive
elaboration potential of cooperative learning is in the informal cooperative group (see
section 2.3.2.2) where students are asked to turn to their friends to explain and
discuss the learning materials. In the present study, it was regularly used in the
teaching and learning processes to ensure that students cognitively process the
material being taught.
In addition to those four major theoretical perspectives of CL proposed by Slavin
(1996b), Johnson & Johnson (2009) propose that social interdependence theory
provides a foundation on which CL is built. Social interdependence exists when the
accomplishment of each individual‟s goal is affected by the action of their own and
others (Johnson, Johnson & Smith 2007). Deutsch first formulated social
interdependence theory in the 1940s, noting that interdependence can be positive
(cooperation), negative (competition), or non-existent (individualistic) (Johnson &
Johnson 2009, p. 366). The basic promise of social interdependence theory is that the
way social interdependence (goal structure) is structured determines how individuals
interact (Johnson et al. 2000; Johnson & Johnson 2009). Cooperative goal structure
exists when individuals perceive that they can reach their goals if and only if the
other individuals with whom they are cooperatively linked also reach their goals.
Cooperative goal structure generates promotive interaction where individuals
encouraging and facilitating each other‟s efforts to complete tasks in order to reach
the group‟s goal. Meanwhile, competitive goal structure exists when individuals
perceive that they can obtain their goals if and only if the other individuals with
whom they are competitively linked fail to obtain their goals. Competitive goal
19
structure generates oppositional interaction where individuals discouraging and
obstructing each other‟s efforts to complete tasks in order to achieve their goals.
Finally, individual goal structure in which an individual‟s goal-oriented efforts have
no connection with others‟ goal attainment results in a situation in which individuals
perceive that they can reach their goal regardless of whether other individuals in the
situation attain or do not attain their goals, therefore the achievement of their goals is
unrelated to the goal achievement of others (Johnson & Johnson 2009).
The behavioural learning theory assumes that students will work hard on those tasks
for which they secure a reward of some sort and will fail to work on tasks that yield
no reward or yield punishment (Johnson & Johnson 2015, p. 22) . Cooperative effort
is designed to provide incentives for the members of a group to participate in the
group‟s effort (Johnson et al. 2000). Behavioural learning theory assumes that
individual act to maximise their self-interests by behaving in ways to maximise their
rewards and minimise their punishments or costs. Cooperation is thus defined as
acting in ways perceived to maximise joint rewards and minimise joint costs,
competition as acting in ways to maximise one‟s own rewards and minimise one‟s
own costs relative to others, and individualistic efforts as acting in ways to maximise
one‟s own rewards and minimise one‟s own costs with little or no regard of the
outcome for others (Johnson & Johnson 2015, p. 22).
2.3 What Differentiate Cooperative Learning from Other Learning Groups?
As some teachers believe that they are implementing CL in their class and found that
the effects were not as positive as the literature demonstrated, Johnson et al. (1998, p.
28) contend that “not all that glitters is gold, of course, and not all group efforts are
cooperative”. They argue that simply assigning students to groups and telling them to
work together does not in and of itself result in CL. In a similar vein, Johnson and
Johnson (2000) also contend that putting students into groups to learn is not the same
thing as structuring cooperation among students. Gillies (2016) adds by stating that
placing students in groups and expecting them to be able to work together will not
necessarily promote cooperation. CL is much more than being physically near other
students, discussing material with other students, helping other students, or sharing
materials with other students, although each of these is important in CL. In order for
20
a lesson to be cooperative, five principles (section 2.3.1) are essential and need to be
included (Johnson & Johnson 2009).
The differences between cooperative learning and traditional learning groups are
summarized in table 2.1 below adopted from Chen (2006) and Lin (2009). It can be
seen that CL differs from traditional group work in various aspects such as group
dynamics, learning experiences, as well as teacher‟s and student‟s roles. It can also
be seen that CL group is more structured and organized while traditional groups are
organized randomly.
Table 2.1: Cooperative Learning Vs Traditional Learning Group
Differences Cooperative Learning Traditional Learning Groups
Group formation Teacher (and students) plan group size and composition
Students form groups with whoever they want or near them
Goal structure Positive interdependence with structured goals No positive interdependence
Seating arrangement
Group members sit in such a way as to see and hear one another and, at the same time bother other groups as little as possible
Students arrange their groups as they see fit
Collaborative skills
Collaborative skills are explicitly taught
Students are assumed to know how to work together
Individual participation
A clear accountability for their individual share of the group‟s work
No accountability for the individual share of the group‟s work
Individual role Sharing of leadership roles and appointed learning tasks
Few being put in charge of the group and each seldom responsible for other‟s learning
Learning goals Aiming to develop each member‟s learning to the maximum
Focusing only on accomplishing the assignments
Member‟s relationship
Maintaining of good working relationships
Frequent neglect of good working relationship
Teacher‟s roles Teachers observation of students teamwork Little teacher observation
21
Group duration
Group often stay together more than one activity and spend time discussing how they can work together better
When group finish an activity, they disband
Group processing
Structuring of the procedures and time for the processing
Rare structuring of procedures and time for the processing
Adopted from Chen (2006, p. 35) and Lin (2009, p. 10)
In addition, Oxford (1997) proposes three strands of communication in the foreign or
second language (L2) classroom: cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and
interaction (Oxford 1997, p. 443). According to Oxford (1997), cooperative learning
is considered more structured, more prescriptive to teachers about classroom
techniques, more directive to students about how to work together in groups, and
more targeted to the public school population than to postsecondary or adult
education. In contrast, has a “social constructivism” philosophical base which views
learning as construction of knowledge within a social context and which therefore
encourages acculturation of individuals into a learning community (Oxford 1997, p.
443). Meanwhile, interaction refers to personal communication in which people act
upon each other and facilitated by an understanding of four elements: types of
language tasks, learners‟ willingness to communicate with each other, learning styles
dimensions affecting interaction, and group dynamics (Oxford 1997, p. 449). The
differences of these three communication strands are summarized in table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2: Three Communication Strands: Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning and Interaction
Aspects Strand 1 Cooperative Learning
Strand 2 Collaborative Learning
Strand 3 Interaction
Purpose
Enhances cognitive and social skills via set of known techniques
Acculturates learners into knowledge communities
Allows learners to communicate with others in numerous ways
Degree of structure
High Variable Variable
22
Relationships
Individual is accountable to the group and vice versa; teacher facilitates, but group is primary
Learner engages with “more capable others” (teachers, advanced peers, etc.), who provide assistance and guidance
Learners, teachers, and others engage with each other in meaningful ways
Prescriptiveness of activities
High Low Variable
Key Terms
Positive interdependence, accountability teamwork, roles, cooperative learning structures
Zone of proximal development, cognitive apprenticeship, acculturation, scaffolding, situated cognition, reflective inquiry, epistemology.
Interaction-producing tasks, willingness to interact, learning styles, group dynamics, stages of group life, physical environments.
Oxford (1997, p. 444)
The following sections analyse the principles of CL which differentiate it from other
group learning activities. It also explores different types of CL groups and techniques
of CL as consideration of what group types and techniques to be implemented in the
present study.
2.3.1 Principles of Cooperative Learning
In order for a lesson to be cooperative, Johnson & Johnson (2009) propose that five
basic principles are essential and need to be established which include positive
interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, interpersonal and
social skills, and group processing. This section discusses those five principles and
how they are applied in the present study.
2.3.1.1 Positive interdependence
For a learning situation to be cooperative, students must perceive that they are
positively interdependence with other members of their learning group (Johnson et
al. 2007). Positive interdependence ensures that each student perceives that he or she
is linked with others in such ways that the student cannot succeed unless others do.
Positive interdependence promotes a situation in which students work together in
small groups to maximize the learning of all members, sharing their resources,
providing mutual support, and celebrating their joint success (Johnson et al. 2007).
23
Positive interdependence can be structured in many ways which can be subsumed
into three categories: outcome, means, and boundary (Johnson & Johnson 2009).
Outcome interdependence includes goals or rewards. In outcome interdependence,
students perceive that they could achieve their learning goals if and only if all the
members of their group also attain their goals. The group was united around a
common goal. Informing group members that they are responsible for all members
scoring above a specified standard when tested individually, the overall group score
being above specified criterion, or one product successfully completed by the group
might be used to structure positive interdependence among members of the
cooperative group (Liang 2002).
Means interdependence includes resource, role, and task interdependence (Johnson &
Johnson 2009). Resources can be divided among group members like a jigsaw
puzzle. Roles such as group leader, spokesperson, secretary, and team monitor can be
assigned to group members. The assigned task can be divided so that each group
member is responsible for doing one aspect of the assignment.
Establishing boundary interdependence is another way of structuring positive
interdependence. Boundary interdependence may exist based on abrupt
discontinuities among individuals that segregate individuals into separate groups.
The discontinuity may be created by environmental factor (different part of the
room), similarity (all wearing the same colour shirt), proximity (seated together),
past history together, expectation of being grouped together, and differentiation from
other groups. Boundary interdependence includes outside enemy (negative
interdependence with another group), identity (which binds members together as an
entity), and environment such as a specific work area (Liang 2002).
Positive interdependence was ensured throughout the present study through outcome,
means, and boundary interdependence. Outcome interdependence was structured in
the learning process by asking each group to present a single product to the class
(e.g. design an extra-class programme to improve their speaking skill, prepare a
video to promote tourism places in Lampung). Means interdependence was
established by assigning specific roles and task for each group member such as group
leader, spokesperson, secretary, team monitor and honorary member (see section
4.7.7.2). Boundary interdependence was ensured by asking each group to create
24
unique name and yel-yel for their group‟s identity as well as asking each group to
always seat together.
When positive interdependence is clearly perceived, individuals realize that their
efforts are required in order for the group to succeed so that it is not possible to get a
„free ride‟ and they have a unique contribution to make to the group‟s efforts (Liang,
2002). Without positive interdependence, students sometimes fall into the trap of
„hitchhiking‟ where they let one student does all the work for them, or of being „off
task‟. These limitations of CL are discussed in section 2.4.
2.3.1.2 Group and Individual accountability
Group accountability exists when the overall performance of the group is assessed
and the results are given back to all group members to compare against standard of
performance. Individual accountability exists when the performance of each
individual is assessed and the results are given back to the group and the individual
to compare against a standard of performance, and the member is held responsible by
group mates for contributing his or her fair share to the group‟s success (Johnson &
Johnson 2009).
Structuring individual accountability might be done by giving an individual test to
each student, having each student to explain what he or she has learned to a
classmate, or observing each group and documenting the contributions of each
member (Liang 2002). In addition, teachers can also establish individual
accountability by structuring positive interdependence among group members so
they will feel responsible for facilitating other‟s efforts, holding students personally
responsible for completing their part of the task, and ensuring that their contributions
can be clearly identified (Gillies 2016, p. 41).
The lack of individual accountability may reduce feelings of personal responsibility.
Members may reduce their contributions to goal achievement when the group works
on tasks where it is difficult to identify members‟ contributions, there is an increased
likelihood of redundant efforts, there is a lack of group cohesiveness, and/or there is
lessened responsibility for the final outcome (Johnson & Johnson 2009). Generally,
as the group gets larger, members are less likely to see their own personal
contribution to the group as being important to the group‟s chances of success.
25
Therefore, the smaller the size of the group, the greater the individual accountability
(Johnson & Johnson, 2009). To ensure group and individual accountability are
evident in the present study, as much as possible, each group consists of three to four
members. The teacher educator also regularly observing and documenting
contribution of each member, and sometimes randomly asks group member to
explain what he or she has learned to the class (see section 4.7.2.2).
2.3.1.3 Promotive interaction
Promotive interaction occurs as individuals encourage and facilitate each other‟s
effort to complete their tasks in order for the group to achieve its goal (Johnson &
Johnson 2009; Johnson et al. 2007). Further, Johnson et al. (2007) propose that in
order to promote each other‟s success, group members help and assist each other,
exchange needed resources such as information and materials, provide each other
with feedback, and act in trusting and trustworthy ways. It is also important to bear in
mind that to obtain meaningful interaction, the size of groups needs to be small (2 to
4 members). Gillies (2016) suggests that teachers can facilitate interaction in groups
when they ensure students sit in close proximity to other group members so each
group member can hear what is being discussed, see each other‟s faces, and
participate in the group‟s discussion.
2.3.1.4 Interpersonal and social skills.
Contributing to the success of a cooperative effort requires interpersonal and social
skills. Assigning students to groups and expecting them to know how to cooperate
does not ensure that this will happen (Gillies 2016, p. 41). In fact, groups often
implode because they lack the interpersonal and social skills required to manage
disagreements among group members. Students might not intuitively know those
skills and therefore they must be explicitly negotiated (older students) or taught
(younger children) how to cooperate with others.
The interpersonal and social skills could be taught through setting interpersonal and
social skills goal along with the academic goals and let students know that it is
beneficial for them, or through role playing, modelling, and discussing the
components of particular social skills (Liang 2002). Chan (2014) argues that
interpersonal and social skills do not come about automatically with CL, but should
26
be formally taught the same way as any curriculum subject is taught. In similar vein,
Johnson et al. (2007) maintain that leadership, decision-making, trust-building,
communication, and conflict-management skills have to be taught just as
purposefully and precisely as academic skills. Johnson and Johnson (2009) also
argue that students need to be taught the interpersonal and social skills needed for
high quality cooperation and they must be motivated to use them if they are to
facilitate learning in themselves and others.
In the present study, interpersonal and social skills are established and taught during
the treatment by creating the classroom rules which students must practice in their
learning (see section 4.7.2.2). The teacher educator also regularly observes and
documents how each group manage their communication and discussion, resolve
conflicts among group members, and process the decision making. The teacher
educator also regularly reminds the students to practice targeted interpersonal and
social skills.
2.3.1.5 Group processing.
Group processing occurs when group members regularly discuss and assess which
actions were effective for achieving the goal and how well they are maintaining
effective working relationship. Group needs to describe what member actions are
helpful and unhelpful and make decisions about what behaviours to continue or
change. Students must also be given the time and procedures for analysing how well
their learning groups are functioning and the extent to which students are employing
their social skill to help all group members to achieve and maintain effective
relationships within the group. Group processing may result in streamlining the
learning process to make it simpler, eliminating unskilled and inappropriate actions,
facilitating the learning of social skills, improving students‟ skills in working as part
of a team, ensuring that members receive feedback on their participation, enabling
learning groups to focus on group maintenance, and reminding students to practice
collaborative skills consistently.
Teachers need to provide the class time required for group processing and teach
students how to analyse their process effectively. To have successful group
processing, teachers should provide a specific structure for processing such as using
a group evaluation form with specific evaluation items, or asking the groups to list
27
some things which they have done well in and some things which need to improve
(Lim 2009). Following group processing, the teacher educator in the present study
provides general feedback to the class as a whole and specific feedbacks were
provided to each group with specific problems (see section 4.7.2.2). It is hoped that
through group processing, interpersonal conflict is reduced, and the probability of
desired behaviours to complete the task and members caring for one another
increases, resulting in a highly motivated group (Lim 2009). Group processing ends
with members celebrating their hard work and success.
According to Johnson et al. (2007), understanding how to implement the five basic
principles of CL enables teachers to structure any lesson in any subject with any set
of curriculum materials cooperatively; fine-tune and adapt CL to their specific
circumstances, needs, and students; and intervene to improve the effectiveness of any
group that is malfunctioning. Teachers‟ effectiveness in using CL depends on the
ability to structure these five basic principles.
In the present study, the teacher educator ensures that all those five basic principles
have been established effectively through several ways. Positive interdependence
was structured through goal, means, and boundary interdependence. Individual
accountability was established through individual quizzes, observations, and/or
assigning specific roles. Promotive interaction was implemented through putting
students in close proximity to other group members and encouraging discussion
among group members. Interpersonal and social skills were negotiated and
established by designing and implementing classroom rules. Group processing was
allocated every three to four meetings, for students to evaluate how well they work as
a group (see section 4.7.2.2).
2.3.2 Types of Cooperative Learning Group
Some of the factors contributing to the problems faced by EFL teachers in Indonesia
was how to address the various needs of the mixed-level students in large classes
(Marcellino 2008) with only two to four teaching hours per week (Kementrian
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan 2012). Baker & Heather (2000) suggest that pair and
group work is very good way to manage large classes with mixed abilities and it can
improve motivation and students‟ use of English. In the same vein, an Indonesian
28
scholar Sulistiyo (2015) suggests that in order to be effectively teaching in large
classes in Indonesia, teacher could assign group activities and peer-based tasks.
Group work allows all students to practice language and to actively participate in the
classroom activities. That is why group work is important technique to be used in
large classes, where otherwise only few stronger or more confident students have the
opportunity to participate.
In relation to CL as a group teaching method, Johnson et al. (1998) develop three
interrelated ways to use CL group which include formal cooperative learning,
informal cooperative learning, and cooperative base group. These three different
group formats provide more flexibility for teachers to implement CL group works in
their classrooms in accordance to the teachers‟ confidence in using group work as
well as its suitability to the subjects, curriculum objectives, classroom context, and
students‟ needs.
2.3.2.1 Formal Cooperative Learning
Formal cooperative learning group is a type of CL where students work together, for
one class period over several weeks to achieve shared learning goals and complete
jointly specific tasks and assignments (Johnson & Johnson 2000, p. 26) such as
decision-making or problem-solving, completing a curriculum unit, writing a report,
conducting a survey or experiment, or reading a chapter or reference book, learning
vocabulary, or answering questions at the end of the chapter.
2.3.2.2 Informal Cooperative Learning
Informal cooperative learning consists of having students work together to achieve a
joint learning goal that last from a few minutes to one class period (Johnson &
Johnson 2000, p. 29). It is used primarily to enhance direct instruction (presentations,
demonstrations, films, videos) and it is typically formed for a brief period of time
(Johnson et al. 1998). During a lecture, demonstration, or film, informal cooperative
learning can be used to focus students‟ attention on the material to be learned, help
set expectations as to what will be covered in a class session, ensure that students
cognitively process the material being taught, and provide closure to an instructional
session (Johnson & Johnson 2000).
29
2.3.2.3 Cooperative Base Group
Cooperative base groups are long term (lasting for at least a semester), heterogeneous
cooperative learning groups with stable membership whose primary responsibility is
to provide each student the support and encouragement he or she needs to make
academic progress and to complete the course(s) successfully (Johnson & Johnson
2000, p. 31). The use of base groups tends to improve attendance, personalize the
work required and the school experience, and improve the quality and quantity of
learning. The teacher‟s roles in using cooperative base groups are to: a) form
heterogeneous groups; b) schedule a time when they will regularly meet; c) create
specific agendas with concrete tasks that provide a routine for base groups to follow
when they meet; d) ensure the five basic principles of effective cooperative groups
are implemented; and e) have students periodically process the effectiveness of their
base group (Johnson & Johnson 2000, p. 31).
These three types of CL groups complement and support each other. Understanding
these three types of CL groups guides the teacher educator in the present study to
implement CL effectively. In the present study, the teacher educator implemented all
the three CL groups. Base cooperative learning groups were established at the
beginning of the study, ensuring that the groups were heterogeneous in term of their
English ability, academic achievement, gender, ethnical background, and their
mother tongue. Each CL group type was implemented in accordance to the specific
learning objective, classroom situation, and students‟ needs (section 4.7.2.2).
2.3.3 Techniques of Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is actually a generic term that refers to numerous techniques for
organizing and conducting classroom interaction (Johnson et al. 2000). Johnson et al.
(2000) in their meta-analysis of 164 studies identified factors contributing to the
widespread use of cooperative learning. Three of the most important are that
cooperative learning is clearly based on theory (see section 2.2), validated by
research (see section 2.5), and operationalized into clear procedures educators can
use. They further claim that due to the variety of CL techniques available for teacher
use, almost any teacher could find a way to use CL that is congruent with his or her
philosophies and practices. This section discusses variety of CL techniques which
30
have received attention from teachers and researchers and why certain technique was
selected to be implemented in the present study. Resulting from their meta-analysis
study, Johnson et al. (2000) list ten techniques of CL which have received the most
attention (see table 2.2).
These varieties of CL techniques provide more freedom for the teacher educator in
the present study to choose and implement any CL technique congruent with his
teaching philosophies and previous experience. In addition to teacher educator‟s
competence and previous experience, the selection of CL technique to be
implemented in the present study was most importantly based on its appropriacy to
the classroom conditions including the contents and objectives of the course and the
curriculum as well as classroom context and students‟ needs.
Johnson et al. (2000) placed CL techniques on a continuum from direct to
conceptual. More direct CL techniques consist of very specific and well defined
techniques that teacher can learn in a few minutes and apply immediately. More
conceptual CL techniques consist of conceptual frameworks teachers learn and use as
a template or restructure current lessons and activities into cooperative ones. In other
words, more direct techniques tend to be easy to learn (and require less training time)
and easily implemented, are often focused on specific subject areas and grade levels,
and are not easily adapted to changing conditions. In contrast, more conceptual
techniques tend to be difficult to learn and use initially, may be used in lessons in any
subject area for any age student, and are highly adaptable to changing conditions.
This classification was based on the assessment of CL techniques conducted by two
psychology professor on five criteria: ease of learning, ease of initial use, ease of
maintaining its use over time, robustness, and adaptability. The results (see table 2.2)
indicated that Learning Together (LT) is a conceptual CL technique which tends to
be difficult to learn and use initially. However, it is the most flexible technique
which may be used in lessons in any subject area for any age student and is highly
adaptable to changing conditions. In contrast, CIRC is at the continuum of most
direct technique which tends to be easy to learn (and require less training time) and
easily implemented. However, it is focused on specific subject areas and grade levels
and is not easily adapted to changing conditions.
31
Table 2.3: Classification of Cooperative Learning Techniques
Technique Learn Initial Use Maintain Robust Adapta-
bility Total
Learning Together 5 5 5 5 5 25 Academic Controversy 5 5 5 4 4 23 Complex Instruction 5 5 3 3 3 19 Group Investigation 5 5 3 2 2 17 Jigsaw 2 2 3 3 3 13 TGT 3 3 1 2 2 11 STAD 2 2 1 2 2 9 Cooperative Structure 1 1 1 1 5 9 TAI 2 2 1 1 1 7 CIRC 2 2 1 1 1 7
Adapted from Johnson et al. (2000, p. 12)
Johnson et al. (2000) also ranked CL techniques based on the impacts of CL
technique compared with individualistic and competitive learning. Learning Together
was found to promote the greatest effects on achievement. After conducting their
meta-analysis study, they also argue that the more conceptual the CL technique, the
higher the achievement effects compared to competitive and individualistic learning.
2.3.3.1 Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD)
This technique requires groups of four members. The members are assigned in such a
way as to ensure a mixture of abilities, gender, ethnicity, and any other characteristic
the teacher may deem important. The teacher begins by presenting a lesson after
which students work in their groups to make sure that all group members have
mastered the lesson. All students then take individual quizzes on the material and
they may not help one another on the quizzes. Students‟ quiz scores are compared
with their own past averages, points are awarded based on the degree to which
students can meet or exceed their own earlier performance (Slavin 1996a, p. 201).
These points are pooled to form group score and groups that meet certain criteria
may earn certificates or other recognition. Lindblad (1994) argues that this technique
of CL is most effective when a single concept is taught and when quiz questions have
only one right answer. In addition, Slavin (1996a) argues that it is most appropriate
for teaching well-defined objectives with single right answer, such as mathematical
computations and applications, language usage and mechanics, geography and map
skills and science facts and concepts.
32
2.3.3.2 Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT)
Teams-Games-Tournament is very similar to STAD. It uses the same teacher
presentations and group work as in STAD, but it replaces the quizzes with weekly
tournaments, in which students compete with members of other groups to contribute
points to their group scores (Slavin 1996a, p. 201). In Teams-Games-Tournament
(TGT) technique, the teacher assigns students to four-member learning groups that
are mixed in performance level, gender, ethnicity, and any other characteristic the
teacher may deem important. The primary function of the group is to prepare its
member to do well in the tournament. The teacher presents a lesson after which
students work in their groups to make sure that all group members have mastered the
lesson. All students then participate in “tournament table” in which students from
each group compete with students from other groups of the same level of past
performance to try to contribute to their group score (Slavin 1996a, p. 201). The
winner at each tournament table brings the same number of points to his or her
group, regardless of which table it is. This means that low achievers (competing with
other low achievers) and high achievers (competing with other high achievers) have
equal opportunities for contributing to the groups‟ points. The groups‟ points are
used to determine if their groups receive rewards, such as certificates or other form
of team recognitions. While group assignments always remain the same, tournament
table assignments are changed for every tournament according to a system that
maintains equality of past performance at each table (Slavin 1980, p. 320). This
technique could be implemented whenever the teaching materials and classroom
condition are appropriate.
2.3.3.3 Team-Assisted Individualization (TAI)
This technique is originally an individualized mathematics programme in which
students work in heterogeneous four- or five-member learning groups on
individualized materials at their own level and rates (Slavin, Madden & Leavey
1984). Students help each other with problems within their groups and take
responsibility for checking each other‟s paper and tests. The group manages the
paper flow (homework, work sheets, and tests). This frees the teacher to spend most
class time working with groups of students at the same level. Progress is evaluated
and points earned leading toward appropriate class rewards. According to Slavin et
al. (1984), TAI is designed to improve the quality of instruction by making it
33
possible for the teacher to provide direct instruction to small groups of students from
similar level. Time for direct instruction is made available by having students handle
the routine management tasks (Slavin et al. 1984, p. 815).
2.3.3.4 Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC)
CIRC is a comprehensive programme for teaching reading and writing in the upper
elementary and middle grades (Slavin, 1996a p. 201) which requires heterogeneous
reading groups. Pairs of students (from different reading groups) work with each
other on cognitively engaging activities including reading to one another, making
predictions about how narrative stories will come out, summarizing stories to one
another, writing responses to stories, and practicing spelling, decoding, and
vocabulary. The group also works together during language arts time to produce a
collaborative writing assignment that goes into making a group book. The flow
usually begins with teacher instruction. The group then practices the skill and
determines when the group is ready for a quiz. That is, the students do not take the
quiz until their group mates have determined that they are ready. The group is
rewarded based on the average performance of all the team members.
2.3.3.5 Jigsaw and Jigsaw II
With Jigsaw, the teacher divides the prescribed assignment into five to six separate
and unique parts, one for each group member (Lindblad 1994, p. 291). After they
read their sections, the students meet in “expert groups” with their counterparts from
other groups to discuss their information. The individual group members then report
back to the group and teach their group mates what they have learned. The final
product then is produced or the entire class take a test for individual grades. Because
the only way students can learn segments other than their own is to listen carefully to
their group mates, they are motivated to support and show interest in one another‟s
work. It is only through cooperation that the group can collect all of the information
needed and produce the final product.
Slavin (1994) developed a modification of Jigsaw called Jigsaw II. In this technique,
student work in four or five members. The group is given the entire problem and
subdivides the assignment according to its own plan in which each group member is
given a special topic on which to become an expert. The students discuss their topics
in “expert groups” and then return to teach their group mates what they have learned.
34
The student then take individual quizzes and the quiz scores are used as in STAD to
form individual and group scores. Groups that meet pre-set standards may earn
certificate (Slavin, 1996a, p. 202). According to Ghaith (2003), Jigsaw and Jigsaw II
are well suited for teaching material in a narrative form such as a story or chapter.
2.3.3.6 Learning Together
Learning Together was developed by David and Roger Johnson at the University of
Minnesota (Slavin 1996a, p. 202). This technique has groups of four or five students
who work cooperatively on a single work-sheet or activity. The groups hand in a
single product or present a project and receive praise and rewards based on their
performance. Instruction in this technique is organized according to the principles of
positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, social and
interpersonal skills, and group processing (Ghaith 2003, p. 253). The model
emphasizes the use of team-building activities before students begin working
together and regular discussions within groups about how well group members are
working together. Ghaith (2003) argues that the main difference between Learning
Together and other CL techniques is that this technique is less direct and less
prescriptive. Learning Together technique provides a conceptual framework for
teachers to plan and tailor cooperative learning instruction according to their
circumstances, student needs, and school context. This is in line with Johnson‟s et al.
(2000) classification of CL techniques on the continuum from direct to conceptual
which put Learning Together as the most conceptual CL technique.
After examining the contents and objectives of Speaking II subject and CL
techniques, Learning Together (LT) was considered to be the most appropriate CL
technique to teach the contents of Speaking II and achieve its objectives. Another
consideration was from Johnson‟s et al. (2000) and Ghaith‟s (2003) studies which
suggest that LT as a more conceptual CL technique is able to provide teachers the
flexibility to plan and tailor cooperative learning instruction according to their
circumstances, student needs, and school context. Therefore, by selecting LT, the
teacher educator in the present study can plan and deliver his instructions according
to the subject contents and objectives, classroom contexts, as well as student
teachers‟ levels and needs. As this CL technique is not easy to learn and implement,
the teacher educator who was also researcher in the present study has familiarized
35
himself with LT technique during his preparation of the present study. In addition, he
also has experience in implementing this technique in his teaching prior to
conducting study.
2.4 Limitations of Cooperative Learning
Liang (2002) argues that even though CL has been widely accepted and
recommended for language teaching and learning, it is by no means a panacea that
could solve all educational problems. There are, like all other teaching methods,
limitations in CL. In order to avoid some limitations of CL, teachers need to
implement CL structures carefully. Liang (2002) further claims that if the teacher just
put the students into groups to learn and did not structure the positive
interdependence and individual accountability, then it would not be unusual to find
groups where one person does most (or all) the works and the others sign off as if
they have learned it or have done the work. Or it might be easy to have a “bossy”
student who does not allow others to take part; or other group dynamic problems that
might come from not setting the ground rules for behaviour and carefully crafting the
group dynamic.
In addition, some teachers might experience frustration and open hostility from their
students. On one hand, bright students complain about being held back by their
slower group mates. On the other hand, weaker or less assertive students complain
about being discounted or ignored in group sessions, and resentments build when
some group members failed to pull their weight. Furthermore, teaching materials in a
cooperative way was considered time consuming although more students might have
learned and retained the material better (Liang 2002). This might be true, especially
in the beginning when CL was new to the teacher and to the students. While there are
many CL techniques available for teacher use, the complexity of CL may partially
explain why it tends to be used less than competitive and individualistic learning in
college classes, even though, as claimed by Johnson et al. (1998), it is by far the most
effective of three alternatives.
CL is also underused because many students do not understand how to work
cooperatively with others. Students may resist changes in instruction and pressure
teacher to continue to lecture. Some, when first exposed to CL, may say, “I paid to
36
hear you, not my classmates” (Johnson et al. 1998, p. 28). Students might be
reluctant to talk over personal ideas with their peers for fear that other students might
think little of their opinion.
In relation to Indonesian education and cultural context, study has been conducted by
the present researcher (Prastyo, Mishan & Vaughan 2014) assessing potential
benefits and drawbacks for the application of CL. The prevailing evaluation and
reward systems in Indonesian education system and colleges are oriented toward
competitive and individualistic work. When working in group, group harmony and
tolerance in Indonesian cultural values might hinder students from expressing their
opinion, challenging each other reasoning and dealing with conflict directly and
openly (see section 2.6 for discussion on CL in Indonesian education and cultural
contexts).
In order to overcome those above-mentioned limitations of CL, steps should be taken
in the present study. As suggested by Liang (2002), those limitations of CL could be
reduced to great extent or even avoided completely if the teachers had undergone
solid teacher development before the implementation of CL. In the present study, the
present researcher in his dual roles as a researcher and the teacher educator has
familiarized himself with the theory of CL during preparing for this research. He is
also familiar with education system and cultural values in Indonesia as he was born
and educated in Indonesia. In relation to implementation of CL in Indonesian
context, the present researcher has experience in implementing CL at college level
when he was an English lecturer at Bandar Lampung University, Indonesia.
2.5 Research Studies Implementing Cooperative Learning
Johnson et al. (1998) contend that today‟s focus on the use of CL in college
classroom has its roots in the work of Deutsch in the late 1940s which demonstrates
the power of CL in a psychology class at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT). Before 1970s, almost all the reported studies have been conducted in college
classrooms and laboratories using college students as participants. Starting in the
early 1970s, elementary and secondary school educators became curious as to
whether the benefits of CL so powerfully demonstrated with college students would
37
apply also to elementary and secondary school students. In 1990s, the interest in
investigating the use of CL at college level has been rekindled (Johnson et al. 1998).
As of 2009 more than 1,200 research studies had been conducted on cooperative
learning, and a significant amount of those studies focused on the effects of
cooperative learning on achievement in comparisons to more traditional, individual
or competitive teaching techniques (Johnson & Johnson 2009). An early attempt to
analysis the effects of CL on academic achievement from various studies has been
conducted by Johnson et al. (1981) who reviewed 122 studies and analysed the effect
of learning goal structures of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning
on students‟ academic achievement. Results of their meta-analysis showed that
cooperative learning promoted higher achievement than competitive and
individualistic learning (Johnson et al. 1981).
In relation to college and adult settings, Johnson et al. (1998) have found 305 studies
that compare the relative efficacy of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
learning. From those studies, over 168 studies comparing the relative efficacy of
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning on the achievement of
individuals 18 years or older. These studies indicate that CL promotes higher
individual achievement than do competitive approaches (effect size = 0.49) or
individualistic ones (effect size = 0.53). Furthermore, their meta-analysis on studies
using 18 years or older participants found that cooperative effort promotes greater
liking among students than competitive or individualistic effort. This finding holds
even among students from different ethnic, cultural, language, social class, ability,
and gender groups. Members of cooperative groups also become more socially
skilled than do students working competitively or individualistically (Johnson et al.
1998).
Furthermore, Johnson et al. (2000) conducted another meta-analysis studying
effectiveness of cooperative methods on students‟ achievement. 164 studies have
been found investigating eight cooperative learning techniques, such as Academic
Controversy, Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition, Group Investigation,
Jigsaw, Learning Together, Student Teams-Achievement Divisions, Teams-Games-
Tournaments, and Team Assisted Individualization. Results of meta-analysis showed
that all cooperative learning techniques analysed improved students‟ achievement in
38
comparison to competitive and individualistic techniques. Their analysis indicated
that Learning Together promotes the greatest effects on students‟ achievement
compared to other cooperative learning techniques.
A systematic review on the effects of cooperative learning on students‟ achievement
at primary schools has also been conducted by Acosta (2012). Eleven studies were
found to meet the criteria for inclusion in the review. The results of studies assessing
the effects of cooperative learning on primary schools students‟ academic
achievement in comparison to tradition techniques showed that the effectiveness of
cooperative learning was positive and no negative effects were found (Acosta 2012).
In order to gain an overview of research studies on CL and to position the present
study, this section presents review of the recent research studies implementing CL
both in international and Indonesian context.
2.5.1 Cooperative Learning Studies in International Context
Many researchers have conducted studies to investigate the use of CL on students‟
speaking or communication skills. Marashi & Dibah (2013) investigated the effects
of CL on oral proficiency of introvert and extrovert Iranian EFL learners in a private
language school. The participants were 120 learners divided into four subgroups: 30
introverts and 30 extroverts undergoing CL treatment, and 30 introverts and 30
extroverts experiencing competitive learning treatment. The data were collected in
pretest and posttest using Test of Spoken English (TSE) and a two-way ANOVA was
run for the data analysis. The results showed that learners generally benefitted more
from competitive setting than cooperative. The extrovert group was better off
receiving cooperative instruction. Introvert outperformed extroverts in the
competitive group, yet there was no difference between two personality subgroups in
the cooperative setting. Overall, introverts in both cooperative and competitive
settings benefitted more than extroverts.
Zhang (2010) explored the benefits of CL in EFL classroom compared to traditional
learning in China through literature analysis. The results revealed benefits of using
CL in EFL classrooms which include providing the chance of input and output,
creating effective climate, increasing a variety of language functions, and fostering
learners‟ responsibility and independence. With those benefits revealed from his
39
literature analysis in regards to the application of CL in Chinese context, he suggests
that it is worthwhile for teachers and scholars to introduce this instructional method
to language learning classroom to find empirical evidence if CL could benefits ELF
learners.
An experimental study was carried out by Ning and Hornby (2010) to investigate the
effects of CL on Chinese EFL learners‟ competencies in listening, speaking, reading,
writing, and vocabulary. Participants were 100 first-year College English learners
from a university in the north of China. A pretest-posttest quasi experimental design
was employed to study the effects of CL on students‟ language competencies in
comparison to traditional instruction. Findings revealed clear differences in favour of
CL in the teaching of listening, speaking, and reading but no differences were found
between the two approaches in the areas of writing and vocabulary.
Another empirical study on the use of CL in China was also carried out by Han
(2015) to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of the application of CL to
college English listening class in China. The study for a whole semester was carried
out in two classes; History (52 students) as experimental group and Physics (53
students) as control group. Data were collected through listening test (CET-4) in
pretest and posttest, questionnaire, and interviews. The results demonstrated that CL
can improve learners‟ communicative competence significantly and CL is very
effective in English listening classes. Despite of the limitations of CL, the adoption
of CL in listening classes in this study not only makes the learning environment more
interesting, natural and real, but also significantly improves the students‟
communicative competence.
At junior high level, Wei and Tang (2015) investigated the use of CL in China which
combine theory analysis and experiment. The participants were 53 students at
experimental class and 51 students at control class. Data were collected via tests
(pretest and posttest), questionnaire, and interviews. The results indicated that CL
can improve students‟ English academic achievement better than traditional way. CL
allowed students to have more opportunities to learn actively and passionately,
cooperative and communicative with others and develop students‟ ability to integrate
what they have learned to use in real situation during the learning procedure. The
qualitative data revealed benefits of CL which include arousing students‟ interest in
40
learning English, involving students in cooperating and learning, and fostering
students‟ confidence. The data also revealed the drawbacks of CL which include
diffusing the responsibility, having vague objectives, and lacking time for learning
individually.
Another quasi-experimental research was conducted by Lin (2009) to explore the
impact of CL on Chinese students‟ English oral proficiency. The study was
conducted during fifteen weeks involving 73 first-year students (37 students at
experimental class and 36 students at control class). The students at experimental
class were exposed to CL activities for 90 minutes every week, while the students at
control class participated in whole-class instruction. Oral pretest and posttest were
conducted before and after the intervention to measure the students‟ gains in oral
proficiency. The results revealed a null experimental effect on overall oral
proficiency and on its component: grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation, discourse
management, and interactive communication. However, the t-test suggested that the
students in the experimental class made more gains in interactive communication
than those in the control class. Therefore, the results about the CL effects on
interactive communication were inconclusive.
Çelik, Aytın and Bayram (2013) carried out qualitative research on the applicability
of CL in the Turkish context by employing two separate focus group interviews to
Turkish EFL teachers. Fourteen English language instructors working in the Basic
School of English at a university in Turkey participated in this research. The results
revealed that while the teachers believed group learning to be beneficial, the
standardized EFL curriculum, overcrowded classrooms, and students‟ attitudes
towards CL caused difficulties in implementing this approach with Turkish learners.
In Yaman, a study of CL has been conducted by Al-Tamimi and Attamimi (2014)
investigating the effect of CL to enhance students‟ speaking skills and attitude. A
quasi-experimental research with a non-equivalent control group pretest – posttest
design was employed in this study. Participants were sixty undergraduate students
from two intact classes enrolled in the foundation English program at Hadhramout
University, Yaman. Data were gathered before and after the experiment through an
oral English test and questionnaire. The data were analysed using basic and
inferential statistical methods including mean scores, standard deviations, paired-
41
samples t-test, and effect size. The results showed remarkable development in the
students‟ speaking skills and attitude after the introduction of CL technique.
In Taiwan, a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest comparison group research study
was conducted by Liao (2006) to investigate the effect of CL on college students‟
motivation, out-of-class strategy use, and grammar achievement. Two college classes
(forty two students each) participated in this twelve-week study. Data were collected
via pretest and posttest and analysed with MANCOVAs, one- and two-way
ANCOVAs, simple effects, and Pearson correlations. The findings indicated that CL
has large positive effects on motivation and strategy use as well as consistent pattern
in favour of CL over whole-class instruction in teaching the Taiwanese learners
English grammar.
In Malaysia, an experimental study carried out by Seng (2006) examined the
relationship between CL and achievement in literature class at a rural secondary
school in Malaysia. Participants were 59 students from four classes. The data were
gathered through pretest and posttest questions, questionnaire, classroom
observations, and interviews. The findings demonstrated that participants from the
experimental group showed a significant improvement, while those from control
group did not show similar improvement. Furthermore, the qualitative data indicated
that CL could enhance students‟ social development as well as interest in the learning
of English literature.
Another study of CL took place in the EFL setting of a heterogeneous Israeli
classroom having a broad variety of ethnic and cultural multiplicities among students
conducted by Shachar & Sharan (1995). They found that CL methods applied by
teachers have a positive effect on improving peer interaction in small groups and
increasing students‟ motivation to learn and to show more flexibility and multiplicity
in the subject matter and to increase the speed of learning and teaching. On the
positive side, students reported that they had more fun and enjoyed learning by this
method as they enjoyed learning from peers and discussing ideas. Students revealed
that they improved their relationships, had good attitudes about studying English, and
gained more self-confidence as well as developed other skills such as working in a
team. They found that working in a team helped them remember the lesson and their
attendance and self-discipline increased. On the other side, disadvantages of CL
42
reported by the students include having conflicts during the process, missing parts of
the text, and scheduling time for group meetings.
Those studies reviewed indicated inconclusive findings. Even though most of the
findings indicated positive effects of CL on students‟ achievement, some studies (Lin
2009; Marashi & Dibah 2013) showed no difference between CL and traditional
teaching. Some studies have taken into account perceptions from the participants on
the application of CL in their studies (Çelik et al. 2013; Han 2015; Shachar & Sharan
1995; Wei & Tang 2015). However, there has not been study integrating quantitative
and qualitative data from both participants as students as well as future teachers.
Therefore, the present study integrating quantitative and qualitative data involving
both participants as students as well as in their preparation programme as future
teachers is highly important to provide more comprehensive evidence on the efficacy
of CL on students‟ achievement. As the present study is conducted in Indonesia, next
section discusses some research studies on cooperative learning in Indonesian
context.
2.5.2 Studies on Cooperative Learning in Indonesia
In relation to Indonesian context, some recent studies have been carried out through
quasi-experimental and classroom action research to investigate the use of CL in
science, biology, chemistry, and mathematics (see table 2.3 below). Cooperative
learning has been found to be more effective to improve students‟ achievement,
motivation, critical thinking, and creativity. Some studies have also investigated
participants‟ perceptions on the application of CL in their classrooms and found
positive responses from participants.
Table 2.4: Studies on Cooperative Learning in Indonesia
Author (Year) Field of study and level
Specific Interest Summary of the finding
Husamah & Yuni Pantiwati (2014)
Biology, Higher Education
Motivation, Thinking skill, and achievement
STAD improved students‟ motivation, enhanced thinking skill, and accelerated students‟ achievement.
43
Said Hasan, Ferny Margo Tumber & Aloysius Duran Corebima (2013)
Critical thinking, Elementary school
Critical thinking skill
STAD + TGT have the highest potency to empower students‟ critical thinking compared to TGT, STAD and conventional learning.
Etin Solihatina & Ali Öztürkb (2014)
Civic, Junior high school
Achievement Using TGT significantly improved students‟ interest, achievement, and motivation.
Suharta & Putri Lynna A. Luthan (2013)
Chemistry, Senior high school
Creativity, Democracy, Learning outcome
CL significantly improved students‟ learning outcome and develop creativity and democracy
Efanndi Zakaria, Titi Solfitri, Yusoff Daud & Zulkarnain Zainal Abidin (2013)
Mathematic, High school
Mathematic achievement, student perceptions
CL (Jigsaw) significantly improved students‟ achievement, understanding and self-confident.
Sri Sukatmi & Yasir Riadi (2015)
Science, Elementary school
Learning outcome
Jigsaw was effective to improve learning outcome and data revealed that 95% students can follow the lesson.
Sopiah Sangadji (2016)
Economics, Vocational school
Achievement Group investigation was effective to increase student achievement.
Prayekti (2015) Physic, Senior high school
Achievement STAD demonstrated better learning outcome.
Marhamah & Mulyadi (2013)
Teaching Learning Strategy, Higher education
Achievement
Jigsaw significantly improved student achievement. Students have positive opinion about jigsaw.
In addition, some other studies have also been conducted in EFL classroom in
relation to students‟ reading, writing, and speaking skills at primary, secondary, and
higher educations (see table 2.4). While some researchers have examined the effects
of CL on students‟ speaking skill or spoken English, this has not been done in the
context of student teachers who will teach English at junior and/or senior high
schools in Indonesia. Moreover, to my knowledge, there is not yet study conducted
to evaluate the impact of CL towards student teachers‟ future teaching practices.
Furthermore, Researchers who have investigated effects of CL on students‟ speaking
skill or spoken English have used different research design and instruments.
44
Table 2.5: Studies of Cooperative Learning in Indonesia‟s EFL Context
Author (Year)
Level of participants
Specific interest Findings
Junette Cinthya Tamaela (2010)
Senior High School
Students‟ spoken ability
CL provided students to work in groups and they motivated to speak English amongst them.
Sri Wachyuni (2011)
Undergraduate level
Reading comprehension and vocabulary
No significant improvement was found in reading comprehension, but student‟s vocabulary mastery improved significantly.
Muamaroh (2013)
Undergraduate level
Spoken English skills
Significant improvement was found on students‟ speaking duration, but not on speaking quality. Teachers and students believed that CL can be useful for improving students‟ spoken English.
Muhammad Kristiawan (2013)
Junior High School Achievement
CL is effective to improve students‟ academic achievement. Strengths and weaknesses were identified.
Teguh Prasetyo (2014)
Elementary School
Reading comprehension
Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) significantly improved students‟ reading comprehension.
Murtono (2015)
Elementary school
Reading comprehension
CIRC is better than Jigsaw and STAD in improving students‟ reading comprehension.
Erlina Dewi Sanjani (2015)
Junior high school Speaking ability
Think-Pair-Share (TPS) technique was effective to improve students‟ speaking ability.
Mayong Maman & Andi Aryani Rajab (2016)
Junior high school
Reading comprehension and perceptions
Numbered-Head-Together (NHT) technique was effective in improving students‟ reading comprehension. Students were exited and active in teaching and learning process.
45
In relation to speaking skills or spoken English or communicative competence, to my
knowledge, there has been studies investigated the use of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL
classroom (Kristiawan 2013; Muamaroh 2013; Sanjani 2015). However, more
comprehensive studies on the use of CL on student teachers‟ communicative
competence as well as exploring their perceptions on the implementation of CL in
Indonesia‟s EFL classroom has not been conducted.
Kristiawan (2013) conducted a descriptive qualitative study on the implementation of
CL at Secondary High School 5 Batusangkar, West Sumatra. He investigated its
effect on students‟ achievement and explored the strengths and weaknesses of CL in
English class. Sixty grade VIII students from two classes participated in this study
over three months (September – December 2011). Observation, interview, and
documentation were employed to collect the data. The results indicated that CL was
effective to improve students‟ academic achievement. His research revealed some
weaknesses, in addition to the strengths, which need to be considered in
implementing CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom: 1) the learning process was still
using conventional model, 2) English language usage was not maximum, and 3) the
process of learning tended to lead the achievement of curriculum in terms of
coverage rather than students‟ learning and understanding.
Another study by Sanjani (2015) was conducted through mixed method action
research investigating the use of Think-Pair-Share (TPS) technique of CL in
improving students‟ speaking ability at junior secondary school in Indonesia. The
participants were 33 students at 8th grade of MTsN Karangmojo academic year
2014/2015. The study was conducted in two cycles of action research based on the
class schedule (two meetings). Data were collected through observation, interview,
and speaking test. The qualitative data were analysed in five steps as suggested by
Burns (2010) which include assembling the data, coding the data, comparing the
data, building meaning and interpretations, and reporting the outcomes. The results
revealed that the application of TPS technique improved students‟ confidence to
speak and participate during the teaching and learning processes. The analysis of
quantitative data by comparing the mean scores from pretest and posttest using
Microsoft Excel indicated that students made a considerable improvement in some
aspects of speaking skill such as pronunciation, intonation and stress,
comprehension, grammar, and vocabulary. Due to the limited time in implementing
46
the actions, she suggested for further research with longer duration in order to see
more clearly the students‟ speaking improvement.
At higher education level, a study conducted by Muamaroh (2013) investigated the
use of CL to improve spoken English of a private university English students in
Jakarta. The study was conducted in two stages: action research and quasi-
experimental research. Data were gathered through speaking and listening tests,
questionnaire, interviews, student feedback, and class observation. The qualitative
data revealed that both teachers and students believed that CL can be used for
improving students‟ spoken English skill. It was supported by the qualitative data
results which indicated significant improvement on students‟ speaking duration but
not in their speaking quality.
These previous studies in cooperative learning have shown that there are some mixed
results in terms of their efficacy and in relation to different language skills. Even
though many positive effects of cooperative learning in general have been found in
improving students‟ achievement (Kristiawan 2013), reading comprehension
(Maman & Rajab 2016; Murtono 2015; Prasetyo 2014) and speaking ability (Sanjani
2015), there are also studies that did not find such results for reading comprehension
(Wachyunni 2011). Mixed results have also been found by Muamaroh (2013) where
CL significantly improved students‟ speaking duration but not on their speaking
quality. These previous studies suggest that the mixed findings on cooperative
learning need to be verified further to provide more comprehensive empirical
evidence on the effects of cooperative learning in Indonesian education and cultural
contexts especially in the context of English teacher education in. For this reason, the
present study examines in more detail and comprehensive the effect of cooperative
learning technique by assessing student teachers‟ communicative competence as well
as exploring their perceptions on the implementation of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL
classroom.
In addition, the present study resolves some limitations of the previous studies. As
suggested by Kristiawan (2013) and Muamaroh (2013), some of the weaknesses and
limitations of their studies were inability of the teachers to implement cooperative
learning technique properly. Kristiawan (2013), for example, found that the learning
process in his study was still using the conventional technique and English language
47
usage was limited. In addition, Muamaroh (2013) identified one of the limitations of
her study was that the teacher educators could not implement cooperative learning
technique properly and consistently in their classes due to teacher educators received
insufficient training to implement CL techniques. The dual roles as researcher and
teacher educator (see section 4.4.3) was taken in the present study since the present
researcher has studied the theory of CL during his Master‟s degree program in TESL
(Teaching English as a Second Language) as well as in preparing the literature
review of the present study. He also has experience in implementing CL in his
teaching as a lecturer at Bandar Lampung University, Indonesia. In addition, lesson
plans were prepared before the study to ensure that learning together (LT) technique
of cooperative learning is implemented properly and consistently in the present study
and resolve weaknesses and limitations of previous studies.
2.6 Cooperative Learning in Indonesian Education and Cultural Contexts
Perceiving the forces in the globalization, many educational practitioners and policy
makers in Asian countries tend to look to the western education system. They may
borrow theories and practices in which appeared to be effective in western culture to
be implemented in their very different education system, cultural, and social contexts
(Nguyen at al. 2009). However, Muamaroh (2013, p. 25) argues that it is very
important to consider the local context in an effort to implement instructional
methodologies produced by British, Australian, and North American (BANA)
countries. Each method which is implemented in the class will be formed by the
teacher, the students, the conditions of instruction, and the broader socio-cultural
context. When teachers choose classroom activities, they have to consider culture
and education context where the teaching and learning are taking place.
The education system and cultural values in a particular context are one of the most
important aspects in the successful implementation of an instructional methodology.
Like other countries, Indonesia has its own education system, socioeconomic
situation, as well as cultural values which are different from other countries
(Muamaroh 2013). Therefore, it is very important to critically evaluate instructional
methodology, which in the present study is cooperative learning (CL), to be
implemented in Indonesian context.
48
2.6.1 Cooperative Learning in Indonesian Education System
Indonesian constitution divides education into three major parts formal, non-formal,
and informal educations. Formal education is a structured and tiered educational
pathways consisting of basic education, secondary education, and higher education.
Non-formal education refers to education pathways beyond the formal education that
can be implemented in a structured and tiered way. And informal education relates to
the family and environmental education pathways. However, this section focuses on
the formal education parts as English education is mostly happen throughout this
pathway.
The ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) and the Ministry of Religious Affair
(MoRA) are responsible for basic and secondary education in Indonesia. Unlike the
basic and secondary educations which are managed by local government, higher
education in Indonesia is directly managed by the central government. Ministry of
Research, Technology, and Higher Education (MoRTHE) through Directorate
General for Higher Education (DGHE) is responsible for managing public and
private higher education institutions (HEIs) and MoRA through Directorate for
Islamic Higher Education is responsible for managing public and private Islamic
higher education institutions. In addition to MoRTHE and MoRA, several
government ministries and agencies administer 82 higher education service institutes
to ensure a supply of human resources for their respective ministries (MoEC 2013, p.
71). Indonesian formal schooling system is shown in Appendix 11.
The basic education comprises of six years primary and three years junior secondary
education. The official entry age is 7 years old, but it is common to find many 5 or
6-year-olds enrolled in the first year of primary school (ADB & OECD 2015, p.
102). This nine years basic education level is compulsory for all Indonesian citizens,
as stipulated in the national constitution. English is a compulsory subject at junior
secondary level (4 hours per week) and an extra-curricular subject at elementary
level (Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan 2012). Formal education at the two
levels is provided by combination of public and private schools under the
responsibility of MoEC and Islamic schools (Madrasah Ibtidaiyah or MI and
Madrasah Tsanawiyah or MTs) under the responsibility of MoRA (MoEC 2013, p.
38). Public schools make up the majority of primary schools – 79.8%, of which only
49
1.0% are state-owned Islamic madrasah. The remaining 20.2% of primary schools
are either privately run madrasah (12.3%) or non-Islamic faith-based or for-profit
schools (7.9%).
Senior secondary education builds on the nine years of basic education. It takes a
variety of forms, including general senior secondary school (SMA) and vocational
senior secondary school (SMK or Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan), as well as Islamic
senior secondary school (MA or Madrasah Aliyah) and Islamic vocational secondary
school (MAK or Madrasah Aliyah Kejuruan) (ADB & OECD,2015, p. 132). General
senior secondary school differs from vocational senior secondary school in the
purposes and contents of study. The students at SMA are prepared to advance to
higher education, while students at SMK are prepared to be ready to work after
finishing their school without going to university or college. Similar to junior
secondary level, English is also a compulsory subject at senior secondary level.
However, time allocated for English subject is different between general senior
secondary (2 hours per week) and vocational secondary (2 hour per week for science
and social major and 3-4 hours per week for language major) (Kementrian
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan 2012, p. 17) (see appendix 12).
After completing senior secondary education, students can progress to a range of
different types of tertiary or higher education including public, private, and Islamic
universities and training institutions. There are three types of higher education:
vocational, academic, and specialist or professional. The degrees awarded by HEIs
under the current system are Diploma (Alhi Pratama, Ahli Muda, and Ahli Madya),
Bachelor (Sarjana), Master/Professional (Magister), and Doctor/Specialist (Doctor)
(MoEC 2013, p. 72). English is also compulsory subject at all levels of higher
education. The current Indonesian higher education system is diverse and boasts
nearly 3,800 higher education institutions serving almost 5.4 million students (MoEC
2013, p. 71). Among those higher education institutions, Indonesia has 374 teacher
training institutes, 32 public and 342 private (MoEC 2013, p. xxi).
Indonesia has one of the largest and most diverse cadre of teachers in the world, with
close to four million teachers (Chang et al. 2013, p. 5). As the teachers are the most
important of the school-related factors affecting student achievement (Metto &
Makewa 2014), improving the quality of English teachers in Indonesia becomes
50
crucial if the English education is to be successful. However, Muamaroh (2013) in
her study claims that there are many unqualified English teachers teach English in
Indonesia and teachers are poor users of English. Moreover, as government
regulation 19/2005, article 19, paragraph 1 sets out process standards: “The teaching
process in schools shall be conducted in a way that is interactive, inspiring, fun, and
challenging, motivates students to participate actively, and provides sufficient space
for initiatives, creativity, and independence in line with the talents, interest, and
physical and psychological development of the students” (MoEC 2013, p. 89).
Therefore, high quality teachers are keys to the successful implementation of
educational policies that need to be trained and prepared.
Providing the right support to help teachers to change their practice will be critical in
achieving a lift in teaching quality and student outcomes. What teachers know and do
is the biggest influence on what students learn. As Barber and Mourshed (2009)
contend that the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its
teachers. In a similar vein, Metto & Makewa (2014) argue that teachers are the most
important of the school-related factors affecting student achievement through their
effectiveness.
However, teacher education in developing countries, including Indonesia, is rarely
learner-centred and does not provide suitable models upon which teacher trainees can
base their practice and is sometimes too theoretical. In his survey, Marcellino (2008)
identified that teachers failed to implement teaching methods because most of them
did not really understand the concept it offered the teachers. Teachers also frequently
used Indonesian to discuss the topics of the English lessons with students. Combined
with the dominant teachers‟ talk in the classroom interaction, Suryati (2013) argued
that these would potentially hinder students‟ ability in communicating in English.
Another factor identified to be able to contribute to achieve the development of
learners‟ potentials is curriculum (Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan 2012).
English education in Indonesia has been based on the curriculum designed by the
central government throughout the provision of curriculum policies. Indonesian
curricula have changed for several times during the past fifty years as responding to
the worldwide ELT methodologies (Sahiruddin 2013). In 2013, the government
implement new curriculum called the 2013 curriculum. The new curriculum
51
promotes more interactive teaching and more active learning processes. Increased
emphases on group- and team-based learning and authentic classroom assessment
have also strengthened the new curriculum‟s pedagogical approach. These emphases
are appropriate, but the implementation challenges are large. Unless the teachers
have confidence in their own competence to deliver to the goals of the new
curriculum they are likely to default to the traditional recitation method in their
classrooms, and thus the new curriculum will not achieve its intended outcomes. In
the new curriculum, English is a compulsory subject at junior secondary and senior
secondary levels, and an extra-curricular subject in primary school level.
In relation to cooperative learning, a theoretical literature study has been conducted
by Prastyo (2014) on exploring if cooperative learning is appropriate to support the
implementation of curriculum 2013 in Indonesia. Considering some limitations of
CL as discussed in section 2.4, however, he argues that CL is appropriate
instructional methodology to support the implementation of the 2013 curriculum in
Indonesia based on some reasons:
1) the theories underlying CL (section 2.2); the motivational, social-cohesion,
cognitive development, and cognitive elaboration perspective are in
accordance with the spirits and objectives of Indonesian curriculum.
2) the five basic principles of CL are in accordance with the Indonesian cultural
values of gotong royong “mutual assistance” (Dewi 2007) and musyawarah
mufakat “deliberation and consensus” (Kawamura 2011).
3) the availability of variety of CL techniques provides opportunity for any
teacher in Indonesia to find a way to use CL that is congruent with his / her
philosophies and practices as well as appropriate to their subjects, curriculum
objectives, classroom context, and student‟s needs (Prastyo 2014, p. I-46)
Prastyo‟s (2014) study is in line with some other studies of CL in the Taiwan (Liang
2002; Liao 2006) and Malaysia (Seng 2006) which have suggested positive effects.
However, as Nguyen et al. (2009) argue that the direct importation of pedagogic
practice are likely to be problematic. Therefore, more comprehensive empirical study
is needed to explore if cooperative learning is appropriate to be implemented in
Indonesia‟s EFL context and effective to improve student teacher‟s communicative
competence.
52
2.6.2 Cooperative Learning and Cultural Context in Indonesia
As discussed above, it is very important to consider the local context in an effort to
implement instructional methodologies produced by British, Australian, and North
American (BANA) countries. Each method which is implemented in the class will be
formed by the teacher, the students, the conditions of instruction, and the broader
socio-cultural context (Muamaroh 2013, p. 25). When teachers choose classroom
activities, they have to consider culture, both by being aware of their own cultural
norms and by accommodating the students‟ culture as a part of the teacher student
relationship.
The identity and cultures of the Indonesian people are complex, due to the large
number of ethnic groups which make up the nation (Sopantini 2014, p. 48). The
presence of the multi-ethnic, multi-language, multi-religious communities among its
250 million citizens makes study of Indonesian culture a challenging task. However,
a number of studies have identified common values held by Indonesians across
ethnic and religious boundaries. According to Magnis-Suseno (1996 cited in
Sihombing and Feriadi 2011) Indonesian culture is pluralistic and involves many
tribe cultures such as Javanese culture, Bataknese culture, Sundanese culture, and
others. Even though there are many tribe cultures in Indonesia, there are dominant
core values that Indonesian people hold.
With regards to CL, there is some reason to believe that it should be compatible with
certain important aspects of Indonesian culture. The key element of cooperative
learning is using groups in classrooms and this idea is not unfamiliar to Indonesian
students, since Indonesians have a philosophy of gotong royong or mutual assistance
(Dewi 2007) and musyawarah mufakat “deliberation and consensus” (Kawamura,
2011) related to the obligations of the individual toward the community.
The concept of gotong royong which can be literally translated as “mutual
assistance” (Dewi 2007, p.4) is defined by Rigg et al. (1999 cited in Subejo 2009) as
a community-based and supportive ethics system derived from the Javanese village
tradition of communal work and responsibility, in which the individual has certain
moral obligation to the wider society. In the gotong royong concept, mutual
assistance helps to ensure that community members carry comparable loads and
thereby share the burden of economic and social survival. This traditional spirit of
53
mutually helpful activities arises out of mutual group interest, solidarity reciprocity,
and responsibility. In fact, gotong royong not only satisfies public purposes but also
private needs. Although gotong royong is rooted in the Javanese language, there are
many similar practices in other provinces in Indonesia, all of which are categorized
as mutual work or mutual assistance that will fit into Indonesian matrix of gotong
royong practices. Therefore, gotong royong is depicted as one element of a national
Indonesian culture.
Musyawarah-mufakat “deliberation and consensus” is a traditional decision-making
rule which has often been observed in Indonesian people‟s meeting (Kawamura
2011). Musyawarah-mufakat grew out of a cooperative spirit that underlies the
village sense of community in Indonesia. Musyawarah is an important manifestation
of the gotong royong ethos. The concept involves the process that develops general
agreement and consensus which emerge the unanimous decision or mufakat.
Koentjaraningrat (1996 cited in Kawamura 2011) further states that this unanimous
decision can be reached by a process in which the majority and minorities approach
each other by making necessary readjustments in their respective viewpoints or by an
integration of the contrasting standpoints into a new conceptual synthesis. The value
of musyawarah-mufakat can be seen as in line with the promotive interaction
principle of cooperative learning where students are encouraged to discuss to reach a
consensus and the new understanding.
A study conducted by Prastyo, Mishan & Vaughan (2014) explored potential benefits
and drawbacks for implementing CL in Indonesian context from the theoretical point
of view. Six cultural dimensions were employed to explore the appropriacy of CL
into Indonesian Education system and cultural values. Those dimensions are
universalism-particularism, individualism-collectivism, specific-diffuse,
achievement-ascription, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance (Prastyo et al.
2014, p. 14). They highlighted some potential benefits of the application of CL in
Indonesian context such the suitability of positive interdependence and individual
and group accountability elements of CL and the spirit of gotong royong in
Indonesian cultural values. It supported previous study by Muamaroh (2013)
suggesting a reason to believe that CL should be compatible with important aspects
of Indonesian culture. The key element of using group in CL method is not
unfamiliar to Indonesian students, since Indonesians have a philosophy of gotong
54
royong or mutual assistance related to the obligations of the individual toward the
community. Muamaroh (2013, p. 26) even further identifies some proverbs in
Indonesia that agree with the spirit of CL, such as mangan ra mangan kumpul “eat or
not, but live together” and ringan sama dijinjing, berat sama dipikul “if it is light, it
can be carried in a single hand, but if it is heavy, it should be picked up together on
the shoulders”. Thus, one can hope that CL can be implemented in Indonesian
classroom. Since CL principles are compatible to Indonesian cultures, both teachers
and students may feel secure in their use. Therefore, they should be able to accept the
method more easily. However, as suggested by Prastyo et al. (2014), there are also
potential drawbacks for the implementation of CL in Indonesia such as the
inappropriacy of face-to-face promotive interaction with the concept of group
harmony and tolerance.
Harmony and tolerance which involve maintaining balance in society are other
cultural values in Indonesia (Sihombing and Feriadi 2011). In Indonesia, for
example, people should act and say something indirectly in order to avoid friction
with other people and their ambitions should not be expressed openly to maintain
group harmony. The need to maintain group harmony, on one hand, could be seen as
coinciding with the principles of cooperative learning. However, on the other hand,
these cultural values could also be seen as potential drawbacks in the application of
cooperative learning which involves expressing students‟ opinion, challenging each
other‟s reasoning, and dealing with conflict directly.
As a nation, Indonesia is seen as a family (keluarga) or at least guided by the
principles of family life (Sopantini 2014, p. 54). It is very important for Indonesian
people to give face to each member of the group in order to maintain their
relationship. Conflict and confrontation tend to be avoided and compromises reached
so as not to disrupt the harmony of the in-group. At schools, students are expected to
accept their teachers‟ words unquestioningly because challenging the teacher is
regarded as a loss of the teachers‟ face. Challenging group members might cause the
loss of friend and this could be potential drawbacks for the implementation of CL in
Indonesian context.
55
2.7 Conclusion
This chapter provides theoretical foundation within which the present study is
developed and the research questions can be answered. This chapter discussed the
theories and literature of CL, studies implementing CL, and the context where CL is
implemented in the present study. The theories underpinning of cooperative learning
(see section 2.3) and the principles, types, and techniques of cooperative learning
(see section 2.3) provide theoretical and practical foundation for the teacher educator
in implementing CL in the present study. After reviewing previous studies on
cooperative learning in international and Indonesian contexts (see section 2.5) and
examining Indonesian education and cultural contexts (see section 2.6) as well as
considering the limitations of cooperative learning (see section 2.4) and also studying
the contents and objectives of Speaking II subject, Learning Together (LT) technique
of cooperative learning was considered to be the most appropriate CL technique to be
adopted in the present study. Learning together technique as a more conceptual CL
technique gives more flexibility for the teacher educator to plan and tailor
cooperative learning instruction according to Indonesian education and cultural
contexts, institution and subject circumstances, and students‟ needs.
Although CL has been indicated to be in line with Indonesian education and cultural
contexts (see section 2.6), however, previous studies suggested mix findings in terms
of its efficacy on students‟ achievement (see section 2.5). Therefore, these previous
studies need to be verified further in order to provide more comprehensive empirical
evidences on the effects of cooperative learning in Indonesian education and cultural
contexts especially in the context of English teacher education. Moreover, as Metto
& Makewa (2014) argue that teachers are the most important school-related factor
affecting students‟ achievement and in relation to Muamaroh's (2013) study that
identified many unqualified English teachers teach English in Indonesia and teachers
are poor users of English, therefore the present study investigates the effect (if any)
of CL on student teachers‟ English communicative competence and how student
teachers perceive CL will impact on their future teaching practices. The present study
also explores participants‟ perceptions on the implementation of CL in Indonesian
EFL context which are expected to be able to provide guide to more effective ways
in implementing CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom.
56
As the main objective of the present study is to examine the effect of cooperative
learning (if any) on student teachers‟ communicative competence in Indonesia, the
theoretical framework and how to assess communicative competence are essential to
be discussed. Chapter three, therefore, discusses the theoretical framework of
communicative competence and how to appropriately assess communicative
competence. Chapter three also reviews empirical studies which implemented
communicative competence. After examining the theoretical framework of CC and
how it is assessed and implemented in previous studies, chapter three discusses the
proposed model of communicative competence and assessment procedure
implemented in the present study.
57
CHAPTER 3 - THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: DEVELOPING
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNICATIVE
COMPETENCE
3.1 Introduction
In chapter 2, the foundations and concepts of cooperative learning as the first
theoretical foundation of the present study were presented and discussed. As the
main aim of the present study is to examine the effects of CL (if any) on student
teachers‟ communicative competence, this chapter discusses the theoretical
framework of communicative competence as the second theoretical foundation in the
present study.
This chapter discusses in details existing theoretical frameworks, assessment
procedures, and evaluation criteria of communicative competence as well as reviews
some empirical studies implementing communicative competence framework. These
analyses are crucial as suggested by Canale and Swain (1980) in order to establish a
clear statement of the contents and boundaries of communicative competence which
lead to more useful and effective language teaching and allow more valid and
reliable measurement. After examining the existing theoretical framework and
assessment procedures of communicative competence as well as its empirical studies,
the theoretical framework and assessment procedures of communicative competence
proposed and implemented in the present study are discussed.
3.2 Theoretical Framework of Communicative Competence (CC)
The concept of communicative competence has been studied widely for about 50
years since Chomsky (1965) first differentiated between competence and
performance (Tsai 2013). However, there is still debate among theoreticians on the
appropriate framework of CC. Since the concept of CC is fundamental to the present
study, it is necessary to explore the term in depth as also supported by Bagarić and
Djigunović (2007) who suggest that before undertaking research on CC, it is
essential to examine and clearly determine the construct of CC.
There are many different ways in which theories of CC can be classified and
presented. In the present study, the chronological order and similarities of the
58
frameworks were employed in order to see the development and evolution the
frameworks. These theoretical frameworks of CC include Chomsky (1965); Hymes
(1972); Canale and Swain (1980); Canale (1983); Ellis (1991); Savignon (1991;
2002); Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei & Thurrell (1993; 1995); Council of Europe (2001);
Celce-Murcia (2008)); Bachman (1990); and Bachman and Palmer (1996).
Chomsky (1965)
The idea of CC is originally derived from Chomsky‟s (1965) modern linguistic
theory. According to Chomsky (1965):
Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance.
(Chomsky 1965, p. 3)
Chomsky (1965) makes a fundamental distinction between competence (the speaker-
hearer‟s knowledge of his language) and performance (the actual use of language in
concrete situations). According to Ohno (2002), Chomsky uses these terms in both a
weak sense and a strong sense. The weak sense of these terms defines competence as
knowledge of grammar and of other aspects of language, while performance refers to
actual use. In other words, by competence, Chomsky means the shared knowledge of
the ideal speaker-listener set in a completely homogeneous speech community.
Performance, on the other hand, is concerned with the process of applying the
underlying knowledge to the actual language use, commonly stated as encoding and
decoding. Only under the idealised situation is performance a direct reflection of
competence.
Chomsky‟s (1965) stronger claim is that competence refers to the linguistic system
(or grammar) that an ideal native speaker of a given language has internalized,
whereas performance mainly concerns the psychological factors that are involved in
the perception and production of speech, e.g. perceptual parsing strategies, memory
limitations, and the like (Canale & Swain 1980). In his theory, Chomsky focuses on
linguistic competence and claims that any consideration of social factors was outside
the domain of linguistics which then criticized by Hymes (1972).
59
Dell Hymes (1972)
In response to Chomsky‟s distinction of competence and performance, Hymes (1972)
coins a term “communicative competence” and defines it as knowledge of the rules
for understanding and producing both the referential and social meaning of language.
As the linguistic theory proposed by Chomsky failed to consider sociocultural factors
in the language acquisition, Hymes (1972) argues that in addition to grammatical
competence (the rules for describing sound systems and for combining sounds into
morphemes and morphemes into sentences), one also needs the notion of
sociolinguistic competence (the rules for using language appropriately in context) to
account for language acquisition and language use. Hymes thus argues that language
structure and its acquisition are not context-free. According to Hymes (1972),
linguistic theory must design itself with a face toward communicative conduct and
social life. Therefore, he argues that “there are rules of use without which rules of
grammar would be useless” (Hymes 1972, p. 60).
While judgement of abilities in Chomsky‟s linguistic theory are said to be of two
kinds: of grammaticality, with respect to competence, and of acceptability, with
respect of performance, the theory of CC that Hymes suggests is comprised of
knowledge (and abilities) of four types (Hymes 1972):
Whether (and to what degree) something was formally possible, Whether (and to what degree) something was feasible in virtue of the
means of implementation available, Whether (and to what degree) something was appropriate (adequate,
happy, successful) in relation to a context in which it was used and evaluated,
Whether (and to what degree) something was in fact done, actually performed, and what its doing entails.
(Hymes 1972, p. 63)
Communicative competence is thus viewed by Hymes as the interaction of
grammatical (what is formally possible), psycholinguistic (what is feasible in terms
of human information processing), sociocultural (what is the social meaning or value
of a given utterances), and probabilistic (what actually occurs) systems of
competence (Celce-Murcia 2008)
60
Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983)
Canale and Swain (1980) agree with the notion proposed by Hymes (1972) that there
are rules of grammar that would be useless without rules of language use, however,
they also believe that there are rules of language use that would be useless without
rules of grammar (Canale and Swain 1980, p. 5). Therefore, in their view,
grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence are both essential
components of CC. In addition to linguistic competence and sociolinguistic
competence proposed by Hymes (1972), Canale and Swain‟s (1980) framework of
CC consists of three components which include grammatical competence
(knowledge of lexical items and of rules or morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar
semantics, and phonology), sociolinguistic competence (made up of two sets of rules:
sociocultural rules of use and rules of discourse), and strategic competence (verbal
and nonverbal communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate
for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or to insufficient
competence). However, Canale and Swain (1980) referred to „linguistic competence‟
as „grammatical competence‟. A few years later, Canale (1983) separated discourse
competence (the ability to produce and interpret language beyond the sentence level)
from sociolinguistic competence in the previous framework. Hence, the theoretical
framework of CC proposed by Canale (1983) comprises of four components which
include grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence,
and strategic competence. Canale and Swain‟s (1980) and Canale‟s (1983)
frameworks of communicative competence and how they are different between each
other are presented and discussed below.
Grammatical competence is concerned with the mastery of the language code (verbal
or non-verbal) which include features and rules of the language such as vocabulary,
word formation, sentence formation, pronunciation, spelling and linguistic semantics
(Canale 1983). While in Canale and Swain (1980), this type of competence includes
knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar
semantics, and phonology.
Sociolinguistic competence in Canale and Swain‟s (1980) framework includes both
sociocultural rules of use and rules of discourse, whereas in Canale‟s (1983)
framework, sociolinguistic competence refers only to the mastery of the sociocultural
61
code of language use. According to Canale (1983, p. 7), sociolinguistic competence
addresses “the extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately
in different sociolinguistic contexts depending on contextual factors such as status of
participants, purposes of the interaction, and norms or conventions of interaction”.
Appropriateness of utterances refers to both appropriateness of meaning and
appropriateness of form. Appropriateness of meaning concerns the extent to which
particular communicative functions, attitudes and ideas are judged to be proper in a
given situation. Appropriateness of form concerns the extent to which a given
meaning is represented in a verbal and/or non-verbal form that is proper in a given
sociolinguistic context (Canale 1983, p. 7).
Canale and Swain (1980) categorize discourse competence as part of sociolinguistic
competence which then Canale (1983) puts it as an independent component of CC.
Discourse competence, according to Canale (1983), concerns the mastery of how to
combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text
in different genres through cohesion in form and coherence in meaning. While,
cohesion deals with how utterances are linked structurally and facilitate
interpretation of a text, coherence refers to the relationships among the different
meanings in a text in which these meanings may be literal meanings, communicative
functions, and attitudes (Canale 1983, p. 9).
The fourth component of CC, strategic competence according to Canale (1983, pp.
10-11) is composed of mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies
that may be called into action for two main reasons: first, to compensate for
breakdowns in communication due to limiting conditions in actual communication
(e.g. momentary inability to recall an idea or grammatical form) or to insufficient
competence in one or more of the other components of communicative competence
and second, to enhance the effectiveness of communication (e.g. deliberately slow
and soft speech for rhetorical effect).
In relation to the distinction of competence and performance proposed by Chomsky
(1965) and of communicative competence and communicative performance proposed
by Hymes (1972), Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) maintain the
distinction of communicative competence and communicative performance or actual
communication. While communicative competence is understood as “the underlying
62
systems of knowledge and skill required for communication”, communicative
performance or actual communication refers to “the realization of such knowledge
and skill under limiting psychological and environmental conditions such as memory
and perceptual constraints, fatigue, nervousness, distractions, and interfering
background noises” (Canale 1983, p. 5). In other words, Canale (1983) further
explains that CC refers to knowledge and skill in using this knowledge when
interacting in actual communication. Knowledge refers to what one knows
(consciously and unconsciously) about the language and about other aspects of
communicative language use, and skill refers to how well one can perform this
knowledge in actual communication (Canale 1983, p. 5). In spite of criticisms of this
model, Celce-Murcia et al. (1993) claim that, this framework proposed by Canale
and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) have been extremely influential in defining
major facets of communicative language use, and have been used as a starting point
for most subsequent studies on this issue.
Celce-Murcia et al. (1993; 1995) and Celce-Murcia (2008)
The first theoreticians who propose integrated framework of CC are Celce-Murcia,
Dörnyei and Thurrell in the mid-nineties. Celce-Murcia et al. (1993) propose a model
of CC which portrays the relationship between each component. They represent their
model of CC as a pyramid enclosing a circle and surrounded by another circle (figure
3.2). The circle within the pyramid is discourse competence, and the three points of
the triangle are sociolinguistic competence, linguistic competence, and actional
competence. The circle surrounding the pyramid represents strategic competence,
potentially usable inventory of skills that allows a strategically competent speaker to
compensate for deficiencies in any of the other underlying competencies (Celce-
Murcia et al. 1993). They propose that actional competence (the ability to
comprehend and produce all significant speech acts and speech act sets) should also
be part of CC. These authors re-labelled grammatical competence as linguistic
competence. Therefore, their framework of CC consists of five components which
include linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence,
actional competence, and strategic competence.
According to Celce-Murcia et al. (1993, p. 17), linguistic competence comprises the
nuts and bolts of communication which include the sentence patterns and types, the
63
constituent structure, the morphological inflections, and the vocabulary as well as the
phonological and orthographic systems needed to realize communication as speech
and writing. Sociolinguistic competence refers to the speaker‟s knowledge of how to
express the message appropriately within the overall context of communication and
in accordance with the pragmatic factors related to variation in interlanguage use
(Celce-Murcia et al. 1993, p. 19). Sociolinguistic competence consists of four main
categories which include social contextual, stylistic appropriateness, sociocultural,
and nonverbal communicative factors.
Discourse competence concerns the selection, sequence, and arrangement of words,
structures, and utterances to achieve a unified genre-sensitive spoken or written text
(Celce-Murcia et al. 1993, p. 17). Discourse competence includes cohesion, deixis,
coherence, generic structure, and the conversational structure inherent to the turn-
taking system in conversation. In addition, actional competence is described as the
ability to perform speech acts and language functions, to recognize and interpret
utterances as (direct or indirect) speech acts and language functions, and to react to
such utterances appropriately (Celce-Murcia et al. 1993). In their framework, the
domain of actional competence is divided into two main components performing
language functions such as interpersonal exchange, information, opinions, feelings,
suasion, problems, and future, and interpreting illocutionary meaning and indirect
speech acts.
Finally, according to Celce-Murcia et al. (1993, p. 21), strategic competence is
conceptualized as knowledge of and competence in using communication strategies.
Communication strategies typically highlight three functions of strategy use such as
overcoming problems in realizing verbal plans, e.g. avoiding trouble spots or
compensating for not knowing a vocabulary item; sorting out confusion and partial
or complete misunderstanding in communication, e.g. by employing repair or
negotiating meaning; and remaining in the conversation and keeping it going in the
face of communication difficulties and playing for time to think, e.g. by using fillers
or hesitation devices. Strategic competence consists of five main components
including avoidance or reduction strategies, achievement or compensatory strategies,
stalling and time-gaining strategies, repair or self-monitoring strategies, and
interactional strategies.
64
The development of communicative competence framework from Hymes (1972) to
Celce-Murcia et al. (1993) can be seen in figure 3.1 below.
Hymes Canale and Swain Canale Celce-Murcia et al.
(1972) (1980) (1983) (1993)
Figure 3.1: Development framework of communicative competence
In 1995, Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) modified their framework of CC and re-labelled
sociolinguistic competence to be sociocultural competence (see figure 3.2). This is to
better distinguish sociocultural competence from actional competence (since the
sociolinguistic dimension of CC has traditionally included contextualized language
functions), and also to highlight the fact that language resources are in the linguistic,
actional, and discourse components while sociocultural knowledge is necessary for
the appropriate deployment of the resources in other components (Celce-Murcia et
al. 1995, p. 11). They also redefine actional competence as competence in conveying
and understanding communicative intent, that is, matching actional intent with
linguistic form based on the knowledge of an inventory of verbal and schemata that
carry illocutionary force (speech acts and speech acts sets) (Celce-Murcia et al. 1995,
p. 17). The addition of actional competence to Canale & Swain‟s (1980) framework
was originally motivated by the inability to include the functional taxonomies
logically under any of the four traditional constituent competencies (Celce-Murcia et
al. 1995). An important contribution of Celce-Murcia‟s et al. (1993; 1995) model to
CC framework was to specify that the various components of CC were interrelated
and that it was important to properly describe the nature of these interrelationships in
order to fully understand the construct of CC.
Linguistic Competence
Sociolinguistic Competence
Grammatical Competence
Sociolinguistic Competence
Strategic Competence
Grammatical Competence
Sociolinguistic Competence
Discourse Competence
Strategic Competence
Linguistic Competence
Sociolinguistic Competence
Actional Competence
Strategic Competence
Discourse Competence
65
Figure 3.2: Celce-Murcia's et al. (1995) model
A revised and updated model of CC is proposed by Celce-Murcia in 2008 (see figure
3.3). This new model of CC consists of six components including discourse
competence, socio-cultural competence, linguistic competence, formulaic
competence, interactional competence, and strategic competence (Celce-Murcia,
2008). The difference with previous framework of Celce-Murcia et al (1993; 1995) is
addition of component (formulaic competence) and changes of term (actional
competence into interactional competence) and re-distribution of sub-areas of
competence (conversational structure from discourse competence and paralinguistic
competence from socio-cultural competence to interactional competence) have been
made in this new framework of CC proposed by Celce-Murcia (2008).
In this new framework, discourse competence refers to the selection, sequencing, and
arrangement of words, structures, and utterances to achieve a unified spoken
message. Celce-Murcia‟s (2008) framework of CC describes several sub-areas that
contribute to discourse competence such as cohesion, deixis, coherence, and generic
structure. The conversational structure inherent to the turn-taking system in
conversation as part of discourse competence in the previous framework, it is now
moved as sub-areas of interactional competence together with actional competence.
Socio-cultural competence refers to the speaker‟s pragmatic knowledge, i.e. how to
express message appropriately within the overall social and cultural context of
communication. This includes knowledge of language variation with reference to
sociocultural norms of the target language (Celce-Murcia 2008). In this framework,
66
Celce-Murcia describes three most crucial sociocultural variables including social
contextual factors, stylistic appropriateness, and cultural factors. Meanwhile, the
non-verbal communicative factors or paralinguistic competence moved to be sub-
areas of interactional competence.
Linguistic competence comprises the basic elements of communication such as the
sentence patterns and types, the constituent structure, the morphological inflections
and the lexical resources, as well as the phonological and orthographic systems
needed to realize communication as speech or writing (Celce-Murcia et al. 1995).
Linguistic competence includes four types of knowledge: phonological, lexical,
morphological, and syntactic (Celce-Murcia 2008, p. 47). While, formulaic
competence, the new component introduced in this model, is the counterbalance to
linguistic competence. It refers to those fixed and prefabricated chunks of language
that speakers use heavily in everyday interactions. Celce-Murcia (2008) describes
four sub-areas of formulaic competence including routines, collocations, idioms, and
lexical frames. Formulaic competence has grown in importance, it is now
acknowledge that fluent speakers of a language draw on formulaic knowledge of the
target language as often as they use systematic linguistic knowledge Celce-Murcia
(2008).
Interactional competence has at least three sub-components including actional
competence, conversational competence, and non-verbal or paralinguistic
competence. Celce-Murcia (2008) argues that interactional competence is extremely
important since the typical performance of speech acts and speech act sets can differ
in important ways from language to language, and this actional competence must
mesh with the more general rules of conversational competence related to turn-taking
system in the target language. In this model, she also argues that nonverbal or
paralinguistic competence is also crucial sub-area of interactional competence.
Finally, strategic competence proposed in this framework comprises of learning
strategies and communication strategies (Celce-Murcia 2008). The addition of
learning strategies is due to understanding that learners who can make effective use
of strategies (i.e. who have strategic competence) tend to learn languages better and
faster than those who are strategically inept (Celce-Murcia 2008). Learning strategies
include cognitive, metacognitive, and memory-related, while communication
67
strategies include achievement, stalling or time gaining, self-monitoring, interacting,
and social.
Figure 3.3: Celce-Murcia's (2008) model
This, Celce-Murcia's (2008) framework has provided comprehensive view of CC
framework. However, for the present study, there is no clear guidance yet on how to
implement this framework in the real material design and classroom teaching, as
well as in designing assessment tool. In searching for CC framework of language
teaching and testing appropriate for the present study, the framework should be at
balance between both theoretical comprehensiveness and practical applicability.
Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996)
There have been other frameworks, as suggested by Celce-Murcia (2008), proposed
to represent constructs similar to CC e.g., “communicative language ability” in
Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996). These models have been
developed with language assessment in mind – rather than language teaching (Celce-
Murcia 2008). Bachman (1990) proposes a similar construct to CC and describes
“communicative language ability as consisting of both knowledge or competence and
the capacity for implementing or executing that competence in appropriate,
contextualized communicative language use” (Bachman 1990, p. 84). Bachman
considers the term “communicative language ability” to provide more inclusive
definition of proficiency than previous proposed framework (Bachman 1990). His
68
framework of communicative language ability includes three components: language
competence, strategic competence, and psychophysiological mechanisms.
Language competence comprises, essentially, a set of specific knowledge
components that are utilized in communication via language. According to Bachman
(1990), language competence includes organizational competence and pragmatic
competence. First, organizational competence comprises of those “abilities involved
in controlling the formal structure of language for producing or recognizing
grammatically acceptable or correct sentences, comprehending their propositional
content, and ordering them to form texts” (Bachman 1990, p. 87). This competence
consists of two types grammatical and textual. Grammatical competence in
Bachman‟s (1990) framework is similar to Canale and Swain‟s (1980) framework,
and it includes knowledge of vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and phonology or
graphology. Meanwhile, the textual competence refers to discourse competence in
Canale (1983) and is defined as “the knowledge of conventions for joining utterances
together to form a text as a unit of language consisting of two or more utterances or
sentences that are structured according to rules of cohesion and rhetorical
organization” (Bachman 1990, p. 88). Second, pragmatic competence, according to
Bachman (1990), concerns the relationships between utterances and the acts or
functions that speakers intend to perform through these utterances (illocutionary
force or illocutionary competence), and the characteristic of the context of language
use that determine the appropriateness of utterances (sociolinguistic competence).
Illocutionary competence consists of speech acts (utterance, propositional,
illocutionary and perlocutionary) and language functions (ideational, manipulative,
heuristic, and imaginative). Sociolinguistic competence is the sensitivity to, or
control of the conventions of language use that are determined by the features of the
specific language use context which enables us to perform language functions in
ways that are appropriate to that context. Sociolinguistic competence consists of
sensitivity to differences in dialect or variety, sensitivity to differences in register,
sensitivity to naturalness and ability to interpret cultural references and figures of
speech (Bachman 1990, pp. 94-97).
Strategic competence is seen in Bachman‟s (1990) view as the capacity to relate
language competence, or knowledge of language, to the language user‟s knowledge
structures and the features of the context in which communication takes place.
69
Strategic competence performs assessment, planning, and execution functions in
determining the most effective means of achieving a communicative goal.
Assessment component enables us to identify the information needed for realizing a
particular communicative goal in a given context, determine what language
competencies are available for most effectively bringing that information in
achieving communicative goal, ascertain the abilities and knowledge that are shared
by our interlocutor, and following communication attempt, evaluate the extent to
which the communicative goal has been achieved (Bachman 1990, p. 100). Planning
component retrieves relevant items (grammatical, textual, illocutionary,
sociolinguistic) from language competence and formulates a plan whose realization
is expected to achieve the communicative goal. Finally, execution component draws
on the relevant psychophysiological mechanisms to implement the plan in the
modality and channel appropriate to the communicative goal and the context.
Psychophysiological mechanisms as the last component of communicative language
ability proposed by Bachman (1990) are essentially the neurological and
psychological processes that are involved in language use which characterize the
channel (auditory, visual) and mode (receptive, productive) in which competence is
implemented (Bachman 1990 pp. 107-108).
Bachman and Palmer (1996) adopt the framework proposed by Bachman (1990) but,
instead of using the term “communicative language ability”, they use the term
“language ability” which involves two components: language knowledge and
strategic competence or metacognitive strategies. Language knowledge is referred to
“a domain of information in memory that is available for use by the metacognitive
strategies in creating and interpreting discourse in language use” (Bachman &
Palmer 1996, p. 67) which includes both organizational knowledge and pragmatic
knowledge. Organizational knowledge includes both grammatical knowledge (minus
morphology compared to Bachman‟s (1990) framework) and textual knowledge
which enables language users to create and interpret utterances or sentences that are
grammatically accurate, and to combine these to form texts that are cohesive and
rhetorically or conversationally organized. Pragmatic knowledge which includes
functional knowledge (illocutionary competence in previous model) and
sociolinguistic knowledge enables language users to relate words, utterances, and
texts to concepts or meaning, communicative goals or intention, and the features of
70
the language setting (Bachman and Palmer 1996, p. 78). In other words, pragmatic
knowledge enables user to create or interpret language that is appropriate to a
particular language use setting (Bachman & Palmer 1996). Functional knowledge,
which includes four categories of language functions: ideational, manipulative,
instrumental, and imaginative, enables language users to interpret relationships
between utterances or sentences and texts and the intentions of language users. The
term functional knowledge, instead of illocutionary competence, is used to narrow
down the scope and eliminate speech act (utterance, propositional, illocutionary and
perlocutionary) component in Bachman‟s (1990) model.
Strategic competence in this framework involves the ability to make the most
effective use of available abilities to carry out a given task. Strategic competence is
conceived of “as a set of metacognitive components, or strategies, which can be
thought of as higher order executive processes that provide a cognitive management
function for language use, as well as in other cognitive activities (Bachman & Palmer
1996, p. 70). They identify three general areas in which metacognitive components
operate: goal-setting, assessment, and planning referred as assessment, planning and
execution in the previous model. In this 1996‟s framework, there is no discussion
regarding the psychophysiological mechanisms.
An illustrative model of communicative language ability proposed by Bachman
(1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996) can be seen in the figure 3.4 below:
71
Bachman (1990) Bachman and Palmer (1996)
Figure 3.4: Bachman (1990) and Bachman & Palmer (1996)
Savignon (1972)
In the area of foreign and second language teaching, Savignon (1972 cited in Liang
2002 p. 11) defines communicative competence as the ability to function in a
dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total
information input, both linguistic and paralinguistic, or one or more interlocutors.
She included the use of gestures and facial expression in her interpretation and later
refined her definition of communicative competence to comprise of the following
qualifications (Liang 2002).
Language Competence Organizational competence
- Grammatical competence (vocabulary, morphology, syntax, phonology/graphology)
- textual competence (cohesion, rhetorical organization)
Pragmatic competence - Illocutionary competence
(speech acts [utterance act, propositional act, illocutionary, perlocutionary] language functions [ideational, manipulative, heuristic, imaginative])
- Sociolinguistic competence (dialect/variety, register, naturalness, cultural reference, and figure of speech)
Language knowledge Organizational knowledge
- Grammatical knowledge (vocabulary, syntax, phonology/graphology
- Textual knowledge (cohesion, rhetorical/conversational organization
Pragmatic competence - Functional knowledge
(ideational, manipulative, instrumental, imaginative)
- Sociolinguistic knowledge (dialects/varieties, registers, natural/idiomatic, expressions, cultural references, and figures of speech.
Strategic Competence Assessment Planning Execution
Strategic competence → metacognitive strategies Goal setting Assessment Planning
Psychophysiological mechanisms
72
Communicative competence is a dynamic interpersonal trait that depends on the negotiation of meaning between two or more persons who share some knowledge of a language.
Communicative competence applies to both written and spoken language.
Communicative competence was context-specific. Communicatively competent language user knows how to make appropriate choices in register and style to fit the situation in which communication occurs.
Competence was what one knows. Performance was what one does. Only performance was observable, however, it was only through performance that competence could be developed, maintained, and evaluated.
Communicative competence was relative and depends on the cooperation of those people involved.
(Liang 2002, pp. 11-12)
Savignon (2002, p. 3) used the term “communicative competence” to characterize the
ability of classroom language learners to interact with other speakers, to make
meaning, as distinct from their ability to recite dialogues or perform on discrete-point
tests of grammatical knowledge. Adapted from the familiar “inverted pyramid”
classroom model, Savignon proposes model of CC which comprises of grammatical
competence, discourse competence, sociocultural competence, and strategic
competence (see figure 3.5). According to Savignon, all the components of CC are
interrelated and they cannot be developed or measured in isolation, and one cannot
go from one component to the other (Savignon 2002, p. 8).
According to Savignon (2002), grammatical competence refers to sentence-level
grammatical forms, the ability to recognize the lexical, morphological, syntactical,
and phonological features of a language and to make use of those features to interpret
and form words and sentences. Discourse competence which includes cohesion and
coherence is concerned the interconnectedness of a series of utterances or written
words or phrases to form a text, a meaningful whole. Sociocultural competence is an
interdisciplinary field of inquiry having to do with the social rules of language use.
Sociocultural competence requires an understanding of the social context in which
language is used including the roles of the participants, the information they share,
and the function of the interaction. Strategic competence is represented as the coping
strategies that we use in unfamiliar contexts, with constraints arising from imperfect
knowledge of rules, or such impediments to their application as fatigue or distraction.
73
Figure 3.5: Savignon's (2002) Model
There are four characteristics of CC as proposed by to Savignon (2002) which
include dynamic rather than static, context specific, appropriately situations-choosing
and other participants-choosing, and relative and not absolute depending on the
cooperation of all involved participants. Therefore, the assessment of student
teachers‟ CC in the present study should consider these factors which will be
discussed in section 3.6 below.
Ellis (1991)
Drawing from the frameworks of Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983), Ellis
(1991) reintroduces “the ability to use” dimension in his framework of
communicative competence. His framework conceives CC in terms of two general
aspects of communication – the linguistic and the functional. The linguistic aspect
corresponds to Canale and Swain‟s (1980) “grammatical competence” which entails
both formulas and rules and relates to the notion of “correctness” (Ellis 1991, p. 107-
108). The functional aspect in his framework includes sociolinguistic, discourse, and
strategic competence. It relates to whether an utterance can be considered appropriate
with reference to the social, discoursal, and strategic norms of the target culture. He
also suggests that linguistic and functional competences are, in part at least,
74
independent. The framework also distinguishes knowledge of these linguistic and
functional aspects of communication from control of this knowledge. This distinction
corresponds to Hymes‟s (1972) distinction between “knowledge” and “ability to use”
(Ellis 1991, p. 109).
Figure 3.6: Ellis's (1991) Framework of Communicative Competence
Council of Europe (2001)
Meanwhile, European Council (2001) in the Common European Framework of
Reference (CEFR) for Language: teaching, learning and assessment, proposes
“communicative language competence” which has three components including
linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, and pragmatic competence.
Linguistic competence is defined as “knowledge of, and ability to use, the formal
resources from which well-formed, meaningful messages may be assembled and
formulated (Council of Europe 2001, p. 109). Linguistic competence includes
lexical, grammatical, semantic, phonological, orthographic and orthoepic
competence. Meanwhile, sociolinguistic competence is concerned with “the
knowledge and skills required to deal with the social dimension of language use”
(Council of Europe 2001, p. 118) which include linguistic markers of social relations,
politeness conventions, expressions of folk-wisdom, register differences, and dialect
and accent. In the CEFR, pragmatic competence is concerned with the “user‟s or
learner‟s knowledge of the principles according to which messages are organized,
structured, and arranged (discourse competence); used to perform communicative
functions (functional competence); and sequenced according to interactional and
transactional schemata (design competence)” (Council of Europe 2001, p. 123).
Linguistic aspect Formula Rules
Functional aspect Sociolinguistic Discourse Strategic
Communicative Competence
75
Figure 3.7: Council of Europe‟s (2001) Framework of Communicative Competence
3.3 Assessing communicative competence
In order to asses communicative competence, it is important to keep in mind that one
cannot directly measure competence and only performance is observable as pointed
out by Canale and Swain (1980). In addition, Tsai (2013) argues that communicative
competence can be inferred through measuring its performance from observable
communication behaviours. Further, she argues that competence can be observed,
developed, maintained, and evaluated only through performance. In other words, she
believes that individual‟s CC can be inferred from observed communication
behaviours (i.e., content, form, and use of language). It is supported by the Council
of Europe (2001) which argues that one can never test competence directly, all tests
assess only performance though one may seek to draw inferences as to the
underlying competence from this evidence. It is also important to keep in mind the
nature of CC as proposed by Savignon (1983) that it is not static but dynamic, it is
more interpersonal than intrapersonal, relative rather than absolute, and largely
defined by context. Tsai (2013, p. 167) summarizes four characteristics of CC which
include dynamic rather than static, context specific, appropriately situations-choosing
and other participants-choosing, and relative and not absolute depending on the
cooperation of all involved participants. Tsai (2013) also believes that
communicative competence can also be quantified. People are described as having
varying amounts of competence. That is, individual‟s CC should range from low
level (less competence) to high level (more competent). This quantitative CC is
conceptualized as a continuum concept (i.e. from low to high) which is dynamic,
relative and context specific. Therefore, communicative competence should be
Communicative Competence
Linguistic Competence
Sociolinguistic Competence
Pragmatic Competence
76
inferred through measuring its performance from observable communication
behaviours in real-life interaction within specific context. In other words,
“communicative testing must be devoted not only to what the learner knows about
the second or foreign language and about how to use it (competence) but also to what
extent the learner is able to actually demonstrate this knowledge in a meaningful
communicative situation (performance)” (Canale and Swain1980 p. 34).
Chiu (1997 cited in Liang 2002) argues that oral skills have been considered more
and more important in recent years, and yet difficulties in testing speaking skill often
lead language teachers into inadequate oral tests or even not testing speaking skill at
all. The weaknesses of current models (of speaking tests) is that they focus too much
on the individual candidate rather than the candidate in interaction (Liang 2002). Di
Nicuolo (1991 cited in Pillar 2011, p. 26) remarks on the old atomistic versus holistic
dichotomy: “... assessment of the underlying skills does not necessarily imply
assessment of the global performance”. This issue, which continues to fuel the
communicative competence debate, focuses on two main testing approaches which
include indirect (discrete-point proficiency testing) and direct (integrative
proficiency testing).
Comparing the indirect and direct approaches, the underlying assumption in favour
of discrete-point testing is that breaking a language down into different elements and
testing them separately affords greater objectivity, and is therefore a more reliable
evaluation of the learners‟ proficiency than a subjective evaluation of performance in
the integrated skill (Pillar 2011). This “analytic” approach has been rigorously
challenged by researchers and teachers who see proficiency testing as a means of
assessing a learner‟s speaking skill used in real-life situations, and not just a measure
of learner‟s skills of listening comprehension and grammatical knowledge (Pillar
2011). Discrete-point tests are categorised as indirect tests, in that they seek to
measure one aspect (i.e. knowledge of grammar) in order to make a judgement on
something else (i.e. the ability to communicate). In contrast, integrated proficiency
testing, as the term suggests, seeks to assess proficiency in terms of a learner‟s total
language behaviour by bringing together all the components of the language, both
linguistic and paralinguistic. Integrated proficiency tests are classified as direct tests
in that they center directly on leaners‟ proficiency and are rated against a set of
criteria that are indicative of their language performance (Pillar 2011).
77
Although it has been argued that integrative type tests must be used to measure CC,
Canale and Swain (1980) argue that discrete-point tests will also be useful in making
the learner aware of and in assessing the learner‟s control of the separate components
of CC. Therefore, in the present study, paired-oral interview (see section 4.5.1)
guided with scoring rubrics (see appendix 6) is designed to measure the student
teachers‟ CC. This assessment model has elements of both integrative and discrete-
point tests. It has an integrative element in the sense that the students are required to
directly demonstrate their proficiency on actual communication tasks. It has also
discrete-point element in the sense that their performance is assessed with guidance
of scoring criteria on four components of CC. This assessment procedure is believed
to be able to provide more complete view of the student teachers‟ general CC and
their separate components of CC. Grading criteria or scoring rubrics for evaluation
was also developed to guide the researcher in evaluating participant‟s CC (see
appendix 6).
As noted in previous discussion that it is difficult, if not impossible, to generate a
single framework of CC that will satisfy everyone, therefore it is necessary to focus
on the appropriate and applicable framework for the present study. In addition,
Bagarić & Mihaljević Djigunović (2007) also argue that there is almost unanimous
agreement among researchers that the conclusions about learners‟ CC will be and
should be drawn by observing and testing their communicative performance, and it is
not necessary, and practically impossible, to measure all components of CC, i.e.
communicative performance that are stated in the theory. Therefore, the assessment
procedure and grading criteria (see section 3.6) are designed in accordance to the
framework of communicative competence employed in the present study (see section
3.5).
3.4 Empirical Studies Implementing Framework of Communicative Competence
To search for an appropriate framework for the present study, it is also important to
discuss some empirical studies which have used the theoretical frameworks of CC
(e.g., Batang 2014; Lasala 2014; Gilmore 2007; and Liang 2002). These empirical
studies have tried to adapt and implement some frameworks of CC and design
assessment procedures and grading criteria appropriate for their research objectives.
78
Liang (2002) in her dissertation adopted communicative competence framework
proposed by Canale (1983) and designed two interactional-based oral tasks to
investigate her participants‟ verbal and nonverbal CC. Her assessment of the four
components of CC was divided into two sections which include verbal features
covering linguistic competence which focuses on appropriateness, grammatical
accuracy, intelligibility, fluency, and the adequacy of vocabulary for purpose;
discourse competence which focuses on cohesion markers of opening, transition, pre-
closing, as well as closing, and the length of each pause; and strategic competence
which focuses on reactions on partner‟s and own silence, and nonverbal features
covering eye contact, smile, and conversational distance. These data then is
supported by the data from interviews of teacher, raters, and students.
Meanwhile, eight different assessment tests were designed by Gilmore (2007) to
measure five components of CC in his dissertation which include linguistic
competence, strategic competence, pragmatic competence, discourse competence,
and language skills. Eight different discrete-point tests applied were Listening,
Pronunciation, C-Test, Grammar, Vocabulary, Discourse Completion Task (DCT),
IELTS oral interview, and Student-student role-play. The data were also supported
by learners‟ diaries, case study interviews and transcripts of classroom interaction.
A study on the CC of the secondary senior students of Mandaue city was also
conducted by Lasala (2013) which focuses on grammatical competence
(pronunciation, semantic appropriacy of lexis, vocabulary, morphology, and syntax),
discourse competence (cohesion and coherence), sociolinguistic competence (register
and performance), and strategic competence (fluency, density of information
transfer, hesitation phenomena, nonverbal compensation, verbal compensation,
confidence/neatness, and overall strategies success). He applied one-to-one oral
interview covering informal, formal, and intimate topics or questions and involving
three expert raters using adopted rubric from Grant Henning and Eduardo Cascallar
(2011) in 1-5 range scale. Another study was conducted by Batang (2014) which
measures CC in the four variables including linguistic competence, discourse
competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. However, he did
not mention what assessment procedure and grading criteria implemented in his
study.
79
Although there are many theoretical frameworks proposed by many different experts
of CC, however, Tsai (2013) argues that:
“I do not believe we can generate a single definition of communicative competence that will satisfy everyone in this field, and more then we have been able to generate one definition of communication itself that will satisfy all. Probably, the best we can do is to make our definition clear, and recognize that competence to one may include aspects of excellence to some others and irrelevancies to still others”.
(Tsai 2013, p. 175)
Based on many different frameworks proposed by different researchers discussed
above and the assumption that it is difficult to generate a single definition of CC that
will satisfy everyone, it is necessary to make our framework as clear as possible and
focus on the appropriacy and applicability of the framework for the present study. In
an empirical study, due to the practicality and feasibility for its teaching and testing,
the framework of CC and its components should be related to the teaching and
testing procedures in the study. Proposed framework of communicative competence
implemented in the present study is discussed in section 3.5 below.
3.5 Towards a Situational Framework of Communicative Competence
Communicative competence can have different meanings depending on the target
learners and on the pedagogical objectives in any given context (McGroarty 1984
cited in Celce-Murcia 2008, p. 55). In the present study, the target learners are
student teachers or pre-service teachers who will teach English to students at junior
and senior high schools in Indonesian context upon the completion of their
programme. One of the pedagogical objectives is, therefore, to prepare the student
teachers to have a good communicative competence in teaching their future classes.
In the context of modern teaching, conceptual frameworks should be able to deal
with the day to day teaching and learning situations in which the practitioners face
difficulties. The theoretical framework of CC proposed in the present study is,
therefore, hoped to be both theoretically comprehensive as foundation for conducting
a study and practically applicable as guideline in the foreign language teaching and
testing of CC for teachers and teacher educators in their practices. The framework is
hoped to be theoretically comprehensive as it is based on existing frameworks of CC
proposed by previous researchers. It is also hoped that teachers and teacher educators
80
in Indonesia will be able to use the proposed framework of CC as a guideline in
designing teaching materials and assessment procedure in their daily practices.
Teachers and teacher educators are also hoped to be able to apply the testing
procedure and the scoring rubric employed in the present study in the effort of
evaluating their students‟ CC.
Bearing those considerations in mind, CC in the present study is defined as the
ability of student teachers to reach his/her and communication partner(s)‟
communication goal(s) by using appropriate communication behaviours which
consists of four components: linguistic competence, discourse competence,
sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. The justifications of the
proposed framework are discussed below by relating to available frameworks.
3.5.1 Linguistic Competence
Different researchers use different terms to refer to linguistic competence. Canale
and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) describe grammatical competence as the
mastery of the language code (verbal and nonverbal) which includes features and
rules of the language such as vocabulary, word formation, sentence formation,
pronunciation, spelling and linguistic semantic. Celce-Murcia et al. (1993; 1995) and
Celce-Murcia (2008) propose linguistic competence as comprising of the basic
elements of communication which include sentence patterns and types, constituent
structure, morphological inflections and lexical resources, as well as phonological
and orthographic systems needed to realize communication. In their framework,
linguistic competence includes four types of knowledge: phonological, lexical,
morphological, and syntactic. Meanwhile, Bachman (1990) and Bachman and
Palmer (1996) propose grammatical knowledge as involved in producing or
comprehending formally accurate utterances or sentences which include knowledge
of vocabulary, syntax, phonology and graphology. In addition, Council of Europe
(2001) defines linguistic competence as knowledge of, and ability to use, the formal
resources from which well-formed, meaningful messages may be assembled and
formulated which include lexical, grammatical, semantic, phonological,
orthographic, and orthoepic competence.
81
Based on those definitions and subcomponents proposed in previous frameworks,
linguistic competence in the present study is defined as the knowledge of and ability
to use (producing or comprehending) verbal and nonverbal language code from
which well-formed, meaningful messages may be assembled, formulated, and
understood which includes phonological/pronunciation, morphological, spelling,
lexical/vocabulary, syntactical/grammar, and semantic which takes into account the
integration of all other subcategories in the communication process.
3.5.2 Discourse competence
Canale (1983) defines discourse competence to refer to the mastery of how to
combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a unified spoken text in
different genres through cohesion in form and coherence in meaning. Celce-Murcia
(2008) proposes discourse competence to refer to the selection, sequencing, and
arrangement of words, structures, and utterances to achieve a unified spoken message
which includes cohesion, deixis, coherence, generic structure and turn-taking. In
Bachman and Palmer‟s (1996) framework, discourse competence is subcategorized
into two different components including textual knowledge in organizational
knowledge, and functional knowledge in pragmatic competence. Textual knowledge
is involved in producing or comprehending texts that consist of two or more
utterances or sentences which include two areas knowledge of cohesion and
knowledge of rhetorical or conversational organization. Functional knowledge, or
what Bachman (1990) calls “illocutionary competence”, enables us to interpret
relationships between utterances or sentences and texts and the intentions of
language users. Functional knowledge includes four categories of language functions
including ideational, manipulative, instrumental and imaginative. Meanwhile,
Council of Europe (2001) puts discourse competence under pragmatic competence
and defines it as the ability of a user or learner to arrange sentences in sequence so as
to produce coherent stretches of language. It includes knowledge of and ability to
control the ordering sentences in terms of topic/focus, given/new, natural sequencing,
cause/effect, and ability to structure and manage discourse in terms of thematic
organization, coherence and cohesion, logical ordering, style and register, and
rhetorical effectiveness.
82
All the frameworks proposed above basically deal with two broad subcomponents,
cohesion in form or structure and coherence in meaning of a unified text. Therefore,
discourse competence in the present study includes knowledge of cohesion and
coherence. Cohesion deals with how utterances are linked structurally and facilitate
production and interpretation of a text. Coherence refers to the relationships among
the different meanings in a text, where meaning maybe literal meanings,
communicative functions and attitudes.
3.5.3 Sociolinguistic competence
Sociolinguistic competence is defined by Canale (1983) as the mastery of the
sociocultural code of language use. It addresses how utterances are produced and
understood appropriately in different sociolinguistic context depending on contextual
factors such as status of participants, purpose of interaction, norms and conventions
of interaction. Celce-Murcia (2008) uses term “socio-cultural competence” to refer to
pragmatic competence i.e. how to express message appropriately within overall
social and cultural context of communication which includes knowledge of language
variation with reference to sociocultural norms of the target language. Four
categories of sociocultural variables include social contextual factors, stylistic
appropriateness, cultural factors, and non-verbal communicative factors. Bachman
and Palmer‟s (1996) sociolinguistic knowledge refers to knowledge that enables us to
create or interpret language that is appropriate to a particular language use setting
which includes knowledge of conventions that determine the appropriate use of
dialects or varieties, registers, natural or idiomatic, expressions, cultural references,
and figures of speech. Council of Europe‟s (2001) sociolinguistic competence is
concerned with the knowledge and skills required to deal with the social dimension
of language use which includes linguistic markers of social relations, politeness
conventions, expressions of folk-wisdom, register differences, and dialect and accent.
Based on those frameworks and with regards to foreign language teaching and
testing, the term sociolinguistic competence in the present study is used to refer to
the appropriacy of verbal and nonverbal language use within overall social and
cultural context which includes linguistic markers of social relations or status of
participants, purpose of interaction, politeness conventions, norms and conventions
of interaction.
83
3.5.4 Strategic competence
Strategic competence is the mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication
strategies that may be called into action to enhance the effectiveness of
communication and/or to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to
limiting conditions in actual communication or to insufficient competence in one or
more of the other areas of CC (Canale & Swain 1980; Canale 1983). Celce-Murcia et
al. (1993; 1995) and Celce-Murcia (2008) conceptualize strategic competence as
knowledge of communication strategies and how to use them. They categorize
strategic competence into learning strategies and communication strategies. Learning
strategies include cognitive, metacognitive, and memory related. Communication
strategies include achievement, stalling or time gaining, self-monitoring, interacting,
and social. Meanwhile Bachman (1990) includes three components in strategic
competence such as assessment, planning, and execution. This model then was
revised by Bachman and Palmer (1996) who propose strategic competence as a set of
metacognitive components which include goal-setting, assessment, and planning.
Although the framework proposed by Bachman and Palmer (1996) is intended for
language testing, however it is more of internal process which is unobservable in the
communication or assessment process, therefore it is difficult to be assessed. The
learning strategies in Celce-Murcia (2008) framework which includes cognitive,
metacognitive and memory is also internal process and difficult to be assessed.
In the present study, Canale and Swain‟s (1980) and Canale‟s (1983) framework and
Celce-Murcia‟s (2008) communication strategies are adopted in order to design
observable criteria for assessment. Strategic competence is then defined as strategies
used to enhance communication effectiveness and/or to compensate communication
breakdowns which include verbal and non-verbal strategies.
From the detail discussion above, the theoretical framework of communicative
competence proposed in the present study can be summarized in figure 3.8 below:
84
Figure 3.8: Proposed Framework of Communicative Competence
3.6 Grading and Assessment Procedure of Communicative Competence
In order to be able to assess the student teachers‟ communicative competence in the
present study, paired-oral interview guided with scoring rubrics which have
integrative and discrete-point elements were designed to measure the student
teachers‟ CC (see appendix 5 and appendix 6). This assessment procedure (see
section 4.5.1) is believed to be able to provide more complete view of the student
teachers‟ general CC and their separate components of CC.
In assessing the student teachers‟ CC through oral performance, the rating scale and
sufficient training for raters to reduce the raters‟ bias are very important. Therefore,
the scoring rubric (see appendix 6), based on the proposed framework and
assessment procedure above, was developed and used as the grading criteria, which
include linguistic competence (syntactical/grammar, lexical/vocabulary, and
pronunciation), sociolinguistic competence (appropriateness in the context),
discourse competence (cohesion and coherence), and strategic competence (verbal
and non-verbal strategies). The scoring rubric was also developed by consulting
Linguistic Competence
- Phonology/pronunciation
- Morphological
- Spelling
- Lexical/vocabulary
- Syntax/grammar
- Semantic
Strategic Competence
- Verbal strategies (achievement,
stalling or time gaining, self-
monitoring, interacting, and
social)
- Nonverbal strategies (facial
expression, body language)
Discourse Competence
- Cohesion
- Deixis
- Coherence
- Generic structure
- Turn taking
Sociolinguistic competence
- Appropriateness (social relation /
status of participants, purpose of
interaction, politeness convention,
and norms and conventions of
interaction)
85
other available grading criteria such as IELTS speaking rubric (www.ielts.org),
CEFR competence descriptors (Council of Europe 2001), TOEFL speaking
descriptors (Education Testing System 2014). Two raters were trained to use the
scoring rubric in the pilot study. They were asked to assess students‟ performances
independently, then the results were compared and the differences of scores were
discussed to reach consensus. Through this process, raters are hoped to have similar
understanding and interpretation and provide similar score to the same performance.
Paired-oral interviews used in the present study were developed in consultation with
two experienced English lecturers at the University of Limerick, Ireland (researcher‟s
supervisors) regarding the content validity and scoring rubric, and two English
lecturers at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung for tasks difficulty and familiarity. The
tests were conducted by one English lecturer from STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung
and the present researcher (see section 4.6.2.1). As the tasks were familiar to
students, even the low achiever could have something to say while the average and
high achievers would have the opportunity to display a wide range of language.
3.7 Conclusion
As the main objective of the present study is to examine the effect (if any) of
cooperative learning on student teachers‟ communicative competence, the concept of
communicative competence and how to assess it are fundamental to the present
study. Therefore, in order to arrive at theoretical framework, assessment procedure,
and evaluation criteria of communicative competence appropriate for the present
study, this chapter discussed the literature relating to the development of theoretical
frameworks of communicative competence (see section 3.2), its assessment
procedures and evaluation criteria (see section 3.3), as well as some empirical studies
implementing communicative competence frameworks and assessment procedures
(see section 3.4). Based on the analysis of theoretical frameworks of communicative
competence available, how to assess communicative competence, and some
empirical studies on communicative competence, the theoretical framework of
communicative competence (section 3.5) as well as assessment procedure and
grading criteria of communicative competence proposed for the present study were
presented (see section 3.6).
86
As this chapter illustrated, there are still many disagreements on the framework of
communicative competence since it is difficult, if not impossible, to generate a single
definition and framework of communicative competence that will satisfy everyone
(Tsai 2013). Therefore, it is necessary to make the definition and framework of
communicative competence in the present study as clear as possible and focus on the
appropriacy and applicability of the framework for the present study. As the
participants in the present study are student teachers who will teach English to
students at junior and senior high schools in Indonesian context upon the completion
of their programme, communicative competence in the present study is defined as the
ability of student teachers to reach his/her and communication partner(s)‟
communication goal(s) by using appropriate communication behaviours which
consists of four components linguistic competence, discourse competence,
sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence.
The theoretical framework of communicative competence proposed in the present
study is hoped to be both theoretically comprehensive as foundation for conducting a
study and practically applicable as guideline in the foreign language teaching and
testing of communicative competence for teachers and teacher educators in their
practices. The framework of communicative competence in the present study is
hoped to be theoretically comprehensive as it is based on existing frameworks
proposed by previous researchers. It is also hoped that teachers and teacher educators
in Indonesia will be able to use the proposed framework as a guideline in designing
teaching materials and assessment procedure as well as to apply the testing procedure
and the scoring rubric employed in the present study in their daily practices.
As the background and context of the present study as well as its aims and theoretical
foundations have been outlined in the first three chapters, next chapter, chapter four
will discuss in detail the research methodology employed in the present study.
87
CHAPTER 4 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
Having outlined the background and context of the present study as well as its aims
and theoretical foundations in the first three chapters, this chapter provides a
justification for the research methodology used. Analysis of the quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods approaches and considerations of appropriate
approach for the present study are discussed in section 4.2. Section 4.3 discusses
methodological framework of the present study. This section explains why quasi-
experimental classroom-based research was adopted. This section further presents
the research variables, research validity, and research triangulation. Section 4.4
depicts the sampling procedure and research participants. This section also explains
the researcher-teacher educator role, and ethical considerations relating to the dual
position of the researcher as both main researcher and teacher educator. Various data
collection instruments employed which include paired-oral interview, questionnaire,
group interview, and diaries are discussed in section 4.5. Section 4.6 discusses the
pilot study and procedure of data collection. Teaching materials, teaching procedures
for control and experiment classes as well as fidelity of the treatment are discussed in
section 4.7. Finally, section 4.8 discusses the methods used in analysing the data in
relations to the research questions. Since mixed methods approach is used,
quantitative and qualitative data analyses were described. The quantitative data
analyses include descriptive analysis and inferential analysis. The qualitative data
analysis was conducted to gain deeper understanding of student teachers‟ perceptions
on the implementation of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom.
4.2 Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Approaches
The present study aims to examine the effect of cooperative learning (if any) on
student teachers‟ communicative competence and how they perceive cooperative
learning will impact their future teaching practice in Indonesia‟s EFL context. In
addition, the present study also aims to explore the student teachers‟ perceptions on
the implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom. In order to
achieve its aims, question about what research approach should be employed emerge.
Whether a quantitative or a qualitative approach should be employed; or whether
88
both the quantitative and qualitative approaches can be used. This section discusses
the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches and justifies why a
mixed methods approach was employed in the present study.
Research methodologies are often grouped into two paradigms, the positivist
paradigm and the interpretivist paradigm. The quantitative approach is associated
with the positivist paradigm while the qualitative approach is associated with
interpretivist paradigm (Lin 2009, p. 41). A quantitative study is defined by
Cresswell (2012) as an inquiry based on testing a theory composed of variables,
measured with numbers and analysed with statistical procedures in order to
determine whether the predictive generalizations of the theory hold true. While
qualitative study is defined as an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct
methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The
researchers in a qualitative study build a complex, holistic picture, analyses words,
reports detailed views of information, and conducts the study in a natural setting
(Cresswell 2012).
Researchers in quantitative approach attempt to control all the variables in an
experiment to prove a causal relationship between two things by keeping everything
else constant. They then attempt to convince the reader of the validity of their
theories through measurement of the changes and statistical manipulation.
Meanwhile, researchers in qualitative approach prefer to allow the theories to reveal
themselves naturally from, often, intense and prolonged contact in the field. The
reader is persuaded of the validity of the writer‟s theories by sheer weight of detail
and exemplification.
In relation to the present study, possibilities to employ a single quantitative or a
single qualitative approach are examined. For example, when investigating the
effects of cooperative learning on student teachers‟ communicative competence, it
would be possible to design a laboratory experiment where an experiment class
received CL teaching treatment over a given period of time and a control class
received control treatment (CT). Both classes could then be tested to discover how
their CC had changed, or how their perceptions on classroom activities. However,
this approach could be criticised for being quite unlike genuine classrooms, thereby
lacking external validity. Equally, it would be possible to design an ethnographic
89
study, following the implementation of CL technique with a particular class, but this
could be criticised for its lack of a comparison control class or its subjective
interpretation of the data. A far more sensible solution would therefore seem to be a
mixed methods approach which seeks to measure as much as possible from as many
perspectives as possible. This is supported by Lin (2009, p. 43) who claims that “due
to the practical circumstances and context of research, combining quantitative and
qualitative research (mixed methods) in a single study can provide a more elaborate
and richer understanding of a phenomenon”.
Nunan (1991) contends that the issues or question one wants to address should form
the point of departure, and the research method or methods one chooses should be
consonant with what it is that one wishes to discover. As the present study aims to
examine the effect of CL on student teachers‟ CC and how it impacts their future
teaching practices as well as to gain insight of participants‟ perceptions on the
implementation of CL in the present study, a mixed methods approach was therefore
the most appropriate to be adopted. A quantitative approach is employed to examine
the effect of cooperative learning on student teachers‟ communicative competence
and how it impacts their future teaching practices. A qualitative approach is
employed to explore the student teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation of
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom.
4.3 Methodological Framework for the Present Study
4.3.1 Research Design
The present study which collects its data from genuine language classrooms and is
carried out to address issues relevance to language classroom is categorized as
classroom-oriented research (Nunan 1992). Creswell (2012) identifies two types of
experiments which are true-experiment and quasi-experiment. In true experiment, the
researcher randomly assigns participants to different conditions of the experimental
variables. Meanwhile, in quasi-experiment study, random assignment to different
conditions is conducted to intact classes. As the student teachers in the present study
were randomly assigned to classes at the beginning of their teacher education
programme and student teachers‟ random assignment to treatment conditions was not
possible for the present study, therefore, random assignment to experiment
90
conditions was performed to the existing classes. Therefore, the present study
adopted a quasi-experiment research by using available intact classes. The result was
class A for control class and class B for experiment class. The control class (class A)
in the present study was exposed to control treatment (CT), while the experiment
class (class B) was exposed to cooperative learning (CL) as the experimental
treatment (see figure 4.1).
In comparing experiment and control classes where each class is composed of
individuals who together create a unique environment, it is difficult to ensure that all
variables, except the one being investigated, are kept constant. However, by carefully
control variables such as learning context, learning materials, class duration, and
teacher educator, and by making explicit those factors which are less well controlled
such as outside classroom learning activities and participants‟ personality and
motivation, it might be worthwhile carrying out a study of this nature. Although
participants of the present study are students of the same level at the same study
programme within one university which have been randomly assigned to classes at
the beginning of their teacher education programme, however, pretest on the
dependent variable was conducted for checking initial equivalence of classes.
Based on the advantages of mixed methods approach discussed in section 4.2 and the
fact that the student teachers were randomly assigned to classes at the beginning of
their teacher education programme and the necessity to check their initial
equivalence on the dependent variables, a quasi-experiment pretest-posttest class
comparison research design with mixed methods approach was adopted in the
present study. The main reason for this design was that the research questions require
the use of a research design that would be able to examine the effect of CL, in the
real classroom setting, on student teachers‟ CC and how it impacts their teaching
practices compared to the effect of control treatment. This research design would
also be able to provide informed justification of the phenomenon through in depth
qualitative data analysis of the student teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation
of CL in the present study. The research design adopted in the present study is
presented in figure 4.1 below:
91
Class Pretest Teaching Treatment Posttest
A (control) X1 → CT → X3
B (experiment) X2 → CL → X4
Time: 14 weeks
Figure 4.1: Quasi-experimental pretest-posttest comparison group research design
4.3.2 Research Variables
In educational settings, Mujis (2004 cited in Lin 2009, p. 46) argues that extraneous
variables such as student background, teacher quality, and school climate may affect
the experiment outcome, so it is very important to make the control class as similar
to the experiment class as possible on all aspects except for the treatment. In the
present study, the two classes are from the same level at the same study programme
within one university and therefore would be expected to have combination variables
as similar as possible (age, gender, ethnicity, language ability, learning context, class
size) and have undergone identical treatments (learning environment, teacher
educator, lesson length, learning materials, assignments). However, in the present
study they differ significantly in the independent variable which is the teaching
treatment (control treatment vs cooperative learning). By making both control and
experiment classes as similar as possible in extraneous variables and differ
significantly in the independent variable, Gilmore (2007) argues that we might be
reasonably confident in attributing any difference of the dependent variables between
the two classes was resulting from the independent variable. The independent
variable in the present study was the teaching treatments (CT vs CL) while the
dependent variables were student teachers‟ communicative competence and their
future teaching practices.
The purpose of between class comparisons was to see whether the independent
variable had significant effect on the dependent variables compared to each other.
Mixed methods approach adopted in the present study allowed quantitative data
analyses (descriptive and inferential) to answer the main research questions and
qualitative data analysis to explore participants‟ perceptions on the implementation
of cooperative learning in Indonesia's EFL classroom. Table 4.1 below shows the
research variables in the present study.
92
Table 4.1: Research Variables
Independent variable Dependent variables
Teaching Treatments (CT vs CL)
Communicative Competence
Linguistic competence
Sociolinguistic competence
Discourse competence
Strategic competence
Future teaching practice
In addition to those research variables, as mentioned previously the present study
also aims to explore the student teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation of
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom.
4.3.3 Research Validity
In relation to the research validity, Gay (1992) contends that an experiment is valid if
results obtained are due only to the manipulated independent variable and if they are
generalizable to individuals or contexts beyond the experimental setting. He further
argues that the two conditions which must be met in a research are referred to as
external validity and internal validity. External validity is interpreted by Lin (2009)
as the extent to which the variable relationships can be generalized to other settings,
other treatment variables, other measurement variables, and other population.
Meanwhile, internal validity is interpreted as the extent to which the factors that have
been manipulated (independent variables) actually have a genuine effect on the
observed consequences (dependent variables) in the experimental setting. Therefore,
any uncontrolled extraneous variables affecting performance on the dependent
variable are threats to the validity which needs to be examined and efforts need to be
done to reduce their effects.
Threats to external validity are problems that threaten our ability to draw correct
inferences from the sample data to other persons, settings, treatment variables, and
measure (Creswell 2012, p. 306). It includes the lack of ability to generalize findings
to different groups, such as other age, geographical, racial, social, or personality
group; the lack of ability to apply findings from one setting to another; and the lack
of ability to apply findings to past or future situations. As the participants in the
93
present study includes mixed ability students from many different ethnical,
geographical, and educational backgrounds with typical age and gender of university
students, therefore the results from the present study have a strong external validity
and are generalizable to participants with similar characteristics in any other settings
and contexts. The essential elements of findings in the present study are
generalizable to broader context of English teacher education and English education
in general. Clear, detailed, and in-depth descriptions of the participants of the present
study are provided in section 4.4.2.
Meanwhile, threats to internal validity are problems in drawing correct inferences
about whether the covariation (i.e., the variation in one variable contributes to the
variation in the other variable) between treatment variable and the outcome reflects a
causal relationship (Creswell 2012, p. 304). Threats to internal validity include
maturation, selection, experiment mortality, diffusion of treatments, equalization,
compensatory rivalry, testing, and instrumentation (Cohen, Manion & Morrison
2000; Creswell 2012; Gay 1992). Therefore, the present researcher examined how
each of these threats might influence the results and made efforts to control the
threats as recommended in Liao (2006).
First, maturation can be threat to internal validity when between pretest and posttest
participants changes differently and the changes produce differences that are
independent of the experiment treatment. As the participants of the present study
were studying at the same level and study programme at the same university and for
the same duration, they would likely mature and develop in a similar way. Therefore,
maturation was not threats in the present study. Second, selection of participants can
also be threat to internal validity when already formed groups (intake classes) are
used and the classes may be different before the study even begins and this initial
difference may partially account for posttest differences. Therefore, pretesting was
conducted to measure the students‟ initial CC and the statistical analysis of the
pretest data showed no statistical difference between control and experiment classes
(see section 5.2.2).
Third, when participants withdraw from the programme during the experiment for
any reason, it may become difficult to draw conclusions from the data which is called
experimental mortality. However, as the numbers of participants are approximately
94
equal and sufficient to draw statistical conclusions from the data, this was not a
concern in the present study. Fourth, diffusion of treatment can be threat to internal
validity can when members of the control and experiment classes can communicate
with each other easily, the control class may learn from the experiment class
information about the treatment and can create a threat to internal validity. This was
not a concern in the present study as the two classes have different class timetable
(morning class and evening class). Fifth, an inequity which may threaten the internal
validity occurs if only the experiment class receives a treatment. To counter the
problem, in the present study the control class received quality control treatment with
the same learning materials, using the same institution facilities, for the same
duration, and from the same teacher educator.
Sixth, when variation in treatments is openly pronounced, compensatory rivalry
could occur between the experiment and control classes. The researcher made efforts
to avoid the threat by attempting to reduce the awareness and expectations of the
presumed benefits of the experiment treatment. Seventh, potential threat to the
validity can also happen when participants could remember their responses from the
pretest thus affecting the outcome of the posttest. In the present study, the posttest
did not take place until 14 weeks after the pretest. Many instructions and learning
took place in this period, so there was little chance that the participants remember
their responses from the pretest. The last threat to internal validity is instrumentation.
The threat refers to inadequate demonstration of the validity and reliability of
measurement tools. There was no concern for this threat in the present study because
the pilot study was conducted prior to the main study indicated the reasonable
instrument validity and reliability (see Section 4.6.1). The pretest and posttest were
blind-graded by two English lecturers independently and then the two sets of grades
were totalled, as recommended by Hsiung (2012), and the average grade from the
two raters was used as the final grade. This was believed to enhance the validity and
reliability of the instrument. Another step employed to increase validity and
reliability of the findings was to include triangulation of the research design which is
discussed below.
95
4.3.4 Triangulation
Triangulation is the process of corroborating evidence from different individuals
(e.g. a student and a teacher), types of data (e.g. observational field notes and
interviews), or methods of data collection (e.g. tests and self-reflection) in a study
(Creswell 2012, p. 259). Fraser (2010) argues that triangulation is important to
enhanced credibility by checking interpretations of data through the incorporation of
multiple point of views and/or various data sets. In the present study, as
recommended by Gilmore (2007), three types of triangulation including theory
triangulation, researcher triangulation, and method triangulation were incorporated to
enhance the validity and reliability of the findings.
Theory triangulation was incorporated through considering the quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches in designing the present study. Theory
triangulation was also employed by examining a number of relevant theories and
studies on cooperative learning and communicative competence as the theoretical
foundations in the present study. In addition, researcher triangulation was also
incorporated through guidance of two research supervisors in preparing, conducting,
and reporting the present study as well as involving two English lecturers to blind-
grading the participants‟ performance and inviting them in peer debriefing of the
present study. Finally, method triangulation was conducted by exploiting wide
variety of data collection methods, including oral tests, questionnaires, group
interviews, and diary writings. These three types of triangulation were conducted to
ensure the validity and reliability of the findings in the present study.
4.4 Sampling Procedure and Participants
4.4.1 Sampling Procedure
Five different sampling techniques were identified by Creswell (2012) including
simple random sampling, stratified sampling, multistage cluster sampling,
convenience sampling and snowball sampling. In the present study which aims to
find out the effects (if any) of cooperative learning on student teachers‟
communicative competence in Indonesia, the population of English student teachers
in Indonesia would be extremely large, therefore a combination of convenience,
96
purposeful and cluster random sampling was implemented to select the participants.
As can be seen in table 4.2 below, the sampling procedure was conducted in several
steps. The context of the study (Institution) was selected in convenience sampling
due to the availability and accessibility of the participants. The students‟ programme
and level were selected in purposeful sampling considering their participation in the
speaking subject which is in line with the research main focus. The treatment
condition (cooperative learning or control treatment) and participants were selected
through cluster random sampling.
Table 4.2: Sampling Procedures
Context of the Study
Convenience sampling
Teacher Training and Education Institute (STKIP) PGRI Bandar Lampung
Program and Level Purposeful sampling Second year students at
English Education Study Programme
Participant and treatment condition
Cluster random sampling
Experiment class (Class B = 47 students)
Control class (Class A = 54 students)
4.4.2 Research Participants
At the beginning of the study, 102 student teachers agreed to participate in the
present study and signed the consent form. By the end of the study there were 61
students (21 females and four males in experiment class and 33 females and three
males in the control class) completed required data collection and therefore included
in the data analysis. Creswell (2012) argues that at a rough estimate, an educational
research study needs approximately 15 participants in each group in an experiment.
Therefore, with the total of 61 participants, the present study has sufficient number
needed for statistical procedures and the sample is likely to be a good estimate of the
characteristic of the population.
The participants are second-year student teachers at English Education Study
Programme, Teacher Training and Education Institute (STKIP PGRI) Bandar
Lampung, Indonesia who are trained to be Junior and Senior Secondary Schools
teachers of English. They enrolled in “speaking II” subject at academic year of
97
2015/2016. They had already taken and passed “speaking I” subject at the previous
semester. Thus, it can be assumed that they were more or less at the same English
level. Table 4.3 below presents biographical information of the sample which will be
discussed in more details in section 5.2.1.1.
Table 4.3: Participants‟ Demographic Information
Class Male Female Average Age Average years of English study
Experiment Class (EC) 4 21 20.5 8.9
Control Class (CC) 3 33 19.4 9.5
To avoid the possibility that the participants would make extra efforts to help the
researcher achieves the aims of the study, approval was sought from the participants,
but they were not told the focus of the specific groups they were in. This was to
minimize the impact of the so called Hawthorne effect, which occurs when
participants are pleased at being included in a study, and unconsciously deceive
themselves and the researcher to ensure its success (Chen 2006).
4.4.3 The Teacher Educator
As the nature of mixed methods allows and requires the researcher to gain deeper
understanding of the context, procedure, and implementation of the research,
therefore dual roles of researcher and teacher educator have been taken in the present
study. Taking these dual roles, the researcher had the advantages of getting details of
the teaching and learning conditions. In addition, the dual roles was also taken in
order to ensure parallel class activities and to avoid the possible implementation
threats as well as to deal with the issue of unequal treatment or a „teacher effect‟ as
suggested by Lin (2009, p. 54).
The dual roles as researcher and teacher educator was also taken by considering the
limitation of similar study implementing cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL
classroom conducted by Muamaroh (2013) where the teacher educators were not
able to implement cooperative learning techniques properly and consistently in their
classes. This limitation was due to the teacher educators were only trained over a
limited number of days to implement CL techniques which could not be utilized
maximally due to their busy schedule. Therefore, the dual roles as researcher and
98
teacher educator was taken since the researcher in the present study has studied the
theory of CL during his Master‟s degree programme in TESL (Teaching English as a
Second Language) as well as in preparing the literature review of the present study.
He also has experience in implementing CL in his teaching as a lecturer at Bandar
Lampung University, Indonesia. In addition, lesson plans were prepared before the
study to guide the teacher educator as well as to ensure that learning together (LT)
technique of cooperative learning is implemented properly and consistently in the
present study.
However, this dual role as the researcher and the teacher educator in turn introduced
another potential problem. Neuman (2006) points out that the experimenter
expectancy is a type of reactivity and threat to internal validity due to the
experimenter indirectly making participants aware of the hypothesis of desired
results. In attempt to minimize any potential experimenter bias due to researcher‟s
expectations of the experiment results, the research plans have been followed
thoroughly (section 4.7.2) and the treatment fidelity was ensured as discussed in
section 4.7.3 below.
4.4.4 Ethical Consideration
The present study has been approved by the Research Ethic Committee of the
University of Limerick (2015_01_02_AHSS). At the site of the present study,
Teacher Training and Education Institute (STKIP PGRI) Bandar Lampung, the
research methodology of the present study was reviewed by the head of the study
programme and head of administration board before research approval was given. In
addition, many initiatives were taken to protect the rights of the participants. For
example, at the beginning of the study, the participants were explicitly informed that
the objective of the study was to find out the impacts of a teaching method. They
were informed that the participation in the present study was voluntarily and would
not affect their grade and treatment. None of the participants‟ names or identities was
disclosed at any point of the study to protect their privacy. It was also clearly
explained to the participants the procedure of the present study, their roles, and what
was expected from them. The participants were aware that their participation was
voluntarily, their anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed and they had the
right to withdraw from the research at any time without giving a reason. The
99
information sheet (appendix 1) and consent form (appendix 2) were also given and
explained to the participants before the present study started.
In the researcher‟s dual roles as the researcher and the teacher educator, there was
potential impact that power relationship may have had. Therefore, a gatekeeper was
put in place to facilitate the study so that there was no direct contact between the
researcher and the participants at the point when they were deciding to participate in
the study or if they wished to withdraw from the study. The gatekeeper is a male
English lecturer at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung with Master degree in English
education and has been teaching English in the institution for three years.
4.5 Research Instrument
As discussed in previous section (section 4.2) that the present study attempts to take
an integrative approach which involves the use of both quantitative and qualitative
approaches. In addition to quantitative data, as suggested by Gilmore (2007), the
present study also intended to gather as much information about the process of
learning in the CL class as possible and to see insights emerge gradually from the
data. Therefore, the present study collected data in both quantitative and qualitative
forms. By accumulating different forms of data about the same event, a fairer
appraisal of what really took place will be achieved. This section discusses four data
collection instruments employed in the present study as can be seen in table 4.4
below.
Table 4.4: Research Instruments
Instrument Aspects to be measured
Paired-oral interview
Communicative Competence Linguistic competence Sociolinguistic competence Discourse competence Strategic competence
Questionnaire Perceptions Future practice
Group interview Perceptions Future practice
Participants‟ diaries Participants‟ learning experiences
100
4.5.1 Paired-oral Interview
In order to assess the development of participants‟ communicative competence in
both experiment and control classes between pre- and post-treatments, identical
paired-oral interview (Appendix 5) was used in order to be able to compare the
development of CC for each class over time as well as between experiment and
control class overtime. This leads to the framework of quantitative data analysis
which employed paired-samples and independent samples t-tests as well as
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA)
for components of communicative competence (see section 4.8.1.2).
The paired-oral interview employed in the present study was developed in
consultation with two research supervisors at University of Limerick, Ireland
regarding the content and construct, and two English lecturer at Teacher Training and
Education Institute (STKIP PGRI) Bandar Lampung, Indonesia regarding the
difficulty and familiarity of the topics for the participants. The paired-oral interview
consists of three parts including introduction and personal interest, individual talk,
and discussion. This was to measure the participants‟ CC in wide range of possible
situations they might encounter. The individual and personal interest part also
functioned as warming up to decrease participants‟ anxiety of the testing condition.
The second part, individual talk, provided information on participant‟s ability in
expressing his/her thoughts and ideas. The last part, discussion, provided information
of how participants handle conversational situation.
In evaluating participants‟ CC, scoring rubric and sufficient training for raters were
also very important to reduce the possible testing bias as recommended by Liang
(2002) (see section 3.6). The scoring rubric (appendix 6) was developed in
accordance to the proposed framework of CC (see section 3.5) and by consulting to
other available scoring rubrics e.g., IELTS speaking rubric, TOEFL speaking
descriptors, and CEFR competence descriptors as well as in consultation with two
experienced English lecturers (the present researcher‟s supervisors) at University of
Limerick, Ireland.
101
4.5.2 Questionnaire
Questionnaire has become one of the most popular instruments in social science, due
to the fact that it is easy to conduct and is an efficient way to collect information (Liu
2015). As suggested by Wagner (2010), questionnaires can be administered to a large
number of people easily, and the data can be objectively scored and analysed
quantitatively. In addition, another benefit is that it can also be used to collect three
types of data about respondent (Dörnyei 2007):
Factual questions which are used to find out certain facts about the respondents; behavioural questions which are used to find out what the respondents are doing or have done in the past; attitudinal questions which are used to find out what people think, covering attitudes, opinions, beliefs, interests, and values.
(Dörnyei 2007, p. 102)
However, aside from its benefits, using questionnaire in collecting data also has
some challenges such as lack of conscientious responses and skipped questions.
When using questionnaire, there is no way to know if the respondent has really
thought the question through before answering. There is also a chance that some
questions will be skipped by respondent. In the present study, steps have been taken
to overcome these challenges by encouraging respondents to answer each question in
the questionnaire thoughtfully.
Considering that questionnaire is an effective way to collect information and three
types of data about respondent, questionnaires were employed in the present study.
Two questionnaires were administered at the beginning (appendix 7) and the end of
the study (appendix 8) to all participants in both experiment and control classes. The
questionnaire was administered to collect data on student teachers‟ perceptions on
the implementation of teaching instruction in their classroom and its impact on their
future teaching practices. The questionnaire integrated mixed open-ended and close-
ended questions in order to collect more comprehensive data from participants. The
questionnaire administered before the study contained 24 items collecting
information on the participants‟ demographic data, group work experience, English
learning motivation, English skills, perceptions on the teaching instruction, and its
impact to their future teaching practices. The questionnaire administered after the
study consists of 13 items focusing on participants‟ perceptions of the
102
implementation of teaching instruction in their classrooms during the study and its
impact to their future teaching practice.
4.5.3 Group Interview
Group interview was employed in the present study to explore participants‟
experience as well as gather data on their perceptions on the implementation of
teaching instruction in their classes. As the present researcher himself was
responsible for conducting the group interviews, there might be potential influence of
his presence on the students‟ perceptions. Therefore, the present researcher clearly
explained the purpose of the data collection which is to get participants‟ experience
and perceptions as honestly as possible on the implementation of teaching instruction
in their classes and the expression of their perceptions in an interview situation will
not carry any undue influence or impact upon their scholarly achievement.
There are number of ways to structure interview, ranging from completely controlled
to completely open. Nunan (1992) divides three structures of interview which
include unstructured interview, semi-structured interview, and structured interview.
Semi-structured interview was employed in the present study, as suggested by
Gilmore (2007), to gain the advantages of unstructured and structured interviews as
well as to avoid the disadvantages of each structure. Semi-structured interview gives
interviewer more flexibility in the coverage of the interview and also gives
interviewees chance to provide more information from their own voice. A semi-
structured group interview was conducted at the end of the study for each class - on
the 14th January 2016 for the control class and on the 16th January 2016 for the
experiment class.
Credibility of the findings from group interview could be achieved through careful
recording, transcription, analysis, and presentation of data in an unbiased way
(Gilmore 2007). Group interviews in the present study were audio recorded,
transcribed, and then analysed. To ensure the trustworthiness of the data, the
participants‟ remarks which were quoted in the present study were translated into
Standard English carefully (see section 4.8.2.2). All the data were kept confidential
and all identifying data were removed from the results. Peer debriefing and member
check were also employed to ensure the validity of the results derived from the
103
interview data. As stated above, the interview was designed to investigate student
teachers‟ experience in their classes, including their perceptions on (see appendix 9):
Important aspects in teaching using group-work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms,
Negative aspects of using group-work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms,
Positive aspects of using group-work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms,
The use group-work activities in their future EFL classroom teaching.
4.5.4 Diary
Diary studies are defined as a first-person account of a language learning or teaching
experience, documented through regular, candid entries in a personal journal and
then analysed for recurring patterns or salient events (Nunan 1992, p. 120). In the
present study, the participants‟ diaries were used to illuminate the student teachers‟
responses to teaching instruction, their reflections of the learning experiences during
the study, and the impact of the teaching instruction towards their future teaching
practice.
After each lesson during the study, participants were asked to write, in their own
words and languages of preference, reflection of their classroom experiences. Then
their diaries were collected at two points of the study (week 7 and week 14) and
analysed by the researcher. Some questions were suggested by Sarobol (2012) to
guide participants writing their reflective diary:
1. What did you learn in today‟s class and how did you feel about it? 2. What are advantages (good things) and disadvantages (bad things) of
today learning?
3. What problems did you encounter when doing classroom activities?
4. How did you feel learning in this situation?
5. If you were the teacher, what will you do differently to make the learning process better?
Nunan (1992) points out that diaries are important introspective tools in language
research. However, Gilmore (2007) argues that collecting data from learners is far
from easy. Some potential difficulties in diary study as summarized by Gilmore
(2007) were that learner diaries were often of poor quality, being short and
104
incomplete, low rate of return, and it might be burden on time and energies of
participants. In the present study, as the semester went on, participants felt that
writing learning diary is time consuming and burden for them among many
assignments from other subjects. By the end of the study, the present researcher
could collect student teachers‟ learning diaries from the experiment class on the
eighth meeting.
4.6 Data Collection
Steps were taken to ensure validity and reliability of the data in the present study
through conducting pilot study for the data collection instruments and ensuring
accountable data collection procedures. This section begins with the description of
the pilot study and the adjustments made for the main study. This is followed by the
data collection procedures for each instrument. The data collection instruments and
procedures are described in detail in order to increase replicability.
4.6.1 Pilot Study
In order to ensure the validity and reliability, pilot study was conducted prior the
main data collection in the present study. Piloting the study should help the
researcher anticipate where the main research project could fail, where research
protocols may not be followed, or whether proposed instruments and procedures are
inappropriate or too complicated.
4.6.1.1 Paired-oral interview
Pilot study of paired-oral interview focused to ensure the validity and reliability of
the process and procedure of the paired-oral interview and the scoring rubric. Pilot
study was conducted to examine its suitability and feasibility for the present study.
The pilot study was conducted on August 2015 to twenty two second-year student
teachers majoring in English education at Bandar Lampung University. Participants
in the pilot study were selected based on their availability. The selection also
considered their level and programme similarity with the participants of the main
study. Therefore, it could be assumed that they would have similar characteristics
and level of communicative competence with the participants of the present study.
105
Prior to the pilot study, the research objectives and aims were explained to the
participants. After they agreed to take part and signed informed consent form, the
present researcher invited them to take a paired-oral interview in a classroom at
Bandar Lampung University, Indonesia. Twenty two student teachers were
interviewed pair by pair and the interviews were video recorded using Lenovo S939
mobile phone. In the paired-oral interview process and procedure, the focus was on
the task, inputs given by interlocutor, and the condition of the interview.
The two English lecturers, consulted for the difficulty and familiarity of the topic in
paired-oral interview, were then invited to use the scoring rubric and rate the
participants‟ CC by evaluating students‟ performances in the video recordings. This
was for the raters to familiarize and clarify the scoring rubric before the main study.
Discussion was conducted with the two raters to evaluate the content and procedure
of paired-oral interview, the clarity of scoring rubric, and the use of video recordings.
Some revisions on the topic and procedure of the paired-oral interview and scoring
rubric were made based on the suggestions from the two raters. The final paired-oral
interview and scoring rubric can be seen in appendix 5 and appendix 6.
4.6.1.2 Questionnaire
The questionnaire was piloted on 24th March 2015 to previous cohort of the second-
year student teachers majoring English education at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung
academic year 2014/2015. The aim was to examine the clarity and answerability of
each question and to measure the time duration needed by participants to complete
the questionnaire. The research objectives and aims of the pilot study were explained
to one class at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung and 37 students agreed to take part in
the pilot study and signed consent form. Completed questionnaires were then
analysed focusing on two main issues of clarity and answerability of each question
and usability of information gained to answer the research questions. Discussion with
student teachers, as recommended by Fraser (2010) was also conducted after they
completed the pilot questionnaire to get their feedbacks on the questionnaire. Based
on the results of the pilot study, the questionnaire then was revised and used in the
main study. The pilot study is believed to increase the questionnaire validity and
reliability.
106
4.6.1.3 Group interview
Following similar procedure as the questionnaire, the group interview questions and
procedure were also piloted to second year student teachers majoring English
education at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung academic year 2014/2015. The group
interviews were conducted on 24th March 2015 and were audio recorded on Sony
MP3 recorder. Eight student teachers agreed to take part in group interview and were
divided into two groups. Nunan (1992) suggests that according to their purpose,
interviews may be conducted either in the participants‟ native or target language.
Therefore, in order to decide the language to be used in the main study, one group
was asked to use English and another group was allowed to use their native language
(Bahasa Indonesia) during the pilot study.
The results from the pilot study indicated that the participants could not express their
thoughts and feelings fully and clearly when were asked to use English. Therefore, in
the main study, all participants were allowed to use their native language (Bahasa
Indonesia) so that they could express themselves fully, deeply, and clearly. Interview
questions were also revised in order to get more specific information needed to
answer the research questions. The interview questions include for example, “What
do you think as important aspects in the teaching and learning through group work
activities in Indonesia?; What do you see as negative aspects in using group work
activities in Indonesia‟s English classrooms?; What do you see as positive aspects in
using group work activities in Indonesia‟s English classrooms?; Do you plan to use
group work activities in your future teaching practice? (see Appendix 9).
4.6.2 Procedures of Data Collection
In addition to increase the validity and reliability of research data and findings, the
data collection procedures need also to be described in detail in order to increase
replicability. This section describes the data collection procedures for the present
study.
4.6.2.1 Procedure for Paired-Oral Interview
In the main study, on the first week of the semester, the gatekeeper explained the
study and what it requires for participation to the student teachers. After the student
107
teachers agreed to take part in the study and signed informed consent form, then the
time and place of paired-oral interview for both classes were arranged. Participants
were asked to pair themselves with their classmate for the paired-oral interview.
The pretest paired-oral interview was conducted in the university on the second week
of the study, while the posttest paired-oral interview was conducted one week after
the study. The present researcher was in charge for the whole organization of the oral
tests. Two English lecturers from STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung were invited to be
interlocutors in the interviews and two senior students were also invited to take
charge of the video recording. However, as one lecturer couldn‟t attend the oral test,
the present researcher was also in charge of being an interlocutor. Pairs of
participants from both control and experiment classes were randomly assigned to
either one of the two interlocutors. The pretest was conducted on 26th September
2015 from 08.00 – 11.00 with 54 student teachers for the control class and 14.00 –
16.00 for the experiment class with 30 student teachers. The posttest was conducted
on 11th January 2016 from 09.00 – 11.30 with 52 student teachers for the control
class and from 15.00 – 17.30 for the experiment class with 47 student teachers. The
participants were examined pair by pair. The paired-oral interview from each pair
was video recorded for evaluation and scoring. The participants‟ video recorded
performances were then blind-graded by two English lecturers independently.
In collecting data through paired-oral interview, Fraser (2010) suggests to control the
tasks, inputs, conditions, and interlocutors for the interview so that the testing
processes and procedures were as similar as possible for each pair from both control
and experiment classes on both pre- and post-treatment. Regarding the tasks,
identical tasks were given to both experiment and control classes in the pretest and
posttest. Regarding the inputs, identical set of questions were prepared to guide the
interlocutors to provide inputs and conditions as similar as possible during the
paired-oral interview process for both classes in pretest and posttest. Regarding the
interlocutors / interviewers, paired-oral interview simulations were conducted prior
the data collection by the present researcher and other interviewer through role-play
to ensure that the inputs, process, and procedure were conducted as similar as
possible.
108
The same two English lecturers from STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung were invited to
assess participants‟ CC. The training and familiarization of the scoring rubric were
also conducted with the two raters. Each participant was scored respectively on their
general CC and the four components of CC. The average score given by the two
raters was regarded as the final mark, as suggested by Lin (2009). Inter-rater
reliability check on 0-6 scale was conducted using Cronbach‟s Alpha. The results of
.964 of the pretest scores and .921 indicated excellent inter-rater reliability.
The background of the two raters (here called A and B) is as follow:
A is an Indonesian male with Master Degree in Language Education, an English
lecturer with experience in teaching English for 3 years at Teacher Training
and Education Institute (STKIP PGRI) Bandar Lampung.
B is an Indonesian female with Master Degree in Language Education, an English
lecturer with experience in teaching English for 3 years at Teacher Training
and Education Institute (STKIP PGRI) Bandar Lampung.
4.6.2.2 Procedure for Questionnaire
Questionnaires were also used in collecting data in the present study. After the
student teachers agreed to take part in the study and signed the consent form, the
questionnaires were then administered to all participants. Forty three student teachers
from the control class and thirty three student teachers from the experiment class
completed the questionnaire before the study. After the study, the gatekeeper again
administered the questionnaire one week after the last classroom teaching. There
were fifty two student teachers from the control class and forty five student teachers
from the experiment class completed the questionnaire. The pre-treatment and post-
treatment questionnaires were administered on 19th September 2015 and 11th January
2016.
4.6.2.3 Procedure for Group Interview
While administering the questionnaire after the study, the gatekeeper invited student
teachers to participate in group interview. Seven student teachers from control class
and six student teachers from experiment class agreed to take part. The gatekeeper
and the student teachers then discuss and decide the time and place for group
interviews. Group interview for the experiment class was conducted on 16th January
109
2016 in a classroom at the university, while group interview for the control class was
conducted on 14th January 2016 in one student teacher‟s boarding house. Both group
interviews were recorded using Lenovo S939 mobile phone and the present
researcher himself was responsible for conducting the group interviews. Potential
influence of the researcher‟s presence on the students‟ perceptions was minimized by
explaining the purpose of the data collection and that their perceptions in an
interview situation will not carry any undue influence or impact upon their scholarly
achievement.
4.6.2.4 Procedure for Student Teachers‟ Diaries
Starting from the second meeting, the participants were asked to write their learning
diary. As discussed in section 4.5.4, the participants‟ diaries were used to illuminate
the student teachers‟ responses to teaching instruction, their reflections of the
learning experiences during the study, and the their perceptions on how the teaching
instruction impact their future teaching practice. In order to ensure the validity and
reliability of the diary, in addition to the freedom of the participants to write
whatever they want to share in their diary, guiding questions (see section 4.5.4) were
provided to provoke the participants‟ diary entries. Participants were also allowed to
use Bahasa Indonesia or English in expressing their thoughts and feelings. Student
teachers‟ learning diaries were collected at the eighth week (mid semester of
teaching and learning processes). However, as participants were complaining that
diary writing put more burdens on time and energies on them, therefore there were
no more diaries writing for participants afterwards. For the participants‟ diaries
analysis, peer debriefing and member check were employed to ensure the validity of
the results derived from the diary.
110
Figure 4.2: Flow Chart for the Data Collection
4.7 Teaching Materials and Procedures
In educational settings, as suggested by Mujis (2004 cited in Lin 2009, p. 46),
extraneous variables (see section 4.3.2) may affect the experiment outcome, so it is
very important to make the control class as similar to the experiment class as
possible on all aspects except for the treatment. This section describes the teaching
materials and procedures for both control and experiment classes. It also discusses
the treatment fidelity to ensure that the treatment conditions are implemented as
intended and that the treatments being compared are sufficiently different from each
other.
4.7.1 Teaching Materials
In the present study, the participants were taking Speaking II subject (see section
4.4.2) with identical contents for both the control and the experiment classes
Week 2: Paired-oral Interview
Diary
Cooperative Learning in Experiment Class
Week 15: Questionnaire
Paired-oral interview
Week 8: Participants‟ learning diary
Week 3– 14: Teaching treatments
Control Treatment in Control Class
Week 16: Group Interviews
(control & experiment)
Week 1: Consent form Questionnaire
111
including the subject syllabus, materials, homework, and examinations. As discussed
in section 4.3.1 above, the control class received control treatment, while the
experiment class participated in learning together (LT) technique of cooperative
learning (see sections 4.7.2.1 and 4.7.2.2 below). Lesson plans containing similar
teaching materials and homework assignments, but differ significantly in the
teaching procedures, were also prepared as guidance and reference in the teaching
processes for both control and experiment classes during one semester of the present
study.
4.7.2 Teaching Procedures
Teaching materials and procedures for both control and experiment classes focused
mainly on developing the student teachers‟ speaking skill since this was area of
priority on the speaking 2 subject where participants were enrolled in. There was one
100-minutes session every week allocated during 14 weeks in one semester. The
classes were conducted every Saturday from 08.00 am – 09.40 am for the control
class and from 04.00 pm – 05.40 pm for the experiment class. The conditions of both
control and experiment classes as discussed in section 4.3.2 (research variables) were
controlled as identical as possible except for the independent variable, teaching
technique, differed significantly. To ensure that the teaching treatment is the only
difference in both classes, detailed lesson plans were prepared in advance. The
teaching procedures for both control and experiment classes are described below.
4.7.2.1 Procedure for control class
In conducting an experimental study where the experiment class and the control class
receive different treatments, there is an ethical issue regarding members of the
control class being put at some form of „disadvantage‟ that should be acknowledge.
In order to explore this issue and in an effort to be confident of similar high quality
of teaching treatment for the control class, the present researcher conducted pilot
study at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung prior to conducting the present study to
establish how the control class would be taught. Informal interviews with English
lecturers at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung as well as analyses of the syllabuses and
lesson plans of speaking I, II, and III subjects have also been conducted to examine
the techniques implemented in the teaching processes. It can be summarized that the
lecturers at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung implement whole-class teaching with
112
some features of communicative language teaching and use group work activities in
their classroom, a classroom situation which means that their teaching and learning
experiences also involve group work as core. It is the nature of the group work itself
that differs from the type of group work the experiment class would experience, as
CL differs from traditional group work activities in five principles (see section 2.3.1),
and there was no evidence of the five basic principles of CL in the document
concerning the control class. Therefore, the teaching procedure for the control class
was whole-class teaching with some features of communicative language teaching
and use of group work activities identified from the analysis of syllabus and lesson
plans which in the present study is called control treatment. From this perspective,
both the experiment and the control classes receive the same level of high quality
teaching treatment, and neither class is put at a disadvantage. It is the nature of the
group work that is being examined.
4.7.2.2 Procedure for experiment class
In the study on adapting cooperative learning for Chinese learners, Ning (2010)
proposed three basic principles to improve CL adaptation in ELT Chinese tertiary
learners. First, the adaptation must incorporate key elements of CL because it is these
elements that distinguish CL from other types of group work and lead to its
effectiveness. Second, team assessment and subject evaluation systems should offer
recognition of teamwork and individual efforts, as well as rewards for teams‟
improvement and progress. Third, CL practitioners need to be sensitive when
translating CL into Asian cultures, when rigid teacher centred pedagogy is employed,
and independent learning and learner autonomy are not traditionally advocated.
Thus, when CL is first used with Asian students, full attention should be given to a
proper balance between CL and traditional teaching.
Bearing in mind those suggestions in implementing CL in new context, the role of
the teacher educator during the first phase of implementation was to turn the
traditional classroom into a CL context as supported by Liang (2002). Some actions
were taken in the present study as:
1) Grouping students. Lin (2009) suggests that the students will get better range of
improvements if the teacher creates heterogeneous teams by achievement rather
than by creating teams randomly. Therefore, participants in the present study
113
were divided into groups of mixed ability based on the speaking grades from
previous semester. The present researcher also took characteristics of gender into
consideration. Group of four was used which enabled participants to work in
pairs and then the two pairs of the foursome to interact with one another. In this
way, 12 heterogeneous groups were formed and stayed together for the whole
semester as base groups.
2) Teambuilding activities. As discussed in section 2.3, simply putting the students
to sit and work together does not ensure cooperation. Liang (2002) argues that
students need the process of teambuilding to turn a group of students sitting
together into a caring and working team. In the first meeting, the students were
divided into groups and asked to share their personal identity and then were
asked to discuss their group name and identity. They also discussed the structure
of the group and role of each member (group leader, spokesperson, secretary,
team monitor, and honorary member). Some of students‟ group names are JaBi
(Jawa Bali), Sunshine, Wonder Women, Meatball, Pretty Women.
3) Setting classroom rules of “what to do” and “what not to do”. In order to
facilitate self-control, learner autonomy, and democracy in the management of
the groups as well as to promote interpersonal and social skills of CL principle
to the students, the present researcher and participants discussed the rules of
“what to do” and “what not to do” called “classroom commitments and
commandments”. Example of commitments and commandments in the present
study as follows:
Commitments (I will . . .) always use English in the classroom come on time to the class do the shared work and assigned role in group work help other students / group mates respect other‟s different ideas
Commandments (I will not . . .) chat using Bahasa Indonesia in the classroom leave the works and assigned role unfinished laugh at others‟ mistakes ignore others who need help
114
The teaching procedure in the experiment class followed learning together (LT)
technique of CL. Steps have been taken in order to ensure that five basic principles
of cooperative learning (see section 2.3.1) are evident in the present study (see
appendix 14). Positive interdependence (see section 2.3.1.1) was established through
outcomes, means, and boundary interdependence. Student teachers in cooperative
learning groups were united around a common goal. The student teachers were
informed that groups are responsible for each member masters a specific teaching
material or successfully completes one task or product with contribution from all
group members. Boundary interdependence was established through identity by
asking student teachers to name their groups and create unique yel-yel2 for their
groups, and environment by assigning specific work area separate from other groups.
Means interdependence includes resources, task, and role interdependence.
Resources were sometimes divided among group members so that each member has
specific resource to complete the group‟s assignment as in Jigsaw technique. The
assigned task can also be divided so that each group member is responsible for doing
one aspect of the assignment. Rotating roles as group leader, spokesperson,
secretary, team monitor, and honorary member were assigned to each member.
Group leader : responsible for managing teamwork and monitoring group activity, for example making sure that everyone is on task, focused, do what they are supposed to do, giving turn to his/her members to speak, and leading to consensus in a diplomatic way.
Spokesperson : responsible for reporting group‟s answer and ideas and representing the group to communicate with other groups or with the teacher.
Secretary : responsible for making notes of all activities in group, formulating the answers or ideas everyone agrees on and writing it down.
Team monitor : responsible for ensuring each group member contribute to the group, monitoring time allocation and management on each activity or task, ensuring the voice level does not disturb other groups, and checking member‟s answer and understanding after the discussion. If the group consists of only three members, the group leader is also responsible for the role of team monitor.
2 Yel-yel is a unique cheer or song performed to give encouragement to the team or group.
115
Honorary member: if there is a fifth member, he/she is responsible for researching information needed or assigning the distribution of research activities to other members.
Adopted from Wachyuni (2011, p. 35) and Liang (2002, p. 61)
Group accountability exist when the overall group performance is assessed and the
results are given back to group members and individual accountability exist when
each member performance is assessed and the results are given back to the group
(see section 2.3.1.2). Group and individual accountability were established by
ensuring that each group consists of maximum five members so that group members
can easily identify each member‟s contribution as suggested by Johnson and Johnson
(2009). They argue that the smaller the size of the group, the greater the individual
accountability. In addition, the teacher educator also regularly observes and
documents contribution of each member, and sometimes randomly asks group
member to explain what he/she has learned to the class.
Small group size (3 to 5 members) is important to ensure meaningful promotive
interaction (see section 2.3.1.3) where individual encourage and facilitate each
other‟s effort to complete their tasks in order for the group to achieve its goal occurs.
The student teachers were also requested to sit in close proximity to other group
members to ensure that all group members can hear what is being discussed and
participate in the group‟s discussion.
In order to ensure interpersonal and social skills (see section 2.3.1.4) are practiced
and developed by the student teachers in the cooperative learning class, specific
social and interpersonal skills goals such as trust-building, leadership, decision-
making, communication and conflict management are set. Classroom commitments
and commandments were also discussed and agreed by student teachers. Roles as
group leader, spokesperson, secretary, team monitor, or honorary member are
assigned and rotated so that each member experience and develop skills on each role.
Group processing (see section 2.3.1.5) was ensured by providing time and guidance
for student teachers of how to analyse their group work effectively. In the present
study, due to the time constraint, group processing is allotted every three to four
meetings. In the group processing, student teachers were asked to evaluate their
group work by listing things they have done well and effectively and things they
116
need to improve. In other words, students responded to specific questions such as
“what worked?”, “what did not work?” and “what can be changed to improve the
group functioning process?” Student teachers were then asked to share their
improvement plan. Feedbacks were then given by the teacher educator where
necessary. Finally, groups celebrate the hard work and contributions of the members
as well as the success of the group. Celebrations provided students with
encouragement to continue improving their group work.
In terms of first language (Bahasa Indonesia) usage and in order to maximize the use
of English in the classroom, students are not allowed to chat in Bahasa Indonesia.
The teacher educator as much as possible carries out classroom management in
English such as telling the class what to do, controlling behaviour, and explaining
activities in order to maximise the L2 input. However, as suggested by Nation (2003)
that the first language (L1) has an important role to play in communicating meaning
and content. Nation (2003) argues that L1 provides a familiar and effective way of
quickly getting to grips with the meaning and content of what needs to be used in the
L2. He introduces an approach to the use of L1 in L2 classroom called a “balanced
approach”. In this approach, teachers need to show respect for learners‟ L1 and need
to avoid doing things that make the L1 seem inferior to English, at the same time, it
is the English teacher‟s job to help learners develop their proficiency in English
(Nation 2003, p. 140). Therefore, in the present study, L1 is seen as a useful tool that
should be used where needed but should not be over-used.
4.7.3 Fidelity of Treatment
Treatment fidelity, summarized by Liao (2006), includes treatment integrity which
refers to the degree to which a treatment condition is implemented as intended and
treatment differentiation which refers to whether treatment conditions differ from
one another in the intended manner such that the manipulation of the independent
variable actually occurred as planned. Or in other words, treatment fidelity refers to
how well a treatment condition is implemented as planned in a research study and
includes an assurance of reliability that the treatment conditions being compared are
sufficiently different from each other.
117
In his dual roles as researcher and teacher educator, the present researcher was aware
of possible bias due to the research agenda (see section 4.4.4). Therefore, identical
teaching quality for both control and experiment classes were assured by preparing
lesson plans for both classes. It is also to ascertain that both classes follow the
teaching procedures they should follow. In addition, to control potential threat to
internal validity caused by diffusion of treatment, participants were asked to stay in
their assigned class (class A for control class and class B for experiment class)
throughout the entire period of study as recommended in Hsiung (2012).
4.8 Methods of Data Analysis
As the present study adopted a mixed methods approach which integrates
quantitative and qualitative data to answer its research questions (see section 4.2),
therefore, the data analysis was also divided into quantitative data analysis and
qualitative data analysis as discussed below.
4.8.1 Quantitative Data Analysis
In order to answer the main research questions, quantitative data were analysed using
descriptive and inferential analyses. The aim was to assess whether there is
significant improvement of student teachers‟ CC and their likelihood to integrate
group-work activities into their future teaching practice as a result of CL treatment
compared to control treatment.
4.8.1.1 Descriptive Analysis
Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) which involves computing various descriptive
statistics and graphs is used to examine and get to know the data (Leech, Barrett &
Morgan 2015, p. 27). In this section, for the paired-oral interview data, as
recommended by Leech et al. (2015) and Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2007)
descriptive statistics describe and present data which include mean (the average
score), standard deviation, and skewness (how far the data are asymmetrical in
relation to a „normal‟ curve of distribution). Descriptive analysis was also conducted
for the data collected through questionnaire which include student teachers‟
demographic information, learning experience, perceptions of group work activities,
118
student teachers‟ likelihood to implement group-work activities into their future
teaching practice, and language skills (see section 5.2.1.1).
4.8.1.2 Inferential Analysis
The purpose of inferential statistics is to enable the researcher to make
generalizations beyond the specific sample data. Deciding what statistical test to use
was the biggest challenge for the present researcher due to the nature of data
collected and the purposes of the study. As suggested by Cohen et al. (2007), a
number of factors were considered in deciding what test to employ such as the
purpose of the analysis (to test a hypothesis), the kind of data (parametric and non-
parametric), the scale of data (nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio), the number of groups
in the sample, the assumptions in the tests, and whether the samples are independent
or related to each other. The statistical software package for social science (SPSS)
for Windows 8, version 22 is used for analysis of quantitative data.
Every statistical test has assumptions which explain when it is and isn‟t reasonable to
perform a specific statistical test. However, some parametric statistics have been
found to be “robust” to violations of one or more of their assumptions. Robust means
that the assumptions can be violated without damaging the validity of the statistic.
For example, one assumption of t-test and ANOVA is that the dependent variable is
normally distributed for each group. Statisticians who have studied these statistics
have found that even when data are not completely normally distributed, they still
can be used under many circumstances (Leech et al. 2015, p. 29).
Based on the present study aims and assumptions underlying statistical tests, t-tests,
analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
were performed to analyse data. With regards to participants‟ CC and likelihood to
integrate group-work activities into their future teaching practice, paired-samples and
independent samples t-tests were performed to see if there was significant difference
between experiment and control classes in the pretest and posttest as well as within
each group scores before and after treatment. In addition, independent samples t-tests
on improvement scores were also performed to see if CL significantly better in
improving participants‟ CC compared to control treatment. With regards to
participants‟ components of CC (linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic
competences) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was also conducted to
119
investigate exactly what aspects of students‟ CC showed differences when
comparing the control and the experiment classes. When MANOVA was found
significant, investigation was followed up with univariate ANOVAs on each of the
dependent variable to see if there was a significant difference between the
experiment and control classes. As five independent samples t-test were used to
process the improvement scores in CC and its four components, in order to make the
t-tests acceptable, a Bonferroni adjustment was applied to determine statistical
significance of the five t-tests results on improvement scores as suggested by Lin
(2009)
The general statistical hypothesis for the analysis was as follows:
H0 : µ1 = µ2
H1 : µ1 ≠ µ2
Because the researcher was not necessarily concerned about Type 1 error, an alpha
level of α = .05 was chosen by convention. Due to the nature of the classroom
research and paired-oral interview test employed in the present study, group means
rather than individual scores are used as the units of analysis as suggested by Liao
(2006).
4.8.1.3 Test for Assumptions Underlying t-test, ANOVA and MANOVA
The following are the main assumptions underlying t-test and ANOVA. Care was
taken in the present study to ensure all the assumptions were satisfied. The
assumptions are discussed below.
1. Normality Assumption. Normal distribution assumption postulates that the
observations are normally distributed on the dependent variables in each group.
However, Leech et al. (2015) argue that some parametric statistics, such as the
tow-tailed t-test and ANOVA are quite robust so even a skewness of more than
+/-1 may not change the results much. It is supported by Stevens (1999) who
argues that violation of this assumption will only minimally affect the sampling
distribution of F and has negligible consequences on Type-I and Type-II error
probabilities (Glass & Hopkins 1996, p. 403). This means that the procedure of
t-test and ANOVA are robust with regard to the violation of the normality
assumption. The assumption was therefore not tested.
120
2. Homogeneity of variances / Equality of variances assumption. This assumption
postulates that all groups have the same or similar variance. Homogeneity of
variances is particularly important if sample sizes differ across levels of the
independent variable(s) (Leech et al. 2015, p. 188). However, if the sample
group sizes are equal or approximately equal, i.e., the sample size of the largest
group is no more than 1.5 times the sample size of the smallest group, the
procedure of t-test and ANOVA are robust to the violation of this assumption
(Liao 2006). The sizes of the groups were approximately equal in the present
study (experiment group = 36, control group = 25).
3. Independence assumption. This assumption postulates that the observations
within groups are not influenced by each other. But as Stevens (1999) and Glass
and Hopkins (1996) indicate, in teaching methods studies, especially those
involved discussion among group members, dependence among participants is
inevitable. In such a situation, Stevens (1999) suggests using the group means as
the unit of analysis. The present study used the group means, rather than
individual scores, as the unit of analysis.
The following are the main assumptions underlying MANOVA. Efforts were made
to ensure all the assumptions were satisfied. The assumptions are discussed below.
1. Independence observation. See the independence assumption for t-test and
ANOVA.
2. Multivariate normality and Homogeneity of variance / covariance matrices
across groups. MANOVA is robust to violations of multivariate normality and to
violations of homogeneity of variance/covariance matrices if groups are equal or
nearly equal size (N of the largest group is no more than about 1.5 times the N of
the smallest group (Leech et al. 2015, p. 233).
4.8.2 Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis was also conducted to analyse data from questionnaires,
group interview, and diaries. Data collected from comments and open-ended
questions in the questionnaires, participants‟ learning diaries, and group interview
were compiled in separate word document for each instrument. The analysis was
conducted through thematic analysis in several steps on each document and the
121
results were then triangulated and reported. This section discusses literature on
thematic analysis, data transcription and translation, and the process of thematic
analysis.
4.8.2.1 Thematic analysis
Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns
(themes) within data (Braun & Clarke 2012, p. 57). According to Guest, Macqueen,
and Namey (2012, p. 13) the ultimate aim of thematic analysis is to describe and
understand how people feel, think, and behave within a particular context relative to
specific research question. This is in line with the aims of the present study to
explore and understand student teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation of
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom. In similar vein, Braun & Clarke
(2012) argue that the main reason to use thematic analysis is its flexibility. Thematic
analysis is a flexible method that allows the researcher to focus on the data in
numerous different ways. The many forms thematic analysis can take means that it
suits a wide variety of research topics and research questions (Braun & Clarke 2012),
for example questions related to people‟s experiences, or people‟s views and
perceptions (Liu 2016). Further, Liu (2016) argues that another reason for adopting
this analytical method is that thematic analysis is compatible with a mixed methods
approach, enabling a deeper investigation of experiences, events, realities, and
meaning, taking into account a range of discourses. Considering the matches of the
objective of the present study and the aim of thematic analysis, the flexibility of
thematic analysis, and its compatibility with a mixed method approach adopted in the
present study, therefore, thematic analysis was used in the present study.
According to Braun and Clark (2012), there are three key aspects to be considered
regarding thematic analysis. Each of these aspects carries a particular set of
assumptions, and this delimits what can and cannot be said in relation to the data as
well as how data can and should be interpreted (Braun and Clark 2012, p. 58). First,
thematic analysis can be carried out in an inductive (bottom up) way, or in a
deductive (top down) way. The former is a process of coding data without trying to
fit the data into a pre-existing coding frame or the researcher‟s analytic
preconception and driven by what is in the data. In contrast, the deductive thematic
analysis is more explicitly analyst-driven where the researcher brings to the data a
122
series of concepts, ideas, or topics that they use to code and interpret the data. What
this means is that the codes and themes derive more from concepts and ideas the
researcher brings to the data. In this analysis, what is mapped by the researcher
during analysis does not necessarily closely link to the semantic data content. In the
present study, the coding and the analysis employed a combination of both
approaches. Inductive as the codes mainly emerge from the data, deductive as the
codes conducted mainly to answer specific research questions.
Another aspect need to be considered regarding thematic analysis is the „level‟ at
which themes are to be identified, explicitly at a semantic or at a latent level. With a
semantic approach, themes are identified within explicit or surface meanings of the
data and the analyst is not looking for anything beyond the semantic content of the
data. A thematic analysis at a latent level, on the other hand, goes beyond the surface
meaning of the data, and begins to identify or examine the underlying ideas,
assumptions, and conceptualisations – and ideologies – that are theorised as shaping
or informing the semantic content of the data (Braun and Clark 2006, p. 13). Because
the focus of the present study is on investigating Indonesian student teachers‟
perceptions on CL, mainly by analysing data from questionnaires, diaries, and
transcripts from interview, it is expected that the student teachers may express
themselves explicitly, suggesting that the analysis mainly on the semantic level is
more appropriate.
Thirdly, under the constructionist framework, meaning and experiences are socially
produced and constructed rather than passively received. Researchers in the
constructionist framework focus on gaining an understanding of person‟s
interpretations of reality derived from social interaction and interpersonal
relationship. Such research is characterised by a desire to discover interpretations of
reality within particular social or cultural contexts (Crotty 1998, p. 43). In this
framework, researcher usually provides details relating to the „background of the
participants and the contexts in which they are being studied‟ (Mertens 1998, p. 14).
As seen in section 1.3 the context of this research has been illustrated in details.
Braun and Clark (2006, p. 14) point out that thematic analysis conducted within a
constructionist framework seeks to theorise the socio-cultural contexts, and structural
conditions that enable the individual accounts that are provided. Therefore the
analysis within the constructionist perspective focuses on identifying some common
123
national phenomenon amongst the individuals‟ involved in this research. The present
study intends to investigate Indonesia‟s EFL student teachers‟ perceptions of CL by
analysing individual as well as class reflections collected from the participants‟
questionnaire, interview, and learning diary. Taking into account the aim of the
present study and the research question, it is considered appropriate to analyse the
qualitative data within the constructionist epistemology.
Braun and Clarke (2006) argue that thematic analysis is a relatively straight-forward
form of qualitative analysis which does not require detailed theoretical and technical
knowledge. They further argue that thematic analysis is relatively easy to conduct
even for researcher who is new to qualitative technique (Braun and Clarke (2006, p.
24). However, it is important to note that there are potential pitfalls in conducting
thematic analysis as identified by Braun and Clarke (2006; 2012) and are
summarized below:
1. failure to analyse the data - providing data extracts with little or no analysis;
2. using data collection questions as themes – themes are better identified across the content of the data set;
3. lack of coherence and consistency of the themes; 4. mismatch between the data and the analytical claims – claims must be
supported with the data and the interpretations and analytic points are consistent with the data extracts;
5. mismatch between theory and analytical claims or between research questions and the form of thematic analysis used – the interpretation of the data should be consistent with the theoretical framework.
(Braun and Clarke 2006, pp. 25-26; 2012, pp. 69-70)
Steps have been taken in order to overcome those potential pitfalls in conducting
thematic analysis as suggested by Liu (2016).
Braun and Clarke (2006) provide a guideline through the six phases of thematic
analysis which include familiarization of the data, generating initial codes, searching
for themes, reviewing potential themes, defining and naming themes, and producing
the report (see section 4.8.2.3). In similar vein, Cresswell (2012) also suggests six
steps to analyse qualitative data which include organizing and preparing the data for
analysis, reading through all the data, beginning detailed analysis with a coding
process, using the coding to generate a description of the setting or people, and create
categories of themes for analysis, advancing how the description and themes will be
124
represented in the qualitative narrative, and interpreting or finding meaning from
data. Mardiningrum (2016) defines codes as labels that assign symbolic meaning to
the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study.
Before starting these steps of thematic analysis for the group interview data, the
present researcher first listen and transcribe the audio recorded data orthographically
as suggested by Braun and Clarke (2012) (see section 4.8.2.2). The transcriptions
were then sent to the participants for verification and follow-up clarification. Once
it‟s done, then the six phrase of thematic analysis were started. Peer debriefing and
member check, as suggested by Xue (2013), were then performed to challenge the
present researcher positionality as an insider researcher and enhance the validity of
the analyses and findings.
As transcription and translation in the interview analysis are crucial tasks which can
affect the validity and reliability of the data, details on transcription and translation
are illustrated in the next section. Furthermore, the thematic analysing process, based
on the phases proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006; 2012) is discussed.
4.8.2.2 Data Transcription and Translation
In the present study, while the student teachers‟ group interview and some parts of
questionnaires and learning diary were in Bahasa Indonesia, the parts quoted in this
dissertation were translated into English. As discussed in section 4.6.1.3, all
interviews were held in Bahasa Indonesia to ensure that participants can express their
thoughts and feeling clearly and completely. Student teachers were also given
freedom to use Bahasa Indonesia or English in writing their diaries and answering
the questionnaire. This section describes the process of data transcription and
translation.
The present researcher transcribed the audio recorded group interview data
orthographically. Braun and Clarke (2012, p. 59-60) argue that orthographical
transcription is more than sufficient for thematic analysis, reproducing all spoken
words and sounds, including hesitations, false starts, cut-offs in speech (indicated by
dash; e.g., thin-), the interviewer's affirmation (e.g. mm-hm, ah-ha), laugher, long
pauses [indicated by (pause)], and strong emphasis (indicated by under-score).
Commas signal a continuing intonation, inverted commas are used to indicate
125
reported speech and three full-stops in a row (...) signal editing of the transcript. In
the findings report, editing was mainly done for brevity, removing any words or
clauses that are not essential for understanding the overall meaning of the data
extract.
In the transcription, number of the participant and interviewer‟s initial are used to
indicate turn-taking during the focus group interview. Wengraf (2001, p. 7) argues
that when data is transcribed, it is „processed data‟ and this entails judgement and
interpretation. In order to handle the judgement and interpretation inherent in the
transcripts, it is suggested that the researcher should share the transcriptions with the
interviewees to confirm (or not) that the transcripts capture their meaning and intent
(Marshall and Rossman 2015). Based on this suggestion, the present researcher
emailed the participants full transcriptions of their interviews for verification and
follow-up clarification.
The other important task to be considered when carrying out interviews is the
translation, as transcription and translation all entail judgement and interpretation.
Translation is the transfer of meaning from a source language to a target language.
Eposito (2001) suggests that the translator should process the vocabulary and
grammatical structure of the words while considering the individual situation and the
overall cultural context as meaning can easily be lost in translation. Thus the entire
Bahasa Indonesia‟s transcripts were not translated into English, because as suggested
by Guest and MacQueen (2008) translation adds a layer of complexity to the
transcript preparation process and also because this inevitably involves some
judgement and interpretation.
Further, Guest and MacQueen (2008) maintain that there is no need for translation of
the transcripts if the researchers are fluent in the „source language‟ (data collection
language) and no technological constraints exist. In the present study, the present
researcher is fluent in English and Bahasa Indonesia and collected, transcribed, and
analysed the data by himself. In addition, there were no technological constraints
presented as the data were analysed manually. The above arguments suggest that
there is no need to translate the entire transcripts into English in order to ensure the
validity and reliability of the data. Instead, the present researcher translated only
selected passages from the transcription into English for the purpose of discussion
126
and illustration. In doing the translation, the flavour and intention of the participants
are retained in order to generate insightful, credible, and meaningful data (Marshall
and Rossman 2015). The translated data were then checked and verified by an
English Lecturer at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung. The data were analysed using
thematic analysis in Bahasa Indonesia. However, the codes and themes were labelled
in both Bahasa Indonesia and English.
4.8.2.3 Process of Thematic Analysis
In order to ensure a theoretically and methodologically rigorous analysis, the data
analysis process was based on guideline set out by Braun and Clarke (2006; 2012).
As mentioned earlier, the whole process, involving six phases, was carried out in a
recursive way and it was not a linear process. In addition, during the process of data
analysis, the codes and themes were reviewed and amended based on feedback and
discussion with the supervisors. Six phases of data analysis for the interview
transcripts are discussed below:
Phase 1: Data familiarization
This phase involves familiarization to the data by listening to audio recording and
reading and rereading textual data. In the present study, the researcher collected and
transcribed the data by himself. Group interview data were listened, transcribed, and
read through actively several times to familiarise with the data. During this process,
notes were taken in an electronic file to highlight items potentially of interest. As
Braun and Clarke (2012) argue that the aim of this phase is to become intimately
familiar with the research data set‟s content and to begin to notice things that might
be relevant to the research questions. Initial ideas for coding and what is interesting
about the data were noted.
Phase 2: Generating initial codes
Phase two begins the systematic analysis of the data through coding. Mardiningrum
(2016) defines codes as labels that assign symbolic meaning to the descriptive or
inferential information compiled during a study. This identifies features of the data
(semantic content or latent features) that appear interesting (Braun and Clarke 2012
p. 61). Coding involves generating short labels for important features of the data
which may be of relevance to the research question guiding the analysis. Coding can
127
be either „data-driven‟ when the themes will depend on the data or „theory-driven‟
when the researcher approaches the data with specific questions in mind to code
around (Braun and Clarke 2006). In the present study, coding was based in the
content of the data set and was also driven by the research aims and questions.
According to Braun and Clarke (2012) coding can be done either manually or
through a software programme. In the present study, the coding was done manually
in electronic file.
When coding the transcripts, codes were taken by writing comments in word-
document file to identify initial codes in Bahasa Indonesia and then at the same time
were translated into English. Codes were labelled in both source language and
English in order to keep originality and also to make it easier for analysing and
writing the findings (Liu 2016). This phase ended when all data sets (transcriptions)
are coded and all relevant data extracts are collated together within each code.
Phase 3: Searching for themes
This phase is characterized by interpretation of the data and the sorting different
codes into potential themes which involves reviewing the coded data to identify areas
of similarity and overlap between codes. Braun & Clarke (2012) argue that a theme
should capture something important about the data in relation to the research
question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data
set. Further, Braun and Clarke (2012) argue that another important element of this
phase is starting to explore the relationship between themes and to consider how
themes will work together in telling an overall story about the data. This phase ended
with a collection of candidate themes and sub-themes (sub-themes are themes within
a theme), and all extracts of data that were coded in relation to themes presented in a
table.
Phase 4: Reviewing potential themes
This phase is characterized by the refinement of candidate themes and a review of
the thematic maps through re-reading again the entire data set until the thematic
maps seemed to accurately fit the data. This phase involves two levels of reviewing
and refining the themes. Level one involves reviewing the coded data extracts and
considering whether they appear to form a coherent pattern as well as reviewing
themes and considering whether they appropriately capture the contours of the coded
128
data. Level two involves reviewing themes and considering the validity of individual
themes in relation to the data set as well as reviewing if the candidate thematic map
accurately reflects the meanings evident in the data set as a whole. This phase is a
recursive process and was done in order to verify the validity of the individual
themes and to check if any codes are missed or need rewording.
Phase 5: Defining and naming themes
In this phase, themes are defined and sub-themes are created which can be useful for
giving structure to a particular large and complex theme, and also for demonstrating
the hierarchy of meaning within the data (Braun and Clarke 2006, p. 22). Sub-themes
are themes within a theme. When naming the themes, Braun and Clarke (2006)
suggest that names need to be concise, punchy, and immediately give the reader a
sense of what the theme is about was followed. By the end of this phase, it is
important to clearly define what themes are, and what they are not.
Phase 6: Producing the report
This final phase of thematic analysis involves the final analysis and write-up of the
report (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 23). In the present study, the codes and themes
generated in relation to the research objectives are presented in chapter five and the
analytical claims about the data set in relation to each research question are discussed
in chapter six.
4.9 Conclusion
This chapter discussed how a relevant research approach, mixed-methods approach,
has been drawn up for the purpose of the present study. Based on the advantages of
mixed methods approach (see section 4.2) and the fact that participants were already
divided into classes and the necessity to check their initial equivalence on the
dependent variables, a quasi-experiment pretest-posttest class comparison research
design with mixed methods approach was adopted in the present study. In addition,
as the present study is aimed at finding out the effects (if any) of cooperative learning
on student teachers‟ communicative competence in Indonesia, the population of
English student teachers in Indonesia would be extremely large, therefore a
combination of convenience, purposeful and cluster random sampling was
implemented to select the participants (see section 4.3). One hundred and one student
129
teachers from two intact classes at Teacher Training and Education Institute (STKIP)
PGRI Bandar Lampung were involved in a fourteen-week study. However, only 61
student teachers‟ data (36 from control class and 25 from experiment class) were
included in the analysis due to incomplete data collected by some participants.
Participants in the experiment class received CL treatment (Learning Together) and
participants in the control class received control treatment.
In order to collect data on student teachers‟ communicative competence, paired-oral
interview developed in consultation with two research supervisors at University of
Limerick, Ireland and two English lecturers at SKTIP PGRI Bandar Lampung,
Indonesia was employed. Two questionnaires were administered at the beginning and
the end of the study to collect demographic data of the student teachers‟ as well as
their perceptions on the implementation of group-work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL
classroom. Student teachers‟ learning diaries were used to gather deeper data on
teaching and learning process during the present study. In addition, to gather more
data on the student teachers‟ perceptions on the teaching technique implemented in
their classroom and how it affects their future teaching practice, group interview was
conducted at the end of the study. Instruments‟ validity and reliability were ensured
through the use of pilot study and refinement as well as statistical procedure (see
section 4.6.1).
In order to ensure internal and construct validity of the study as well as reliability of
the findings, fidelity of treatment (section 4.7.3) is assured through the discussion
and presentation of teaching materials and procedures for both experiment and
control classes. As the present study adopted a mixed methods approach which
integrates quantitative and qualitative data to answer its research questions, the data
analysis was also divided into quantitative data analysis and qualitative data analysis.
The quantitative data analysis was conducted through descriptive analysis, and
inferential analysis which involve t-tests, Multivariate Analysis of Variance
(MANOVA), and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using the statistical software
package for social science (SPSS) for Windows 8, version 22 programme. The
qualitative analysis was conducted through thematic analysis following six phases of
qualitative data analysis proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). Visual framework of
data collection and analysis are presented in figure 4.3 below. Detailed presentation
of the data analyses are discussed in the next chapter.
130
Research Data
Research Participants
Quantitative Data Qualitative Data
Data Collections: Paired-oral interview, Questionnaire,
Group Interview, and Diary
Descriptive Analysis
Thematic Analysis Inferential Analysis
t-test, MANOVA, ANOVA
Figure 4.3: Framework of Data Collection and Analysis
131
CHAPTER 5 - DATA ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
Chapter four has provided justification for the research methodology and design used
to answer the research questions in the present study. It also illustrated research
participants and sampling procedures, research instruments and teaching materials as
well as data collection and analysis procedures. The current chapter presents the data
analysis from paired-oral interview, questionnaire, group interview, and participants‟
learning diary. Since a mixed methods approach was adopted, using both quantitative
and qualitative data collections, the analyses are organized following quantitative and
qualitative analyses. In order to integrate the quantitative and qualitative data to
answer relevant research questions, the results and discussion from both quantitative
and qualitative data are further organized in chapter six where the quantitative results
from paired-oral interview and questionnaire are reconciled with the qualitative data
generated from group interview and participants‟ learning diary and vice versa.
The quantitative data analysis involved descriptive and inferential analyses (see
section 4.8.1). The descriptive analysis (see section 4.8.1.1) of quantitative data from
questionnaire presents the demographic data of the participants from both experiment
and control classes as well as their learning experience using group work activities.
These are important to provide general characteristics of participants in both classes
and their familiarity with group work activities if we intend to make justifiable
comparison of their communicative competence and its development in the present
study. This analysis also provides an overview of participants‟ English learning
motivation, self-assessed English skills, perceptions on group work activities and
likelihood to integrate group work activities into their future teaching practice as well
as its changes by the end of the study. In addition, descriptive analysis of the
quantitative data from paired-oral interview was performed to provide clear pictures
of the participants‟ communicative competence prior and after the study as well as its
development.
Inferential analyses (see section 4.8.1.2) were performed to measure differences on
participants‟ communicative and likelihood to integrate group work activities into
their future teaching practice at the beginning and the end of the study as well as its
132
improvement differences between experiment and control classes. This was to
answer the two main research questions in the present study (section 1.4).
The qualitative data analysis was conducted to explore issues arising from the
research and to answer three secondary research questions in the present study. The
comments and open-ended questions in the questionnaire were designed to gather
information related to the reasons participants answered the close-ended questions
and their perceptions on the negative and positive aspects of implementing group
work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom. Learning diary and group interviews
were designed to gather information on participants‟ classroom experience and
feelings during the present study. The diary entries are coded and themes are
generated and discussed. The group interviews (see section 4.5.3) are transcribed
(see section 4.8.2.2) which then are analysed manually in electronic files (see section
4.8.2.3). Codes, sub-themes, and themes are generated deductively from the raw data
under the thematic analysis framework proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) as
suggested by Liu (2015, p. 145). The information is coded based on whether it
captures something important in relation to the overall research question (Braun &
Clarke 2006). Furthermore, Liu (2015) suggested to construct thematic maps in order
to give structure to a particularly large and complex theme and also for
demonstrating the hierarchy of meaning within the data. Each theme discussed in the
analysis is supplemented with quotes and extracts from relevant transcripts in order
to provide evidence of the analysis and arguments made. The quotes collected are
translated into English from Bahasa Indonesia.
5.2 Quantitative Data Analysis
The quantitative data analysis in the present study was performed through descriptive
analysis (see section 5.2.1) and inferential analysis (see section 5.2.2) as discussed
below.
5.2.1 Descriptive analysis
This section presents descriptive statistical information from participants‟
questionnaires (see section 5.2.1.1) and paired-oral interviews (see section 5.2.1.2).
Data from the questionnaires which include participants‟ demographic information,
133
learning experience, and perceptions of group work activities are discussed to see if
participants in both experiment and control classes have comparable characteristics.
In addition, participants‟ likelihood to integrate group work activities and their self-
assessed English skills are discussed to see if participating in different treatments in
the present study changes their views. Meanwhile, as suggested by Leech et al.
(2015), descriptive analysis of paired-oral interviews data which involves computing
various descriptive statistics and graphs is used to examine and get to know the data
before selecting statistical procedure and conducting inferential analysis.
5.2.1.1 Questionnaire
The questionnaires were divided into six parts (see section 4.5.2) which includes
demographic data, group work experience, English learning motivation (pre-post),
English skills (pre-post), perceptions on group work (pre-post), and likelihood to
integrate group-work activities into their future teaching practice (pre-post). The
questionnaires integrated close-ended and open-ended questions in order to collect
comprehensive data from participants and therefore it will be analysed quantitatively
and qualitatively. In this section, the quantitative data analyses are discussed.
Demographic Information of Participants
At the beginning of the study, 102 student teachers from two intact classes signed
consent form to participate in the present study (see section 4.4.2). These two classes
were randomly assigned treatment condition. One class received Learning Together
(LT) technique of cooperative learning and the other received control treatment (CT).
By the end of the study, 61 student teachers (25 in experiment class and 36 in control
class) completed questionnaires and paired-oral interviews and therefore are included
in the analysis. From those participants, 13 student teachers (6 from experiment
group and 7 from control class) also attended group interviews at the end of the
study. Participants‟ demographic data are discussed in terms of their gender, mother
tongue, age, and English learning experience variations.
134
Figure 5.1: Gender variation of the participants
As can be seen in figure 5.1 above, the total sample in the present study comprised of
7 male and 54 female, representing more than 80% of participants are female. The
data indicated that both classes have comparable gender variation with more than
80% of participants in each class are female (33 in control and 21 in experiment
classes). Compared to the students registered in attendance list which comprised of 9
males and 46 females in control class and 6 males and 41 females in experiment
class, participants in the present study portrayed fair representation of the second
year student teachers at English Education Study Programme, Teacher Training and
Education Institute (STKIP) PGRI Bandar Lampung. As comparison, similar gender
variation which comprises of ±80% female student teachers and ±20% male student
teachers participated in studies conducted in Indonesia‟s English Education Study
Programme (Harjono & Wachyunni, 2011; Murtiningsih 2014). Therefore, it could
be further argued that the participants in the present study represent more general
gender variation of English student teachers in Indonesia.
21
33
4
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Cooperative Learning Control Treatment
Male
Female
135
Figure 5.2: Participants mother tongue
The total sample was quite heterogeneous regarding their mother tongue with
Indonesian language as the biggest (27) followed by Javanese (13), Balinese (10),
Lampungnese (7), Palembangnese (3), and Sundanese (1) (see figure 5.2). The
demographic data also indicated that both the experiment and control classes have
comparable variation of participants‟ mother tongue. This composition is reasonably
the common classroom condition in Lampung Province as Indonesia is multicultural
country which has 1.128 ethnics and 722 local languages (see section 1.2). The
classroom composition in other provinces and other countries might differ in
accordance to the difference of socio-cultural condition in each province and
country.
Table 5.1: Participants‟ Age and English Learning Experience
Total Sample Cooperative
Learning Control
Treatment Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Age 18 6 9.8 3 12.0 3 8.3 19 28 45.3 7 28.0 21 58.3 20 14 23.0 5 16.0 9 25.0 21 6 9.8 5 20.0 1 2.8 22 4 6.6 2 8.0 2 5.6 23 1 1.6 1 4.0 0 0 24 1 1.6 1 4.0 0 0 29 1 1.6 1 4.0 0 0 Total 61 100.0 25 100.0 36 100.0
10
7
2
4
1 1
17
6
8
3 2
0 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Cooperative Learning
Control Treatment
136
English Learning Experience
7 10 16.4 6 24.0 4 11.1 8 8 13.1 2 8.0 6 16.7 9 19 31.1 11 44.0 8 22.2 10 17 27.9 4 16.0 13 36.1 11 2 3.3 0 0 2 5.6 12 1 1.6 1 4.0 0 0 13 3 4.9 0 0 3 8.3 14 1 1.6 1 4.0 0 0 Total 61 100.0 25 100 36 100
Regarding the participants‟ age (see table 5.1), the average age of the participants in
the CL class was 20.5 years while in the CT class was 19.5 years which resembled
the total sample age average of 20 years. Around 75% of the participants were
between 18 and 21. This is understandable as most children in Indonesia started their
first year of elementary school at the age of 5-7 years old. With education system in
Indonesia (see section 2.6.1) which consists of 6 years elementary, 3 years junior
secondary, and 3 years senior secondary level, by the time they are in the second year
of university most of the students will be at age of 19 - 20 years old. Therefore,
participants in the present study represent common age group of second year
university students in Indonesia.
Regarding the participants‟ English learning experience, they have been learning
English for 7 – 14 years. Participants in the CL class in average have been learning
English for about 9 years while participants in the CT class have been learning
English in average for 9.5 years (see table 5.1). This is due to the education system
implemented at the time when the participants were at elementary schools. English
was an optional subject at elementary level and mandatory subject at junior
secondary level, therefore participants started their English study differently
depending on school‟s condition and location. Most schools in city offered English
lesson as early as grade 1 of elementary level while schools in urban area did not
teach English until students enter junior secondary school.
Learning Experience
Participants‟ prior learning experience data were collected to measure their
familiarity with group work activities prior to the present study. It is important to
present participants‟ prior learning experience to be able to make justifiable
137
comparison between the two classes on their perceptions and likelihood to integrate
group work activities into their future classroom teaching.
Table 5.2: I learn English through group-work activities
Cooperative Learning Control Treatment Secondary School College Secondary School College Always 0 3 0 0 Sometimes 7 18 13 26 Seldom 13 4 19 10 Never 5 0 4 0 Total 25 25 36 36
As presented in table 5.2, all participants indicated some degree of familiarity and
experience of using group work activities. During college study, all participants have
studied through group works. In their secondary school, 5 participants from
experiment class and 4 from control class never use group work activities. This data
indicated that participants in both classes have comparable prior learning experience
of using group work activities. Analysis of comments on their learning experience
(see section 5.3.1.1) indicated somehow similar perceptions of group work activities.
Therefore, as both classes have comparable learning experience and perceptions of
group work activities prior to the study, any changes and differences in their
perceptions and likelihood to integrate group work activities at the end of the study
could be attributed to different treatments during the present study.
Perceptions on Group Work Activities
Participants‟ questionnaire revealed that prior to the study, more than half of
participants in the CL class 76% and 55% in the CT class enjoyed group-work
activities, responded agree (A) or strongly agree (SA) to statement “I enjoy learning
through group-work activities” (see table 5.3). After fourteen weeks study, their
responses to the same question were slightly changed. Participants in the CL class
who enjoyed group work activities increased to 84% while in the CT class decreased
to 47%. These results indicated that at the end of the study, participants in the CL
class enjoyed learning through group work activities more compared to before the
study and to control class. While participants in the CT class indicated that they did
not enjoy learning through group work activities as much as before the study.
138
Table 5.3: I enjoy learning through group work activities
Pretest Posttest SD D N A SA SD D N A SA Cooperative Learning 0 0 6 13 6 0 0 3 18 3 Control Treatment 0 1 15 18 2 1 1 17 14 3
However, participants‟ responses to statement “group-work activities improve my
speaking skill” suggested different results (see Table 5.4). After fourteen weeks
study, participants in both classes indicated less confident that group work activities
improve their speaking skill (72% in experiment class and 58% in control class).
These results are interesting and therefore are triangulated to quantitative data from
their self-assessed English skills and paired-oral interviews (see section 6.2).
Table 5.4: Group-work activities improve my speaking skill
Pretest Posttest SD D N A SA SD D N A SA Cooperative Learning 0 0 3 19 2 0 0 6 11 7 Control Treatment 0 0 7 15 14 0 1 14 18 3
Regarding important aspects of group work activities, participants were asked to rate
the important of six aspects of group work activities on a 5-point likert scale. These
six aspects of group work activities were summarized from pilot study data and
informal discussions with two English lecturers at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung.
The results are summarised in table 5.5 below:
Table 5.5: Important aspects of group-work activities
Control Treatment Cooperative Learning
SD D N A SA SD D N A SA Clear instruction 0 0 2 13 21 0 0 4 14 7 Clear group goal 0 0 10 17 9 0 1 3 16 3 Supportive interaction 0 0 3 12 29 0 0 3 15 7 Specific task 0 0 4 18 14 0 0 2 19 4 Interpersonal and social skills 0 0 6 26 4 0 0 3 18 3
Group processing 0 0 11 14 11 0 0 2 11 9
In the CT class, it appeared that the most important aspect was clear teacher
instruction prior to group work activities with 34 out of 36 participants responded
either agree or strongly agree followed by dividing specific task (32), supportive
139
interaction (31), students‟ interpersonal and social skills (30), and clear group goal
and group processing with 26 participants either agree and strongly agree.
Meanwhile, in the CL class, dividing specific task to each group member was
identified as the most important aspect in group work activities with 23 out of 25
participants responded either agree or strongly agree followed by supportive
interaction (22), clear instruction and interpersonal and social skills (21), group
processing (20) and clear group goal (19).
In addition to those likert scale questions, participants were also asked to share their
opinions on negative and positive aspects of group work activities both as part of
questionnaires and in the group interview at the end of the study. Their responses
then were analysed to explore general theme using thematic analysis (see sections
5.3.1 and 5.3.2).
Likelihood to Integrate Group Work Activities
One of the main data collected through the questionnaires was participants‟
likelihood in integrating group work activities into their future teaching practice.
Participants were asked to share their opinions towards suitability of group work
activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom and if they will consider using group work
activities in their future teaching practice. Participants in both classes indicated less
confident that group work activities are suitable in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom (see
Table 5.6).
Table 5.6: Group work activities are suitable for EFL classroom in Indonesia (%)
Cooperative Learning Control Treatment SD D N A SA Missing SD D N A SA Missing Pre-test 0 4 16 56 16 8 0 0 41.7 38.9 5.6 13.9
Post-test 0 0 40 52 8 0 0 2.8 50 33.3 8.3 5.6
However, in regard to their likelihood in integrating group work activities into their
future teaching practice, a huge gap appeared between the CL and CT classes. More
than 80% participants in the CL class would consider using group work activities in
their future teaching practice compared to only about 41% participants in the CT
class, while there were approximately similar responses gained prior to the study (see
Table 5.7). This result indicated that participants in the CL class are more likely to
integrate group work activities into their future teaching practice.
140
Table 5.7: I would consider using group work activities in my future teaching practice
Cooperative Learning Control Treatment
SD D N A SA Missing SD D N A SA Missing
Pre-test 0 8 20 52 12 8 0 0 19.4 58.3 8.3 13.9
Post-test 0 0 12 68 20 0 0 2.8 44.4 36.1 5.6 11.1
English Skills
Participants in both classes were asked to self-assess their English skills prior and
after the study on scale 1-5 with 1 as the lowest and 5 as the highest competence.
Their self-assessment represent at what level they feel their skills are. Student
teachers‟ self-assessment data are important for triangulation with the data from
paired-oral interview tests conducted to evaluate participants‟ communicative
competence in the present study. The data (see table 5.8) showed improvement of
mean scores from pretest to posttest in four English skills for both classes except for
listening skill in the CT class. Their self-assessed mean scores of speaking skill, the
main focus of speaking 2 Subject, increased for 0.8 and 0.5 points in both the CL and
CT classes respectively. This difference improvement score can be interpreted that
cooperative learning is more effective in improving student teachers‟ speaking skill
compared to control treatment.
Table 5.8: Participants' Self-assessed English Skills
English Skills
Cooperative Learning (n = 25) Control Treatment (n = 36) Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Listening 2.440 3.000 .820 .500 2.833 2.694 .696 .624
Speaking 2.240 3.040 .925 .734 2.194 2.694 .821 .709
Reading 2.920 3.360 1.115 .568 3.277 3.472 .616 .608
Writing 2.600 3.120 1.080 .600 2.694 2.806 .576 .624
Analysis of student teachers‟ self-assessment data using an independent samples t-
test indicated that there was no statistically significant difference on participants‟
speaking skill prior the study (t = 1.843 and p > .05) which suggested that they have
similar confidence on their speaking skill. When the pretest and posttest data in each
class are compared using paired-samples t-tests, the results indicated statistically
141
significant difference for each class (p < .05). These results suggested that
participants in both classes feel significantly more confident on their speaking skill
after fourteen week study regardless of the teaching treatment they received. When
each class‟s improvement score are compared using independent samples t-test, the
results showed t = 1.264 and p = .211 which suggested that although participants in
the cooperative learning class feel significantly more confidence after fourteen
weeks, the improvement was not significantly different from that of participants in
the control class (see figure 5.3). These data from student teachers‟ self-assessment
are triangulated with the data from paired-oral interview tests in section 6.2.
Figure 5.3: Self-Assessed Speaking Skill Pre-Post Treatment Improvement Scores
5.2.1.2 Paired-Oral Interview
Paired-oral interview tests (see section 4.5.1) were conducted to measure
participants‟ communicative competences before and after the treatments in order to
answer the main research question (see section 1.4). Two independent raters then
assessed the paired-oral interview video recordings on range of 0-6 by using scoring
rubric (see appendix 6). As the two independent raters have familiarized, clarified,
practiced, and discussed the scoring rubric in the pilot study, they have no difficulty
in using the scoring rubric to assess participants‟ communicative competence
through video recordings. However, from informal discussion with the two raters as
142
they have to assess participants‟ overall and components of communicative
competence, they feel that the process was time consuming (participants‟ paired-oral
interview recordings are available on request). Descriptive statistics of participants‟
communicative competence scores from the CL and CT classes are presented in table
5.9 below.
Table 5.9: Participants‟ Communicative Competence Scores
Group N Mean SD Skewness
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Cooperative Learning 25 1.630 2.190 .851 .634 .477 -.073
Control Treatment 36 1.395 1.729 .607 .627 1.492 .902
Total Sample 61 1.491 1.918 .720 .665 .972 .426
As can be seen in the pretest scores, the total sample on average scored 1.491 out of
6.0 maximum. This indicates unsatisfactory communicative competence for second
year English education student teachers which fall into A1 / Basic User in Common
European Framwork of Reference (CEFR). Student teachers‟ performance in the CL
and CT classes appeared somewhat similar in the pretest with mean scores 1.630 vs
1.395 respectively (see figure 5.4). The results of independent samples t-test showed
p value more than .05 (t = 1.182, p = .244) which means that there was no
statistically significant difference between the CL and CT classes prior to the study.
This is justifiable as both groups were from the same institution and studying in the
same study programme at the same level.
In the posttest, both classes showed improvement in their scores. Participants in the
CL class improved their mean score by 0.560 points, while participants in the CT
class improved their mean score by 0.334 points (see table 5.9). The results from an
independent samples t-test on the posttest scores (2.190 and 1.729) showed
statistically significant difference between the CL and CT class with p value less than
.05 (t = 2.807, p = .007). These results indicated that after participating in the present
study, participants are significantly different in their communicative competence (see
figure 5.5). Analysis on each class‟s pretest-posttest scores using paired-samples t-
tests indicated significant improvement for the CL class (t = 5.766, p <.05 ) and the
CT class (t = 4.394, p <.05 ). The results indicated that both classes regardless of
143
their teaching treatment improved their communicative competence significantly
after fourteen weeks (see figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4: Participants' Communicative Competence Scores
When the improvement scores from each class (0.560 and 0.334) are compared using
independent samples t-test to see if CL improved participants‟ CC significantly better
than CT, the results indicated a borderline statistical significant difference between
both classes with p value slightly more than .05 (t = 1.861, p = .068). These results
are somehow in line with participants‟ self-assessment data from questionnaire (see
table 5.8.
In addition to the main competence, students‟ paired-oral interview tests were also
used to evaluate their competence in four components of CC (linguistic competence,
sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence). The
data (see table 5.10) shows improvement scores for all components regardless of
their treatment classes. The highest score improvement in the CL class is strategic
competence (0.72 points), followed by linguistic competence (0.51 points),
sociolinguistic competence (0.45 points), and discourse competence (0.44 points).
However, the CT class showed different improvement pattern with the highest score
improvement on strategic competence (0.43 points), followed by discourse
competence (0.26 points), sociolinguistic competence (0.24 points), and linguistic
144
competence (0.21 points). Overall, cooperative learning showed higher improvement
scores in all four components of communicative competence. This suggested that
compared to control treatment, cooperative learning is more effective in improving
student teachers‟ linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse
competence, and strategic competence which is congruent with their main
communicative competence and self-assessed speaking skill data.
In order to find out if there were significant statistical differences on participants‟
paired-oral interview scores within and between classes and if cooperative learning is
significantly better in improving participants‟ communicative competence and its
four components compared to control treatment, inferential analyses using t-tests,
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) statistical methods were performed and discussed in the section 5.2.2
below.
Table 5.10: Participants' Score on Components of Communicative Competence
Group N Mean SD Skewness Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Cooperative Learning Linguistic Competence 25 1.950 2.460 .866 .745 -.111 -.119 Sociolinguistic Competence 25 1.510 1.960 .830 .660 .399 .144 Discourse Competence 25 1.660 2.100 1.007 .728 .589 .500 Strategic Competence 25 1.710 2.430 .903 .655 .216 -.738
Control Treatment Linguistic Competence 36 1.555 1.770 .676 .695 1.034 1.115 Sociolinguistic Competence 36 1.333 1.500 .534 .603 1.376 .955 Discourse Competence 36 1.458 1.590 .768 .781 1.227 .938 Strategic Competence 36 1.458 1.694 .639 .657 .771 1.322
Total Sample Linguistic Competence 61 1.717 2.053 .777 .788 .511 .497 Sociolinguistic Competence 61 1.405 1.688 .671 .662 .856 .558 Discourse Competence 61 1.541 1.799 .872 .795 .917 .600 Strategic Competence 61 1.561 1.995 .761 .746 .565 .358
5.2.2 Inferential Analysis
This section presents inferential analysis to find out whether there were statistically
significant differences on participants‟ communicative competence and its four
145
components between both classes and within each class before and after treatment as
well as between class‟s improvement scores. The outputs generated by t-tests on
communicative competence as well as by multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on components of
communicative competence are presented below followed by statistic interpretations.
The 95% confidence level (p < .05) was used as the criterion level for determining
statistical significance. In order to make the t-tests acceptable, as five independent
samples t-tests were used to analyse the improvement scores in communicative
competence and its four components which include linguistic competence,
sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence,
Bonferroni adjustment was applied to determine statistical significance of the results
as suggested by Lin (2009).
5.2.2.1 Effects of Treatments on Communicative Competence
Paired-oral interviews were conducted to assess the participants‟ communicative
competence in the present study. Independent samples t-tests were performed to see
if there were significant differences between two classes (inter-group) before and
after treatment and paired-samples t-tests were performed to see if there were
significant differences within each class (intra-group) over time. In addition, an
independent samples t-test was also performed to see if there were significance inter-
group improvement differences before and after treatment.
Independent samples t-test was performed to see if there was significant difference
between two classes prior to the study. The output generated from independent
samples t-test is shown in table 5.11 below.
146
Table 5.11: Independent samples t-test results on the pretest scores
Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Cooperative Learning 25 1.630 .851 .170 Control Treatment 36 1.395 .607 .101
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
Pretest Equal variances assumed
5.617 .021 1.255 59 .214 .235 .186
Equal variances not assumed
1.182 40.511 .244 .235 .198
As can be seen in the table 5.11 above, the mean difference between the CL and CT
classes was quite close with 0.235 points difference out of 6.0 maximum score (see
table 5.9). The significance level (.021) of Levene‟s test is less than .05 which means
that the variances for the two classes were not the same. So the information in the
second line of the t-test table is used (t= 1.182, p= .244). The results implied no
statistically significant different communicative competence between the two classes
prior to the treatment. This was unsurprising as both classes were from the same
institution and studying in the same study programme at the same level. Therefore
their communicative competence are expected to be somewhat similar. This result is
congruent with their self-assessment English skills in the questionnaire (see section
5.2.1.1).
Independent samples t-test was also performed to see if there was significant
difference between two classes in the posttest scores with mean difference 0.461
points (see table 5.9). The significance level (.545) of Lavene‟s test is larger than .05
which means that the variances of the two classes were not significantly different.
The t value is 2.807 and the corresponding p value is .007 which indicated that there
is statistically significant difference between the CL and CT classes in the posttest
scores. At this point, it has been indicated that both classes showed similar pretest
147
communicative competence scores (see Table 5.9). In contrast, their posttest
communicative competence scores are significantly different (see table 5.12).
Therefore, it is important to see if there were significant improvement scores within
each class over time which will be discussed below.
Table 5.12: Independent sample t-test results on the posttest scores
Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Cooperative Learning 25 2.190 .634 .126 Control Treatment 36 1.729 .627 .104
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
Posttest Equal variances assumed
.371 .545 2.807 59 .007 .461 .164
Equal variances not assumed
2.802 51.433 .007 .461 .164
5.2.2.2 Effects of CL on communicative competence
In order to see if there were significant improvement scores in the cooperative
learning class, paired-samples t-test was performed. The results indicated that there
was statistically significant improvement with p value less than .05 (t = 5.766, p =
.000) and effect size 1.155 which is large effect size. These results suggest that
cooperative learning used in a fourteen weeks study statistically significantly
improved participants‟ communicative competence. The output generated from
paired-samples t-test procedure is shown in table 5.13 below.
Table 5.13: Paired Samples t-test Results on CL class
Paired Samples Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Cooperative Learning Pretest 25 1.630 .851 .170 Posttest 25 2.190 .634 .126
148
Paired Samples Test
Cooperative Learning
Paired Differences t Df Sig. (2-
tailed) Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Posttest - Pretest .560 .485 .097 5.766 24 .000
5.2.2.3 Effects of CT on communicative competence
Paired-samples t-test was also performed to see if the control treatment in the present
study improved participants‟ communicative competence significantly. The results
indicated statistically significant improvement with p value less than .05 (t = 4.394, p
= .000) and effect size .73. These results suggest that the control treatment used in
the present study also statistically significantly improved participants‟
communicative competence. The output generated from paired-samples t-test
procedure is shown in table 5.14 below.
Table 5.14: Paired-Samples t-test Results on the CT class
Paired Samples Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Control Treatment Pretest 36 1.395 .607 .101 Posttest 36 1.729 .627 .104
Paired Samples Test
Control Treatment
Paired Differences
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Posttest - Pretest .334 .455 .075 4.394 35 .000
These results from two paired-samples t-tests above implied that both cooperative
learning and control treatment statistically significantly improved participants‟
communicative competence. These results were not surprising as high quality of
teaching in both classes using different techniques were assured by the researcher
(see section 4.7.2). Further, the results also indicated that the teaching technique
currently used by lecturers of “Speaking” subjects at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung
is effective to improve student teachers‟ communicative competence.
149
5.2.2.4 Comparing the effects of CL and CT
In addition, in order to see if cooperative learning is significantly better in improving
student teachers‟ communicative competence compared to the control treatment,
independent samples t-test was performed on improvement scores (posttest scores –
pretest scores) of both classes and the output generated from independent samples t-
test is presented in table 5.15 below.
Table 5.15: Independent Samples t-test Results on the Improvement Scores
Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Cooperative Learning 25 .560 .485 .097 Control Treatment 36 .334 .455 .075
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Differenc
e
Std. Error Differenc
e Dif.
Equal variances assumed
.043 .837 1.861 59 .068 .226 .122
Equal variances not assumed
1.839
49.563 .072 .226 .123
As shown in table 5.15 above, the mean improvement scores of the CL and CT
classes was quite close (0.226 points difference). The significance level (.837) of
Lavene‟s test is larger than .05 which means that the variances of the two classes
were not significantly different. The t value is 1.861 and the corresponding p value is
.068. The results indicated borderline statistical significance which is slightly larger
than .05. In addition to parametric statistical test results and considering that the data
were slightly not normally distributed (see section 4.8.1.3 for assumptions test), non-
parametric test of Mann-Whitney U test was also performed. The results indicated
somehow similar significant level of 069. The output generated from Mann-Whitney
U test is presented in table 5.16 below.
150
Table 5.16: Mann-Whitney U Test results on Improvement Scores
Null Hypothesis Test Sig
The distribution of improvement is the same across categories of group.
Independent-Samples Mann-Whitney U Test 0.069
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05
While the results of both t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were in the borderline
statistical significance, in addition, statistical analysis using Analysis of Covariance
(ANCOVA) between the two classes using pretest as the covariate indicated
significant difference with p value of .007 (see table 5.17).
Table 5.17: ANCOVA Test Results
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Posttest
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model 16.902a 2 8.451 50.595 .000 .636 Intercept 9.555 1 9.555 57.205 .000 .497 Pretest 13.769 1 13.769 82.431 .000 .587 Group 1.319 1 1.319 7.899 .007 .120 Corrected Total 26.590 60 a. R Squared = .636 (Adjusted R Squared = .623)
As the data did not meet some of ANCOVA assumptions, these results could not
simply be used in the present study. However, it could be argued that covering larger
data which met ANCOVA assumptions could probably result in significant different
improvement scores between both classes. In addition, as Muamaroh (2013) has
indicated in her study that time limitation might have also influenced seeing the
results from the implementation of new teaching methods. She argued that it may be
difficult to show much improvement and change over a fourteen weeks semester. As
can be seen in table 5.9 and figure 5.5, there was trend in the data that the CL class
improved their scores better than the CT class. Then, it could also be argued that
providing the treatment in a longer duration might result more statistically significant
improvement.
In summary, the results from both parametric test (t-test) and non-parametric test
(Mann-Whitney U test) were at the borderline statistical significance, however the
151
results from ANCOVA indicated statistically significant different improvement
scores between CL and CT and it can be seen that there was trend in the data that the
CL class improved their scores better than the CT class (see table 5.9 and figure 5.5).
Taking into account that the number of data covered in the present study is small
enough (25 in experiment class and 36 in control class) which did not meet some of
ANCOVA assumptions and the treatment duration of one semester period (100
minutes x 12 classes teaching) and if this result was true effect therefore, covering
larger data and providing longer treatment duration, the results would have indicated
more significant improvement difference.
The results of the present study, however, cannot simply be used as evidence to
conclude that CL failed in terms of promoting higher improvement on students‟
communicative competence. As can be seen in table 5.9, the student teachers‟
improvement score in the CL class was found higher than their counterpart in the CT
class. The fact that it was not significantly higher might be due to the significant
improvement in the CT class and short duration of the treatment. Time limitation, as
suggested by Muamaroh (2013), might have influenced seeing the results from the
implementation of new teaching methods, since it may be difficult to show much
improvement and change over a fourteen weeks semester. In section 6.3, these results
of quantitative data analysis are then be integrated with results from the qualitative
data analysis (see section 5.3).
5.2.2.5 Effect of Treatments on Components of Communicative Competence
With regards to components of communicative competence which include linguistic
competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic
competence, one-way multivariate analysis of variances (MANOVAs) were
conducted to see if there were statistically significant differences between the CL and
CT classes before and after the study. When MANOVA was found significant,
investigation was followed up with univariate Analysis of variances (ANOVAs) on
each component to see if there was significant difference between the CL and CT
classes. Participants‟ data on components of CC are presented in table 5.18 below.
152
Table 5.18: Descriptive Statistic on Components of Communicative Competence Scores
Pretest Posttest
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std.
Deviation
Cooperative Learning
Linguistic Competence 25 1.950 .866 2.460 .745 Sociolinguistic Competence 25 1.510 .830 1.960 .660 Discourse Competence 25 1.660 1.007 2.100 .728 Strategic Competence 25 1.710 .903 2.430 .655
Control Treatment
Linguistic Competence 36 1.555 .676 1.770 .695 Sociolinguistic Competence 36 1.333 .534 1.500 .603 Discourse Competence 36 1.458 .768 1.590 .781 Strategic Competence 36 1.458 .639 1.694 .657
Total Sample
Linguistic Competence 61 1.717 .777 2.053 .788 Sociolinguistic Competence 61 1.405 .671 1.688 .662 Discourse Competence 61 1.541 .872 1.799 .795 Strategic Competence 61 1.561 .761 1.995 .746
As can be seen in table 5.18 above, both classes improved their scores on each
component of CC. In the CL class, their linguistic competence improved 0.510
points, sociolinguistic competence improved 0.450 points, discourse competence
improved 0.440 points, and strategic competence improved 0.720 points. While in
the CT class, their linguistic competence improved 0.215 points, sociolinguistic
competence improved 0.167 points, discourse competence improved 0.132 points,
and strategic competence improved 0.236 points.
One-way MANOVA was conducted to see if there were significant differences in
pretest and posttest scores between the CL and CT classes. All of the assumptions
underlying the use of MANOVA were satisfied (see section 4.8.1.3). According to
Leech et al. (2015, p. 238), under most conditions when the assumptions are
satisfied, Wilks‟ Lambda is an appropriate multivariate statistic to use for
MANOVA. Results from MANOVA on the pretest scores indicated no statistically
significant difference (F = 1.637, df = 56.000, p = .178). It means that both classes
had comparable initial achievement on each component of CC with the results from
ANOVAs showed linguistic competence (F = 3.982, p = .051), sociolinguistic
153
competence (F = 1.023, p = .316), discourse competence (F = .786, p = .379), and
strategic competence (F = 1.626, p = .207).
In contrast, results indicated significant difference between the CL and CT classes on
the posttest scores (F = 5.298, df = 56.000, p = .001). The effect size was large (eta
squared = .275) and the observed power3 was excellent at .959. Hence subsequent
univariate ANOVAs on each component of CC were performed. Results of ANOVA
procedures on each component of CC showed linguistic competence (F = 13.664, p =
.000, ES = .188), sociolinguistic competence (F = 7.936, p = .007, ES = .119),
discourse competence (F = 6.624, p = .013, ES = .101), and strategic competence (F
= 18.503, p = .000, ES = .239). These results suggested that after fourteen week
study, participants have statistically significant different achievement on each
component of communicative competence.
In addition to those MANOVAs and ANOVAs, paired samples t-tests and
independent samples t-tests were also performed to see if cooperative learning and
the control treatment statistically significantly improved each component of CC
within each class over time and if there are significant improvement differences
between the CL and CT classes.
Linguistic Competence
ANOVA procedures performed on the linguistic competence pretest scores showed a
borderline statistical significant difference between both classes (F = 3.982, p =
.051), however there was statistically significant difference in their posttest scores (F
= 13.664, p = .000, ES = .188). Participants‟ linguistic competence data from both
classes is presented in figure 5.5 below.
3 A power of .70 is generally considered adequate and a power of .90 is excellent (Stevents 1999 in Liao 2006 p. 149).
154
Figure 5.5: Participants' Linguistic Competence Scores
In order to see if there were statistically significant difference scores within each
class, paired-samples t-tests were conducted. The results indicated that there was
statistically significant difference in the CL class (t = 3.490, p = .002), however
borderline statistical significant difference in the CT class was found (t = 1.988, p =
.055). Independent samples t-test was then performed to see if improvement score in
the CL class was statistically significantly higher than of the CT class (0.295 points
difference). The result showed t = 1.656 and p value of .103 which is larger than .05.
Therefore, it can be interpreted that CL in the present study, although statistically
significantly improved participants‟ linguistic competence (t = 3.490, p = .002), was
not significantly better compared to CT (t = 1.656, p = .103). The output generated
from independent samples t-test comparing improvement scores from the CL class
and the CT class is presented in table 5.19 below.
155
Table 5.19: Independent Samples t-test Results of Improvement Scores between CL and CT
Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Cooperative Learning 25 .510 .731 .146 Control Treatment 36 .215 .649 .108
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
Ling. Diff.
Equal variances assumed
.145 .705 1.656 59 .103 .295 .177
Equal variances not assumed
1.621 47.723 .112 .295 .181
Sociolinguistic Competence
Regarding the sociolinguistic competence, ANOVA procedures performed on the
pretest scores showed no statistically significant difference (F = 1.023, p = .316)
indicating comparable initial sociolinguistic competence between both classes,
however statistically significant difference was indicated in their posttest scores (F =
7.936, p = .007, ES = .119). Participants‟ sociolinguistic competence data from both
classes is presented in figure 5.6 below:
156
Figure 5.6: Participants' Sociolinguistic Competence Scores
Paired-samples t-tests were performed to see if improvement scores in each class
(0.450 points in CL and 0.167 points in CT) were statistically significant. The paired-
samples t-test results indicated that there was statistically significant difference in the
CL class (t = 4.094, p = .000), however barely statistically significant difference was
indicated in the CT class (t = 2,029 p = .050). Independent samples t-test was then
performed to see if improvement score in the CL class was significantly higher than
of the CT class. The results showed t = 2.106 and p value of .039. Therefore, it can
be interpreted that CL in the present study improved participants‟ sociolinguistic
competence significantly better compared to the CT. The output generated from
independent samples t-test comparing sociolinguistic competence improvement
scores from the CL and CT classes is presented in table 5.20 below.
157
Table 5.20: Independent Samples t-test Results of Improvement Scores between CL and CT
Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean Cooperative Learning 25 .450 .549 .109
Control Treatment 36 .167 .492 .082
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
Socio. Diff.
Equal variances assumed
.405 .527 2.106 59 .039 .283 .134
Equal variances not assumed
2.065 48.016 .044 .283 .137
Discourse Competence
Examination of ANOVA results on discourse competence indicated that the CL
class‟s posstest score was significantly higher (F = 6.624, p = .013) than that of the
CT class. The observed power was adequate at .716, and the effect size was small at
.101. However, there was no statistically significant difference in their discourse
competence pretest scores (F = 0.786, p = .379) which means that participants‟ in
both classes have comparable discourse competence scores prior to the present study.
Participants‟ discourse competence data from both classes is presented in figure 5.7
below:
158
Figure 5.7: Participants' Discourse Competence Scores
Paired-samples t-tests were performed to see if improvement scores in each group
were statistically significant. The paired-samples t-test results indicated statistically
significant difference in the CL class (t = 3.091, p = .005), however no statistically
significant difference found in the CT class (t = 1.255, p = .218). Therefore,
independent samples t-test was then performed to see if CL improved participants‟
discourse competence significantly better compared to the CT. The results showed t
= 1.779 and p value of .080 which means that there was borderline statistical
significant difference as presented in table 5.21 below.
159
Table 5.21: Independent Samples t-test Results of Improvement Scores between CL and CT
Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Cooperative Learning 25 .440 .711 .142 Control Treatment 36 .132 .631 .105
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
Disc. Diff.
Equal variances assumed
.253 .617 1.779 59 .080 .308 .173
Equal variances not assumed
1.740 47.618 .088 .308 .176
Strategic Competence
Regarding the strategic competence, ANOVA procedures on pretest scores indicated
no statistically significant difference (F = 1.626, p = .297), however statistically
significant difference was indicated in the posttest scores (F = 18.503, p = .000).
Participants‟ strategic competence data from both classes is presented in figure 5.8.
Figure 5.8: Participants' Strategic Competence Scores
160
Paired-samples t-tests were performed to see if improvement scores in each class
were statistically significant. The paired-samples t-test results indicated that there
were statistically significant difference in both the CL class (t = 6.080, p = .000) and
the CT class (t = 2.183, p = .036) which mean that both CL and CT are effective to
improve participants‟ strategic competence. Therefore, independent samples t-test
was then performed to see if CL improved participants‟ strategic competence
significantly better compared to the CT. The results showed t = 2.967 and p value of
.004. It can be interpreted that CL improved participants‟ strategic competence
statistically significantly better than the CT. The output generated from this
procedure is presented in table 5.22 below.
Table 5.22: Independent Samples t-test Results of Improvement Scores between CL and CT
Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Cooperative Learning 25 .720 .592 .118 Control Treatment 36 .236 .649 .108
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
Stra. Diff.
Equal variances assumed
.309 .580 2.967 59 .004 .484 .163
Equal variances not assumed
3.017 54.662 .004 .484 .160
Based on those statistical procedures discussed above, it suggested that CL
significantly improved participants‟ communicative competence and its four
components over time. It also revealed that the current teaching methods
implemented by lecturers at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung which was used as
control treatment in the present study was found to be effective in improving
participants‟ communicative competence and its four components in the control
class. The data in table 5.9 and table 5.9 showed that, compared to the CT, CL gained
higher improvement mean score on student teachers‟ communicative competence
161
and its four components. As one of the main objectives of the present study is to find
out if CL has significantly better effect on student teachers‟ communicative
competence and its four components compared to the CT (see section 1.4), each
improvement scores in the CL and CT classes are compared using independent
samples t-tests procedures with Bonferroni p value adjustment.
Examination on the results from independent samples t-test on participants‟
communicative competence improvement scores showed borderline statistical
significant difference between the CL and CT classes (t = 1.861, p = .068). In
addition, independent samples t-tests on improvement scores of each component of
communicative competence indicated statistically significant differences on
participants‟ sociolinguistic competence (t = 2.106, p = .039) and strategic
competence (t = 2.967, p = .004), borderline statistical significance on participants‟
discourse competence (t = 1.779, p = .080), but no statistically significant difference
was found on participants‟ linguistic competence (t = 1.656, p = .103). These results
will then be integrated and discussed in chapter six. Participants‟ improvements
scores of communicative competence and its four components comparison between
the CL and CT classes are presented in figure 5.9 below.
Figure 5.9: Participants' Improvement Scores
5.3 Qualitative Data Analysis
In addition to the quantitative data presented above, the present researcher also
collected qualitative data needed to answer the research questions through
162
questionnaires, group interviews, and learning diaries (see section 4.5). The
qualitative data analysis was conducted to explore issues arising from the present
study and the results are then organized, triangulated, and discussed in relation to
three secondary research questions as follow:
a. What are the student teachers‟ perceptions of cooperative learning?
b. What problems (if any) do student teachers identify during their classroom
experience using cooperative learning?
c. What are the student teachers‟ suggestions to effectively implement cooperative
learning into Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms?
The questionnaires, in addition to gathering quantitative data, provide comment
columns to gather qualitative information related to student teachers‟ comments on
their answers to the close-ended questions. The questionnaires also provide open-
ended questions to gather information related to student teachers‟ perceptions on the
implementation of group work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom. In addition,
learning diaries and group interviews were designed to gather information related to
student teachers‟ perceptions on their classroom experience during the present study.
The group interviews which were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia and audio recorded
(see section 4.5.3) were transcribed orthographically as suggested by Braun and
Clarke (2012) (see section 4.8.2.2). Data from diary entries and interviews are coded
based on whether it captures something important in relation to the overall research
question, and sub-themes and themes are then generated and discussed. Codes, sub-
themes, and themes are generated deductively from the raw data under the thematic
analysis framework proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) (see section 4.8.2.3).
Furthermore, Liu (2015) suggested to construct thematic maps in order to give
structure to a particularly large and complex theme and also for demonstrating the
hierarchy of meaning within the data. Each themes discussed in the analysis is
supplemented with quotes and extracts from relevant transcripts in order to provide
evidence of the analysis and arguments made (see section 5.3.2). The quotes
collected are translated into English from Bahasa Indonesia (see section 4.8.2.2).
This section discusses the qualitative data analysis collected through questionnaire,
group interview, and student teachers‟ learning diaries. Analysis was conducted
based on whether the data provide important information in relation to the overall
163
research objectives. It is organized in accordance to the research questions in the
present study including background information about participants, participants‟
perceptions and drawbacks they identified on the implementation of group work
activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom, and their likelihood to use group work
activities in their future teaching practice (see figure 5.10).
Section 5.3.1
Section 5.3.2
Section 5.3.3
5.3.1 Background Information from the Questionnaire
In addition to the statistical information discussed in section 5.2.1.1, participants
were asked to provide their comments in the questionnaire to describe their English
learning experience. Their responses are written in English and therefore some
corrections are presented in brackets [like this] if necessary. The comments are
further analysed to explore participants‟ background information regarding their
learning experience of using group work activities, their motivation in learning
English as well as their self-evaluation on their English skills.
5.3.1.1 Learning Experience
Analysis on the student teachers‟ comments in the questionnaire indicated that
participants in both classes have experienced learning through group work activities
which is congruent with their quantitative data (see section 5.2.1.1). However, they
Qualitative Data Analysis
Questionnaire Group Interview
Learning Diary
Background Information
Benefits and Drawbacks
Future Teaching Practice
Future Teaching Practice
Perceptions of class experience
Perceptions of class experience
Figure 5.10: Framework of Qualitative Data Analysis
164
also indicated that they seldom using group work during their English classes.
Analysis of their comments also revealed some prominent factors influencing their
learning experience.
Teachers or lecturers have been identified to have dominant role in their learning
experience. It was also revealed that participants‟ learning was heavily depend on the
way teachers or lecturers delivered materials and structured the assignments. It is
clear that teachers have a significant role to play with relation to the way students
learn and influence students‟ learning experience. Here are some of the participants‟
comments from both classes which show how the student teachers foreground the
role of the teacher.
[We seldom use group work] Because my teacher just explain[s] and give[s] task. We learned it [used group work] when our teacher gave us homework (Questionnaire CL01)
[We seldom use group work] Because [our] English teacher just explains the materials and seldom asks us to make group[s] (Questionnaire CL12)
[We do] not yet use group work because there is no demand from the teacher (Questionnaire CT28)
[We] seldom [use group work] because the teacher seldom give[s] [us] a lot of assignments, so [we] can do it by ourselves. [We use group work] if [we are] given group assignment by our teacher (Questionnaire CT38)
Participants‟ comments on their learning experience also implied that English
teachers and lecturers do not use group work activities very often. It confirms the
study conducted by Kristiawan (2013) which found that the learning process in
Secondary High School was still using the conventional model (see section 2.5.2).
Participants have also implied other factors influencing their learning experience
such as the learning tools and materials as well as the focus of their school. For
example, they use individual study more often because the way they study was using
students‟ worksheet (Lembar Kerja Siswa / LKS4) which was mostly done
individually. They also indicated that because they were still studying general
subjects and not focus on English education, therefore they seldom use group work
activities. Here are their comments.
4 Lembar Kerja Siswa / LKS is student worksheet book containing all assignments and tasks students need to complete.
165
At secondary school, I learned English using individual study. I did my task with LKS [students‟ worksheet] book (Questionnaire CL23).
Because at SMP [junior secondary schoo] and SMA [senior secondary school] [we were] still learning in general (Questionnaire CT39).
The data also revealed participants‟ understanding of group work activities.
Participants‟ uses of group work activities were not only limited to study in the
classroom, but also in their study with parents or private teachers outside the school
context. For example, one student wrote:
I learn with my mother and my teacher and I feel so happy because I have partners like them who make me understand easily (Questionnaire CL01)
In addition, participants also implied that learning through group work activities was
not really learning activities instead of refreshing activities, like playing a game.
Participants also indicated that when they have a chance to study in groups, they
enjoy it, as students wrote:
When we learn in group[s], sometimes it‟s not about learning but making a game (Questionnaire CL31)
I think [study in groups is] fun and easy to understand English because we also solve [finish] the problem [assignment] (Questionnaire CT23)
[We enjoy studying in groups] Because [studying in groups] can make the assignment and task be finished quickly (Questionnaire CT31)
However, participants also identified some weaknesses and drawbacks of studying
through group work activities including class condition, group organization, and
students‟ interest. Participants identified that studying through group work activities
were not conducive. They also noticed that some students might not be interested to
work together or having different busy activities. Here are some of participants‟
comments:
Because if I study using group work, it cannot be conducive (Questionnaire CT04)
Because if [we] study in groups, not all [students] work together, but [studying in groups] was enjoyable (Questionnaire CT31)
In summary, participants‟ comments in the questionnaire confirmed the quantitative
data which indicated that all participants at college level have experienced group
166
work activities and only 9 participants never learned through group work activities at
secondary school level (see section 5.2.1.1). Teachers were identified as the most
prominent factor influencing students‟ learning experience. Other influential factors
such as learning tools, learning materials, and the focus of their school have also
been identified to influence students‟ learning experience. The data also revealed
how participants understand and feel about group work activities. In addition,
participants‟ also identified some benefits as well as weaknesses and drawbacks of
group work learning. In chapter six, participants‟ comments regarding their
experience are then triangulated with their learning diary and group interview data
analysed in section 5.3.2.
5.3.1.2 English Learning Motivation
Participants‟ English learning motivations were collected to explore if participating
in the present study changed their motivation to learn English. Questions on
participants‟ motivations were divided into three categories: grade or score, job
opportunity, and English skills. Their responses are measured twice pre- and post-
study to see if there were changes in their motivation to learn English.
In the pre-treatment questionnaire, more than half (75%) of participants are
motivated by grade or score in their study. Their comments indicated that getting
good grade is very important as it is their main target. Good grade was seen as their
main task and objective. Getting good grade means that they can make their parents
and school happy. Here are some of students‟ comments on the questionnaire item “I
learn English to get good grade in examination”:
Yes, because the grade is my goal (Questionnaire CL02)
I do agree because in fact the main target of a student is a good score (Questionnaire CT25)
[Yes] because what is considered by [our] parents is the final score (Questionnaire CT33)
Getting a good grade is requirement for graduation and is a school demand (Questionnaire CT26)
Regarding their English learning motivation at college level, participants in general
agree that good grade is important with 70.4% responded either agree or strongly
167
agree and they indicated the relation between grade and competence. They believe
that good grade is a result from good English competence.
One participant (Questionnaire CT02) wrote “because I want to try to show my
competency to my parents”. Another participant (Questionnaire CT09) also wrote
that his/her main aim is to improve competency while also hoping for good grade
“sometimes I learn English to improve my skills, but I hope to get good grade in
exam”.
In the post-treatment questionnaire, in addition to relating good grade and
competency, participants also relate good grade and job opportunity as stated by one
participant CT04 “yes, because my main [aim to study English] is for good grade and
after that I get job”. Another student CT34 wrote “yes because I want to get a good
job”. Other participants believe that good grade is related to competency “good grade
results follow good English ability” CT09 and CT33 wrote “yes, because good grade
mean[s] I have good understanding about the lesson”.
In regard to the relation between learning English and their chance to get better job
opportunity, participants believed that having good English skills improve their
chance to get good job. In the post-treatment questionnaire, over 90% of students in
the CL and CT classes indicated agree or strongly agree. It can also be seen from
participants‟ comments on their questionnaire. One student CT24 wrote “I study
English to get better job opportunity because now a lot of jobs [are] requiring
English”. Another student added “Right now, English is very important in our life
because if we want a good job we must master English (CL12). Other participants
see further and relating English to the possibility of work outside of their specific
field as a teacher “because by learning English, [I] can have job other than as
teacher” (CT33).
Regarding to the question of whether participants learn English to improve their
communication skills, participants in both classes are less confident that this is their
motivation to learn English. It can be seen from the quantitative data which indicated
a decrease from 97.2% to 80.6% in the CT class and from 96% to 84% in the CL
class participants who response agree or strongly agree. Unfortunately, participants
did not write much with 80% of them left it blank for item regarding their motivation
to learn English to improve their communication skills. However, one participant in
168
the CL class (CL02) wrote “Language is for communication with others and of
course I learn English to improve my communication skills. Another participant from
the CT class also wrote “Yes that‟s right, I think [I‟ll have] more skills if I learn
English to improve my English communication skills (CT05).
5.3.1.3 English skills
The data presented in table 5.8 section 5.2.1.1 indicated improvement of mean scores
from pretest to posttest in four English skills for both classes except for listening skill
in the CT class. Analysis of participants‟ comments on listening skill revealed that
they had difficulty in understanding what they listen especially when they listen to
native speaker as participant CL23 wrote “native speaker makes me confuse, they
speak [pronounce] words that I don‟t understand, it‟s so difficult”. Other participant
also wrote “sometimes I know what native speaker says but sometimes I get lost
[miss] the meaning” (CL02). Other participant has identified why listening is
difficult for him/her “I am little hard of hearing native speaker because my
vocabulary is still low” (CL20). In their post-treatment questionnaire, participants
still feel that their listening skill is very low as some students comment:
It‟s rather difficult for me to listen well what the speakers are saying (Questionnaire CL20).
I think my listening skill is not good enough and I need [more] learning [practice] (Questionnaire CT05).
I think my listening skill is not good enough, I can‟t hear clearly what the speakers are saying (Questionnaire CT34).
With regard to their speaking skill, analysis of participants‟ self-assessment scores
indicated improvement of mean scores 0.8 for the CL class and 0.5 for the CT class.
It suggested that participants in both classes feel more confident in their speaking
skill after fourteen weeks study regardless of their teaching treatment. Analysis of
their comments revealed that students in the CL class identified confidence,
pronunciation, and grammar as the main problems in their speaking.
I study speaking everyday with my friends but I feel not confident with my [speaking] skills (Questionnaire CL02)
[Speaking is] difficult in part of pronunciation of the words (Questionnaire CL22)
169
[Speaking is] difficult in the part of grammar and pronunciation of the words (Questionnaire CL26)
Their counterparts in the CT class have also identified similar problems in their
speaking skill.
In speaking English I [feel] very weak because I am afraid of making mistake in grammar, meaning, pronunciation, and so on (Questionnaire CT33)
My speaking is still very low because I am afraid of making mistake and [I am] not confident to speak English with my lecturers (Questionnaire CT34)
However, participants‟ comments in their post-treatment questionnaire revealed that
they are more motivated and challenged to practice their speaking skill more. They
also identified that vocabulary mastery is still becomes their most prominent
problem.
I need more practices [in speaking] (Questionnaire CL04)
My speaking skill must be practiced again so I can speak English better (Questionnaire CL27)
I can't speak [English] much because I don't have many vocabularies (Questionnaire CL23)
On the other hand, participants in the CT class in general concern about their
vocabulary mastery and their pronunciation.
My speaking skill is not good enough because my vocabulary is still bit [limited] (Questionnaire CT12)
I think my speaking skill is low because my vocabulary is not enough (Questionnaire CT25)
My pronunciation is not good and clear enough (Questionnaire CT16)
With regard to their reading and writing, participants‟ quantitative data indicated
improvement of 0.44 and 0.52 in the CL class and 0.19 and 0.11 in the CT class.
Participants‟ comments on their reading revealed their main concerns are in the
vocabulary. They identified that their main difficulty is to understand the meaning of
new vocabularies in their reading passage.
I am good at reading but often have problem with new words [vocabularies] (Questionnaire CL23)
170
I think my reading skill is not good enough, I sometimes [get] difficulty to get the point of the text (Questionnaire CT12)
My reading skill is not good enough because not all of the words [vocabularies] in the text I can understand the meaning (Questionnaire CT34)
Similar to their comments on speaking and reading skills, vocabulary was identified
as the main problem in their writing skill. In addition to that, spelling and grammar
were mentioned by many participants as the problem in writing.
I am bad at writing because I make many spelling mistake[s] and missing alphabet (Questionnaire CL23)
My writing is not good enough too because I have difficult to make a sentence correctly (Questionnaire CT12)
Sometimes I miss [make mistakes in] the spelling and the grammar (Questionnaire CT15)
From the participants‟ comments on their self-assessed English skills, common
problems identified across classes and pretest-posttest time frame was vocabulary
and grammatical masteries. It appeared that participants were less confidence in their
vocabulary and grammatical masteries which influence their perceptions regarding
their skills in English. Therefore, vocabulary and grammar mastery should be the
focus for English teacher educators in improving student teachers‟ English skills and
their confidence.
5.3.2 Student Teachers’ Perceptions of Cooperative Learning
The data collected from questionnaire, learning diary, and group interview were
coded and analysed through thematic analysis (see section 4.8.2) based on emergent
themes pertaining to student teachers‟ experience in Speaking 2 class and their
perceptions on the application of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom.
Themes emerged from participants‟ perceptions are grouped into three categories
related to issues on implementation, benefits of cooperative learning, and drawbacks
in implementing cooperative learning. Quotes from participants‟ responses are
provided to support the discussion.
171
5.3.2.1 Themes Related to Issues of Implementation
Theme 1: “Group implementation”
One of the themes clearly emerged from the qualitative data analysis on participants‟
questionnaire, learning diary, and group interview is related to group
implementation. In this section the themes and sub-themes identified in the
qualitative data relevant to group implementation are illustrated (see figure 5.11).
Figure 5.11: Group Implementation
Participants have identified grouping students as one of the most important aspects in
using group work activities. The student teachers‟ concerns are focused on three sub-
themes including who is responsible for forming groups, what are the composition of
group members, and how long groups should stay together.
In relation to who should be responsible in forming groups, the participants
considered that the teacher should be responsible for group formation. Even though,
in CL learners are granted the privilege to be self-directed, independent, and
interdependence individuals and teacher‟s role shifts from an authoritative agent to a
facilitator as suggested by Marcellino (2008), however, this drastic change was not
the case from the participants‟ point of view in the present study. Participants in the
present study urged that the teacher educator should be responsible for group
division. Here are some selected materials from student teachers‟ interview which
indicate their views on group formation:
The first thing needs to be considered [in using group work activities] is how to form groups, which is do not let the students to form or decide their own groups because in Indonesia they usually choose their own circle/clique. It is better for the teacher [to form the group] because the teacher knows better which student has low and high abilities so he/she can divide it equally (Interview CL1).
… when we form groups, the group should be divided by the lecturer, shouldn‟t it? And the group should not always stay together with the same
Group Implementation
Composition
Duration Group Formation
172
members from the beginning till the end [of semester]. So [the group members] should be changed and it makes each student gets closer to all other students in the class. So [students] are not only close to certain students and it creates good socialization (Interview CL4)
It is apparent that the participants felt that the teacher should be responsible for group
formation. The participants believed that the teacher is better person to decide and
form groups because the teacher knows more about students‟ competence so she/he
can divide them equally. Participants also justified why students should not be
allowed to choose the members and form their own groups.
But if we [as students] choose [the group‟s members] by ourselves, for sure [we] will choose our close friends, for sure [we] will choose those same students, so there is no, how should I say, it‟s monotonous, our friends will always be those same students. [If students choose group members by themselves] maybe they will look for smarter students. So it‟s unfair because they will choose, for example if there are their own friends so they will choose them, if there are smarter students they will also choose them, so it‟s unfair and also there will be no division of [students‟ ability] low and high [students] (Interview CL6)
I agree, so it‟s a pity for low ability students because usually there will be none wants to take them as group member (yes excluded), they are excluded (Interview CL1)
Student teachers apparently indicated that if the students are allowed to choose and
form their own groups, they are worried about the composition balance of each
group. There will be possibility that all smart students gather in one group, in
contrast there will also be groups which consist of all low ability students. In
addition, participants also concerned that students will only choose their close
friends. On the top of that, participants were concerned and worried that there would
be students in classroom which none wants to take them as a group member. In this
way, the objective of working in group to help students know each other better will
not be achieved.
Gillies & Boyle (2010) in their research on teachers‟ reflections in implementing
cooperative learning discussed issues regarding the role of friendship in promoting
group interactions. On one side, they claimed that students who know and like each
other benefits most from working together as they tend to accept more responsibility
for their learning and are more motivated to achieve their goals than students who are
not friends. However, on the other side, they also found that although friendship was
173
beneficial for performance earlier in the task, it was detrimental later in terms of the
errors the students made as they worked collaboratively together and do not want to
criticize each other. In the present study, participants indicated that they preferred the
teacher to decide the group compositions so that they can broaden their friendship
zone as can be seen in the excerpts above.
In addition to the friendship issue, participants also suggested that when the teachers
are responsible for dividing and forming groups, the group members should consist
of students from different academic level, gender, and ethnical backgrounds. Mixed
groups are important to ensure that the objectives of using group work activities in
the classroom are achieved. As discussed in section 1.2, the present study also aims
to equip effective teaching methods for future English teachers (student teachers) to
deal with mixed level students in large class with limited time allotment for English
lesson. Participants in the present study have also revealed three important criteria
for mixing the students in a group which include ability or competence (high,
medium, and low), gender (male and female), and ethnical or language background.
Below are selected quotes from the participants related to how group members
should be divided:
… what I mean by being divided is that in one group it must not consist of all smart students Sir. But there should be high, medium, and low [ability student]. Also for the gender, don‟t put all females [together] because at the end [they will be] gossiping. So as much as possible, the group [members] must be mixed for example two males and two females, their competence should also be different. And if it is possible their ethnicity should also be mixed, if for example Javanese with Javanese [students] and Sundanese with Sundanese [students], at the end the Javanese will chat in Javanese as well as the Sundanese. So, the main objective [of group work] won‟t be achieved. But if they are from different ethnics, students can focus on one language, using English if possible (Interview CL2)
[Group member should be divided] based on their ability… If the group members are all gossiping, the group will not run well (Interview CL3)
In addition to those two important aspects in group formation, participants also
concern about the duration of group membership. In the present study, three types of
cooperative learning groups including formal, informal, and cooperative learning
base groups were implemented (see section 2.3.2). For the cooperative learning base
group, participants were asked to stay together in their base group for the whole
duration of the present study. Participants sometimes changed their group for formal
174
cooperative learning group which last for one to three meetings when they were
working on a specific task or project. They also change their group for five to fifteen
minutes informal cooperative learning group during the teaching process.
Participants in the present study revealed that they prefer the groups to be changed
more frequently. They argued that staying in the same group for longer period of
time creates boredom among group members because they have already known each
other in the sense of personality and academic competence. Therefore they want to
change the group so that they have more chances to know more friends in their
classroom. Changing group membership more often also considered as a good way to
socialize with their classmates. Here are their perceptions regarding the duration of
group membership.
And the group should not always stay together with the same members from the beginning till the end [of semester]. So [the group members] should be changed and it makes each student gets closer to all other students in the class. So [students] are not only close to certain students and it creates good socialization (Interview CL4)
If I become a teacher someday, I will also use group work activities but each week I will change the group … (Interview CL6)
The participants‟ perceptions are somewhat in line with Rhoades (2013) who
suggested teachers to change groups at natural breaks such as at the end of unit
(Rhoades 2013, p. 33). He believed that this will keep students together for extended
period of time and give them enough time to work together and to know one another
better. In addition, this will also provide chance for students to change their groups
so that they can meet and socialize with other classmates.
This first and most prominent theme emerged from the data analysis was actually the
first step any teacher or lecturer should pay their attention to when implementing
cooperative learning. Participants in the present study suggested that any teacher who
wants to implement cooperative learning in their classrooms should first consider
how to implement group work activities. As discussed above, there are three sub-
themes under the theme “group implementation” which include group formation,
composition, and the duration group membership. Participants suggested that the
teacher should be responsible for group formation. The first reason was that the
participants believed that the teacher knows their students‟ ability or competence
better, so the teacher can divide them equally into groups which consist of high,
175
medium, and low ability students. The second reason was that if the students choose
their own groups, it will not be unusual to find groups that consist of close friends or
the same level of competence. It is also not uncommon to have one or two low ability
students who do not have any group. For the composition, participants suggested that
heterogeneous groups are better than homogeneous groups. They also suggested
three criteria in mixing group members: ability or competence (high, medium, low),
gender (male, female), and ethnical or linguistic backgrounds. This is in line with
theory on cooperative learning which suggests forming heterogeneous groups.
Regarding the duration of group membership, participants suggested that groups
should be changed more often than what they experienced in the present study where
they stayed together for the whole semester in their cooperative learning base groups
and changed several times in formal and informal groups during the classroom
teaching. The second theme emerged from the participants‟ data is how the teacher
and students can ensure that the group work works which will be discussed below.
Theme 2: “Group management”
The second theme emerged from student teachers‟ data is related to how to ensure
that the group works effectively. The participants indicated that managing the group
is very important in order for the group to work well and achieved its objectives.
This theme consists of three sub-themes which include student‟s roles, teacher‟s
roles, and teaching process (see figure 5.12).
Figure 5.12: Group Management
The subthemes are identified in line with the participants‟ perceptions on the aim of
group work activities as one participant in the interview expressed it:
So, the aim of forming groups in a classroom is for all students to be active in their own groups by for example being a [group] leader, secretary and so on. In addition, the teacher should also pay attention to all groups [because] not every group can manage themselves [well]. For example,
Group Management Teaching Process
Student‟s Roles
Teacher‟s Roles
176
like I said because they are [studying] in groups, there maybe group/s which enjoy with their own chats. For example, in a group, like last time, we were obligated to use English however there are still some students who chat in Bahasa Indonesia even though they were discussing the materials but they were not using English and it decreased the point why we formed group. So the lecturer or the teacher must be active in managing and reminding all students to refer to the initial objective of forming groups (Interview CL4)
The role of students in group work activities appeared to get participants‟ attention.
Participants identified that in group work, it is common that if there are one or more
students have taken care of the task, some students are relying on them. Participants
have also identified that this problem of what so called “free rider” (Liang, 2002, p.
31) or “social loafing” (Kyndt et al., 2013, p. 134) is also caused by those “smart or
high ability” students for not allowing other students to contribute. If the groups are
not structured effectively, there is possibility that one or two smart students become
bossy as they want to do the task by themselves and do not allow other students to
contribute.
When students are in groups, when one or more members have taken care of the task, other [members] usually rely on those who do the task (Interview CL2)
Usually, if there is one smart student, other members due to their weak competence maybe are shy to share their opinion. Or also [they] are not given chance by their friends [the smart students]. But the smart student does the task in his/her own and does not need help from other [group members] (Interview CL2)
Participants identified that dividing specific task or responsibility in the group should
be done for a group to work effectively and function as expected. In other words,
participants suggested that individual accountability (see section 2.3.1.2) as one
principle in cooperative learning should be established if successful group work is to
be achieved. Dividing specific task or responsibility for each member of the group
also helps each student to focus in doing their specific task as well as helping each
other in order for the group to achieve its goal. Here are some selected materials
from participants‟ interview which portray their perceptions on how to ensure the
effectiveness of group work activities by dividing specific task or responsibility for
each group member:
177
… After that, I think in the group first should be decided who is the leader or chief so that the group work can function well and be able to manage [their] group to be cohesive and solid group … (Interview CL1)
So, there should be division of task to make students feel responsible to attend the class (Interview ICL3)
So, the aim of forming groups in a classroom is for all students to be active in their own groups by for example being a [group] leader, secretary and so on … (Interview CL4)
Participants also see their own roles as student in group work activities as more
embedded to the group and responsible in keeping all the group members do their
tasks as well as ensuring that all group members attend the class and finish their task.
Students‟ role in group learning has been identified to include not only academically
in the learning process but also socially in motivating and reminding each other for
the benefit of group goals attainment as expressed by one participant:
So each group [member] should embed themselves to each other more. I mean [they] should pay more attention [to each other] because when one [group member] is absent, their group will not be complete. So when the class is about to start and any member is not present yet, [other members] should contact him/her via short message service (sms) or phone reminding her/him to come [to the class] (ICL4)
Participants also revealed that it was not only students‟ responsibility to make the
group work works but also the responsibility of the teacher which then emerged as
sub-theme “teacher‟s roles”. Participants believed that the teacher after dividing and
forming the group should also be active in managing the group, monitoring each
group, and ensuring that all groups are working towards predetermined objectives.
Participants have seen that the main objective of using group learning activities is to
make each individual more independent and active student in their own group.
However, participants also indicated that not all students have the competence and
the sense of responsibility to be fully trusted to manage their own groups. Therefore,
participants suggested that the teacher should pay attention to all groups. Especially
in Indonesia‟s EFL context where all students are speaking the same national
language (Bahasa Indonesia), so there is tendency that when the students are
discussing the teaching materials, they will switch to their own language instead of
practicing English in order to be able to finish the task quickly. Therefore, the
178
teacher must actively monitor and remind the group of the main objective of why
they form and study in groups.
In the present study, the teacher educator always controls and monitors each group to
ensure that they are working together and the five basic principles of cooperative
learning which include positive interdependence, group and individual
accountability, promotive interaction, social and interpersonal skills, and group
processing are implemented. In addition, the teacher educator also reminds the
student teachers to use English as much as possible in their group discussion. The
teacher educator also reminds the student teachers that the main objective of the
group work and tasks provided in the classroom is to help them practise their
English, so they must as much as possible use English in any communication in the
classroom. In addition, participants also suggested that the teacher should be able to
motivate the students to be active participating in the group work and sharing their
idea. Here are some of participants‟ responses which show how they perceive
teacher‟s role in implementing group work activities:
After forming groups, teacher or lecturer should not leave [the groups] alone, [but] teacher must manage and pay attention if [members in each group] are brave to speak up and none is afraid of sharing his/her opinion. So the teacher must, most importantly [find a way to] make all group members active to share their opinion to each other (Interview CL5).
That is why, as I said, the lecturer or teacher must control and pay attention if one [member] keeps silent or passive, [lecturer or teacher] needs to motivate him/her to be more speak-up and do something. So not only one smart student [does everything] (Interview CL4)
In addition, as the students are working in groups by discussing and sharing their
ideas and opinions, participants realized that the classroom will be quite noisy and
potentially disturb other classes. Therefore, participants suggested that the teacher
should also be able to find ways to manage the level of voice caused by group
discussion as well as sharing this responsibility with the students. In cooperative
learning, teacher distributes the authority and responsibility of the group to each
member. In this way, students become more responsible and independent in their
group as well as in their learning. In the present study, as suggested by CL principle
of individual accountability, roles have been divided and given to each member of
the groups as group leader, spokesperson, secretary, team monitor, and possibly
179
honorary member if there is fifth member (see section 4.7.2.2). Each week, students
have to change their roles in their group so that all students have experienced each
different role. In order to solve the problem of noisy classroom, a team monitor in
each group is responsible to control the level of voice the group is producing.
Regarding the third sub-theme “teaching process”, participants have identified the
way to effectively deliver the materials using group learning activities as expressed
below:
In my opinion, the next important thing [in teaching using group work activities] is how to deliver the material. Usually in group work, [students] tend to chat among themselves, so in order for the group to work together in their team, we [the teachers] should be able to decide activities to be done together. For example we [the teacher] give one assignment and then all group members should present [their work] as a team and everyone should speak up. Or [teacher] can make a game which requires all group members to work [together], even though not physically [but] at least mentally they are thinking and sharing their idea. So, I agree with what CL1 has said, there [should be] a [group] leader or coordinator as you [the researcher as their teacher educator] have already implemented (Interview CL3).
In my opinion, in order for a group to be effective, it is better to do group presentation or something like debate. In this way, one group and another will interact and share their opinion so that it can increase students‟ knowledge. I think, by [asking students] doing group presentation, it helps each student to be brave in expressing his/her opinion or speaking in front of audience (Interview CL2)
Participants revealed that delivering the teaching materials is important in group
learning activities. Again, participants argued that the teacher is responsible in
deciding how she/he will deliver the materials and how the students learn. Further,
participants suggested that group presentation might be effective way in delivering
the teaching materials and at the same time ensuring that all group members are
working together as a team. In doing presentation, participants argued that not only
the spokesperson who has always to speak in the name of whole group members, but
each group member must also be able to speak up to represent their groups‟ ideas or
point of views. Another technique that participants suggested was using game which
requires all group members to pull their work together physically and mentally.
Debate, as participants CL2 suggested could also be implemented in the classroom to
allow groups to interact, share, and debate with other groups.
180
In addition, participants also identified attendance as important in ensuring the
maximum benefits of group work. Absenteeism will influence the students‟ work
because if one member of the group is absent it will affect the effectiveness of the
group which then hinder the attainment of the group goals. Group members‟
absenteeism will make other group members to re-explain the previous materials as
well as disturb the group work as the specific task of the absent student will not be
finished on time to achieve group goals. And it will be burden for other group
members. Here are some of participants‟ responses regarding the important of
attendance:
In addition, I think attendance is also important (Interview CL4)
… because the students are studying in groups and they have to present their work [to the class], and [in groups] they have their own [specific] task, so when one group member is absent, his/her task will bother other members. So, there should be division of task to make students feel responsible to attend the class (Interview CL3)
In order to minimize absenteeism, participants suggested that those who are absent
should get constructive punishment from the teacher. Participants prefer the teacher
than the students or group mates to give punishment because if the punishment is just
from their own group mates, the students will not take it seriously as expressed by
one participant below:
For me, it‟s better if the teacher [who give punishment] because if the punishment is only from other students, the absent students will not be afraid (Interview CL2)
In summary, the second theme “group management” focuses on how to ensure that
the group learning activities work effectively in the classroom in achieving the
learning goals and at the same time ensuring that each group member improved their
understanding of the teaching materials and their competence. This theme is divided
into three sub-themes including students‟ roles, teacher‟s roles, and teaching process.
Participants suggested that students‟ roles should be structured carefully and
individual accountability should be established in order to maximize the group work
and avoid free rider or bossy students. For the teacher‟s role, in addition to forming
the groups, participants also suggested that teacher should also be able to manage
and ensure that the groups work effectively to achieve the learning goals. Teacher
should also be able to minimize the drawbacks of using group work activities in
181
his/her classroom. Regarding the teaching process, participants suggested that the
teacher can use presentation or debate technique in the teaching process to make all
students participate actively in the teaching and learning processes. Participants also
suggested games to be used in teaching using group work activities which can
increase students‟ participation in classroom. In addition, participants also identified
attendance as important in ensuring the maximum benefits of group work. They
suggested that the teacher should give constructive punishment to those who are
absent from classroom.
Theme 3: “Assessment”
Another theme emerged from the participants‟ data was the assessment process. How
assessment of students‟ learning should be conducted when the teacher is
implementing group work activities was apparently a concern for the participants.
When the participants were asked if they are going to use group work activities in
their future teaching practice, they revealed that assessment process is important in
implementing group learning activities. Participants in the present study suggested
that even though they are going to use group activities in their future teaching
practice, but their approaches to assessing students‟ learning varied with some
participants acknowledging that they will use individual assessment. There seems to
be a tension between the demand for individual assessment of students‟ knowledge
and abilities and the demand to teach students collaboration abilities through group
work (Frykedal & Chiriac, 2011, p. 331). Here are some excerpts from the
participants‟ interview which reflect their perceptions on assessing students‟
learning:
… And also in the evaluation or assessment, I will use individual [assessment] Sir. It is true that in the learning process I will use group work activities, but in assessment I will use individual [assessment] (Interview ICL2).
… And then for the scoring, [I will use] individual … (Interview CL6).
Participants revealed that they prefer individual evaluation because they are not
comfortable with group evaluation. They feel that in group evaluation, individual
competence will not be visible because the scores they got will be derived from the
group as written by one participant in his/her questionnaire:
182
[In using group evaluation] skills of a member are not seen or visible because the result is gotten [derived] from the group (Questionnaire CL22)
However, participants in the present study did not mention how they are going to do
their individual assessment. While there are different types of assessments relevant to
group task, concerns are raised about their contributions to students overall
achievements. Black and William (1998), in a synthesis of the results of evidence on
formative assessments published in more than 250 articles from a number of
countries, concluded unequivocally that formative assessments do raise students‟
achievements overall across different ages and programmes (Gillies & Boyle 2010).
This improvement is attributed to the frequent use of feedback which helps students
to understand what they need to do to successfully complete a task. Furthermore,
when students are involved in the assessment process, they learn to monitor what
they must do and learn and this enhances their own cognitive and metacognitive
thinking about the issue at hand. In the present study, as group processing was
conducted every three to four meetings, participants were involved in assessing their
group work and finding ways to improve their group work effectiveness.
5.3.2.2 Themes related to benefits of cooperative learning
In addition to the themes related to issues in implementing cooperative learning
presented above, several themes emerging from the data related to the benefits of
cooperative learning; these include building students‟ confidence, socialization,
responsibility, promoting motivation, and improving competence (see figure 5.13)
Figure 5.13: Benefits of Using Cooperative Learning
Benefits of Using CL
Building Confidence
Students‟ Responsibility
Promoting Motivation
Students‟ Socialization Improving Competence
183
Theme 4: “Building confidence”
One of the benefits of using group work activities identified by the participants in the
present study is that it built their confidence to speak and share their opinions.
Participants argued that their confidence increased because when they are working in
group, they do not feel shy to speak and share their opinions in front of small group
of friends compared to when they have to talk in front of the whole class. By
studying in groups, participants identified that they have chance to practice in their
own groups before speaking to the whole class and it built their confidence.
Participants also revealed that they feel more comfortable to speak up and share their
opinions to the whole class because they have friends or group mates who can
support them when there is something wrong. Here are some of participants‟
responses from their interview which indicated how group work activities can build
their confidence:
For me, in group work activities, someone [becomes] having more courage because she/he has a room to share her/his opinion, she/he has a room [where] she/he does not feel shy to speak and express her/his opinion. … the point is that she/he becomes braver to express [her/his opinion] because [she/he] does not feel shy to each other [because] with their own friends (Interview CL5)
… And then our confidence, we find out that she/he [our group mate] can make us feel more confident … Because we are in a group situation, we feel more protected when we speak, and usually [feel] more confident. More comfortable, because when we are alone and asked to speak, usually [we feel] shy, we afraid there will be something wrong. But when we are in groups, we feel that we have friends (Interview CL3).
… I think that‟s true, because to increase our confidence, first we try in [our] group. Once we have been confident to speak in small group, InshaAllah [hopefully], when we have to share to other groups, we [will] feel more confident. Because student feels that I can do it here, with my friends‟ helps … (interview CL2)
In other words, participants in the present study revealed that group work activities
can build students‟ confidence for two reasons. First, group work activities provide
chances for students to practice their speaking skill in groups and share their opinion
to their group mates before speaking to the whole class. In this way, even quieter and
less confident students will have chance to participate and share their opinions where
otherwise only few stronger or more confident students have the opportunity to
participate in large classes as supported by Sulistiyo (2015). Once students practice
184
their speaking skill and share their opinions in groups, they will have more
confidence to participate and share their opinions to the whole class. Second, in
group work activities as revealed from participants‟ responses, students help and
support each other in their learning. This situation as a result builds students‟
confidence because they feel that they have friends to help and support them in their
learning.
The findings are congruent with Baker & Heather (2000, p. 131) who argue that
group work activity is important because it gives students lots of practice in using a
language, allows the quieter students to speak to a partner instead of speaking in
front of the whole class, and encourage students to help each other with their learning
(see section 1.2). The participants‟ responses in the present study also extended the
findings from study conducted by Sanjani (2015) investigating the use of Think-Pair-
Share (TPS) technique of CL in improving students‟ speaking ability at junior
secondary school in Indonesia which study revealed that CL increases students‟
confidence to speak English and actively participated during the teaching and
learning processes. The findings from the present study is also extended the findings
from Pin Wei and Yu Tang‟s (2015) investigation of the use of CL in China through
theory analysis and experiment which revealed that CL fostering students‟
confidence (see Section 2.5.1).
Theme 5: “Students‟ socialization”
For some other participants, the benefit of working in groups is more on the social
aspect. It is because when students are working in groups, where in some cases they
cannot decide who their group mates are, they have chance to know and get closer to
new friends. Working in groups provides participants the chance to work with friends
they are not close to and allow students to know each other better. By working in
group for attaining group goals, students need to share their knowledge and opinions
so that by the end, each member will know each other better personally and
academically. As they work together for certain period of time, they feel more
comfortable to talk to each other and share their opinions as they know each other
better.
For me, the positive aspects [of group work activities] are more in social [aspect] because when the groups are divided by the teacher or lecturer so
185
we cannot choose who will be our group mates, maybe [they are] not from our gang, maybe we do not know each other well. We, finally, due to studying in one group, know each other and find out that she/he is smarter [than we thought] … (Interview CL3)
I think [we are getting] closer to each other. We who just knew by names at first [then later] become closer, more comfortable to talk to each other, sharing anything (ICL5)
Another student explained how working in groups can help students to know each
other better and become closer to all students. He/she provided an example of how
his/her friendship in senior high school where he/she just knew friends by name but
not really know each other character. By working in group, it made them close friend
in the classroom as well as outside the classroom even outside the school area. By
knowing each other characters, students are able to act accordingly. He/she also gave
an example of how she/he adjusted his/her communication with certain students who
he/she has known his/her character. Here is his/her statement:
In my opinion, as has been said, so each group member knows each other character, like understanding characters of each friend. My experience in Senior Secondary School, even though we were from the same class but not everyone was close, and maybe [we feel like] oh ya we are classmate, [but when we] met outside of school we did not say hi to each other because we just feel like oh ya we are classmate. But when we use group work learning and [we] changed our groups, so for every students because we were once in the same group and encouraged each other, maybe we are getting to know each other and getting closer and understand each other. When for example we know that she/he is egoist so we know how to deal with her/him, owh this students is more shy so we have to, for example, say hi first. So [we] understand each other better (ICL4)
In addition to getting closer to all classmates and knowing their characters better,
studying through group work activities also provide the students chances to expand
their friendship and study networks. Participant 3 for example expressed his/her
opinion:
I think the effect is the same, getting closer to each other, and maybe we can get more networks, get new friends, maybe from our friends in class they have friends out of class who have English competency so we can form a new group. I think the effect was positive … And then the effects, what I want to say, we knew [the real character of] our friends (Interview CL3)
Relating to getting to know more friends and closer to all classmates as well as
expanding their friendship network, as we discussed previously, participants are
186
concern to how long they should stay in a group. Participants suggested that in order
for them to maximize students‟ socialization when working in group, the group
members should be changed more frequently (see section 5.3.2.1). This is to give
chance for the students to be in group with more different students so they will be
able to know more friends in their classroom. This might be because in the present
study, participants were divided into cooperative learning base groups which
required them to stay with their base groups for the duration of whole semester
(fourteen weeks). Even though they also participated in several formal and informal
groups during the study, they found that changing the group members more
frequently could maximize the benefits of cooperative learning for socialization.
Here is an excerpt from participant‟s response regarding group membership:
And the group should not always stay together with the same members from the beginning till the end [of semester]. So [the group members] should be changed and it makes each student gets closer to all other students in the class. So [students] are not only close to certain students and it creates good socialization (Interview CL4)
Theme 6: “Shared responsibility”
Another theme emerged from the participants‟ data related to the benefits of group
work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom is shared responsibility. Participants
revealed that in group work activities they learn to be responsible not only to
themselves but also to the group. This is congruent with Zhang's (2010) study which
explored the benefits of CL in EFL classroom in China. She found that using CL in
EFL classroom fostering learners‟ responsibility and independence. Here is
participant‟s response which illustrates how group work activities influenced their
sense of responsibility:
And also we learn to be responsible. I mean, we learn to be responsible as when we become a group leader, and then how we act as team monitor [or] as a secretary. In this way, we learn how to be responsible in a group not only for ourselves but also for all, for [our] group (Interview CL5)
In the present study, participants revealed that by working in groups, they are held
accountable not only for their specific task but also the completion of their task is
held accountable for the goal attainment of the groups. Participants also suggested
that they are more responsible not only for themselves but also for the group. This is
in line with individual accountability of cooperative learning which assured that each
187
student is held accountable for his/her contribution to the groups. In the present
study, each student teacher has their specific roles in the group which includes as a
group leader, spokesperson, secretary, team monitor, and possibly honorary member
(see section 4.7.2.2).
The sense of shared responsibility as identified by participants in the present study is
also in line with the concept of gotong royong discussed in section 2.6.2 which can
be literally translated as “mutual assistance” (Dewi, 2007, p.4). Mutual assistance or
gotong royong is defined by Rigg et al. (1999 cited in Subejo, 2009) as a community-
based and supportive ethics system derived from the Javanese village tradition of
communal work and responsibility, in which each individual has certain moral
obligation to the wider society. In the gotong royong concept, mutual assistance
helps to ensure that community members carry comparable load and thereby share
the burden of economic and social survival. Therefore, studying through group work
activities could be an important ways to improve students‟ sense of responsibility not
only for her/himself but also for their groups and in broader context for the society.
Therefore, studying through group work activities could also strengthen Indonesian
culture of gotong royong.
Theme 7: “Promoting motivation”
In the qualitative data analysis in the present study, motivation has been identified as
emerging theme from the participants‟ responses. Participants revealed that by
working with their peers in groups, it motivated them to learn more to improve their
competency so that they are equal to other group members. Here is participant‟s
response which illustrates how working in groups promoted their motivation to learn
and improve their competence:
In group work activities, there was my group member who become, what can I say, [working in group] motivated her/him to be more competent like others. [Working in group] motivated her/him to learn more, practice speaking more so that her/his competence can be equal to those who have higher competence in her/his group (Interview CL1)
It is clear that participants considered that working and discussing with more capable
peers in groups can improve their motivation to learn more and becomes more
competence like other members in their group. For the more competent group
188
members, they are motivated to help their group mates as well as encourage their
group mates to maximize their effort because the success of their groups depends on
the success of all group members. This is expressed by two participants below:
And by doing it in groups, I mean studying in groups, students help each other. If one student in a group gets difficulty in understanding the materials, automatically, other students or his/her [more capable] friends will help her/him. Therefore, it will make it easier for that student in the learning process Sir. … Yes Sir, it [studying in groups] also motivates students to be more effective (Interview CL2)
… She/he [our groupmate] can teach us and, at the end, we can improve our vocabularies … (Interview CL3)
Participants‟ motivation to improve their competency as well as to help each other to
improve their competence is in line with the motivational perspective of cooperative
learning (see Section 2.2.1). Motivational perspective in cooperative learning
contends that the fact that students‟ success or outcomes are dependent on one
another‟s behaviour motivates students to engage in behaviours which help the group
to be successful. In cooperative learning situation in which the only way group
members can attain their own personal goals is if and only if all group members are
successful motivates students to encourage goal-directed behaviours among their
group mates. Therefore, in addition to working hard in their specific task to meet
their personal goals, group members must both help their group mates to do whatever
helps the group as well as to encourage their group mates to exert maximum efforts
(Slavin, 1996). So, it is understandable that participants in the present study revealed
that studying using group work activities promote their motivation both to learn more
and improve their competence as well as to help their group mates in their learning.
Theme 8: “Improving communicative competence”
Another most prominent theme to emerge from the data analysis on the benefits of
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom which was also the main
objective of the present study, this is related to student teachers‟ communicative
competence. This theme regarding communicative competence which emerged from
participants‟ qualitative data confirmed the quantitative data from both participants‟
paired-oral interview (see Section 5.2.2.1) and their self-assessed skills in the
questionnaires (see Section 5.2.1.2). These findings from the qualitative and
quantitative data are then further discussed and integrated in section 6.1.
189
Participants in their qualitative data revealed that by working in group where they
have to share their opinions and explain learning materials to their group mates
improve their communicative competence. In addition, participants also revealed that
when they have to change their groups and meet new group members, they have to
find new ways in sharing ideas and explain learning materials in the new groups
which further improve participants‟ communicative competence. Here are some
selected materials from participants‟ qualitative data which illustrate the finding:
And then when student explained the materials, there was, what I can say, a time when we had to change our group, so when student speaks to one group, of course everyone is different in understanding [the materials]. So when student in the first group explained [the materials] in this way, but [then] she/he cannot use the same language and the same way in the next group. So she/he meets [other students] and has to find new ways to explain [the materials] so that the listeners can understand (Interview CL4)
… one group and another will interact and share their opinion so that it can increase students‟ knowledge [communicative competence] (Interview CL2).
… She/he [our groupmate] can teach us and, at the end, we can improve our vocabularies … (Interview CL3)
Participants also identified that there are some factors of group work activities which
help them improve their communicative competence. They believed that their
interaction with their peers when working in group and the principles of positive
interdependence as well as the sense of sink or swim together in cooperative learning
groups made students care each other and willing to help each other to attain their
group goals. This is congruent with cognitive development perspective (see Section
2.2.4) which contends that interactions among students around appropriate tasks will
in themselves increase students‟ achievement for reasons which have to do with
mental processing of information rather than with motivations (Slavin, 1996, p. 48).
Therefore, when students are working with others from different background and
ability level through different roles cooperatively, they will be able to improve their
communicative competence, interpersonal and social skills, and academic
achievement as illustrated by participants‟ responses below:
I think when each student has his/her own strong competency. There are students whose strong competency is in writing, in speaking or listening, or she/he is good at management so she/he becomes [a group] leader more often. And when we use group work activities in classroom, [the role] has to change or take turns. For example, when student A becomes a group
190
leader, in the next meeting, student A must not again becomes a group leader, isn‟t it? She/he is not allowed to be a group leader again, so she/he tries new thing [role]. By trying new role, it makes her/him capable in [doing] new roles, not only one [role]. If for example, she/he always be a group leader, she/he will not know how to be a spokesperson, how to be a secretary. So the positive aspect [of using group work activities] in my opinion is students can get more experience (Interviews CL4)
And by doing it in groups, I mean studying in groups, students help each other. If one student in a group gets difficulty in understanding the materials, automatically, other students or his/her friends will help her/him. Therefore, it will make it easier for that student in the learning process Sir (ICL2)
… She/he [our groupmate] can teach us and, at the end, we can improve our vocabularies … (Interview CL3)
These participants‟ behaviour are also represent the social cohesion perspective of
cooperative learning (see Section 2.2.2) which holds that the effects of cooperative
learning on achievement are strongly mediated by the cohesiveness of the group, in
essence that students will help one another learn because they care about one another
and want one another to succeed (Slavin, 1996, p. 46). Slavin (1996) argues that the
underlying practices of the social cohesion perspective is an emphasis on
teambuilding activities. In the present study, group members are assigned a specific
role such as group leader, spokesperson, secretary, team monitor, and possibly
honorary member if there is fifth member (see section 4.7.2.2) to create
interdependence among group members as suggested by Slavin (1996). Participants
were also asked to name their group and create yel-yel for teambuilding activities
(see section 4.7.2.2). Moreover, as discussed above, when students have to change
their group members and meet new group mates who have different characteristics
and academic level with their previous group mates, they need to find a new way of
interaction and sharing their understanding so that their group mates understand. This
also improves participants‟ communicative competence for explaining the materials
or sharing his/her opinions to the group mates. Here are some selected materials
which portrayed participants‟ perceptions regarding their group work activities:
I think in the group first should be decided who is the leader or chief so that the group work can functions well and be able to manage [their] group to be cohesive and solid group (Interview CL1).
191
In summary, analysis of the participants‟ responses in questionnaire, learning diary,
and group interview revealed several themes related to the benefits of using
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom (see figure 5.13). Participants
identified that it built their confidence to speak English and share their opinions.
They also noticed that working in group learning activities provided a better chance
and opportunity to socialize with their friends and to know each other better. In
addition, participants also identified that it increased their sense of shared
responsibility. They feel more responsible not only for their own personal learning
but also to be responsible for the whole group. Increased motivation was also
expressed by some participants. Participants suggested that working in group of
mixed ability students motivated them to learn more, help each other, and increased
their competence. The last theme related to benefits of cooperative learning was that
cooperative learning improved student teachers‟ communicative competence. This
theme confirms the results from quantitative data analysis from both participants‟
paired-oral interview (see Section 5.2.2.1) and their self-assessed skills in the
questionnaires (see Section 5.2.1.2) which indicated that cooperative learning
significantly improved participants‟ communicative competence. These results from
qualitative and quantitative data are further discussed and integrated in chapter 6.
5.3.2.3 Themes related to drawbacks in implementing cooperative learning
In addition to those themes related to the implementation of cooperative learning in
Indonesia‟s EFL classroom and its benefits, emerging themes from the qualitative
data analysis have also been identified related to the drawbacks in implementing
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom. Although CL has been widely
accepted and recommended for language teaching and learning, it is by no means a
panacea that could solve all the educational problems. There are, like all other
teaching methods, limitations and drawbacks in the implementation of cooperative
learning. Therefore, the present study tried to investigate the limitations and
drawbacks in the implementation of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom from the
participants‟ point of view. Themes generated from the qualitative data including
level of noise, diffusion of responsibility, dysfunctional group, motivation,
confidence, and language use as presented below.
192
Figure 5.14: Drawbacks in Implementing Cooperative Learning
Some emerging themes, however, even though have been identified related to
benefits of using cooperative learning, were in fact also identified related to
drawbacks in implementing cooperative learning by participants. For example, when
participants suggested that working in group build their confidence because they
have the chance to practice speaking and sharing their opinions in their small groups,
however, working in small group with different or new friends can also decrease
their confidence to speak up. Similar cases also have been revealed in motivation.
While cooperative learning has been identified to have benefits in those themes, it
also has drawbacks as will be discussed in this section.
Theme 9: “Level of noise”
One of the most prominent drawbacks in the implementation of cooperative learning
identified by the participants through their questionnaires, learning diaries, and group
interview data is the level of noise in group work activities. Participants have
identified that using group work activities resulted in the noisy classroom. However,
there were different reasons of why the level of noise was a drawback in using group
work activities. Participants identified that the noisy classroom could be caused by
two things. First, the students become noisy because there are more active in their
learning and share their opinions to each other.
In my opinion, the first negative aspect [of using group work] is that students become noisy because they talk to each other and share their opinions (Interview CL1)
The class [becomes] noisy because the students [are] more active in the class so they [becomes] more talk-active (Questionnaire CL16)
[group work activities] makes the class noisy because the members have many arguments or advices (Questionnaire CL15)
Level of Noise
Drawbacks in Implementing CL
Dysfunctional group
Diffusion of Responsibility
Motivation
Confidence Language Use
193
On the other hand, the noisy classroom has also been identified due to the students
chatting with their friends about things not related to the task or teaching materials.
Most of us still make a noise and do not pay attention to our lecturer. If someone finds their best friend in the group they will speak too much and do not care to each other. Sometimes most of us have different opinions (Questionnaire CL1) The negative aspect of using group work activities in speaking is making the class noisy and not effective (Questionnaire CL7)
Usually in group work, [students] tend to chat among themselves, so in order for the group to work together in their team, we [the teachers] should be able to decide activities to be done together … (Interview CL3)
Participants in the present study revealed that, in addition to the benefits which
include building their confidence, increase their socialization with classmates,
promoting shared responsibility and motivation, and improving their communicative
competence, studying in groups also increased the level of noise they are producing.
Even though they also admitted that the noisy classroom as a sign of students‟
participation and learning, it can also be a signal of ineffective classroom
management. It is identified as drawback in using group work activities as the level
of noise can hinder students‟ learning as well as potentially disturb other classes. In
order to overcome this problem of noisy classroom, participants suggested that the
teacher should be able to manage the classroom and decide classroom activities to be
done by the students. Participants also suggested that the teacher should divide
specific task for each group members.
Theme 10: “Diffusion of responsibility”
In addition to the level of noise, participants also identified responsibility-sharing
amongst the drawbacks of using group work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom.
It is argued that if the teacher just put the students into groups to learn and did not
structure the positive interdependence and individual accountability, then it would
not be unusual to find groups where one person does most (or all) the work and the
others sign off as if they have learned it or have done the work. Or it might be easy to
have a “bossy” student who does not allow the others to take part (see section 2.4).
Social loafing occurs when group members fail to contribute to teamwork, benefit
from the effort of others, and acquire the same rewards as other members (Takeda &
Homberg, 2014, p. 374). These two drawbacks of ineffective group work, social
194
loafing and bossy student, have also been identified by participants in the present
study. Here are some comments extracted from the qualitative data which indicate
diffusion of responsibility problem:
In addition to being noisy because [students are learning] in groups, it is also because the weak management among group members. There are some students who are lazy [to do the task] but it is ignored by those who can do the task. And those who can do the task do not remind [those lazy students to participate]. [There is] no or little cooperation (Interview CL3)
… when students are in group, when one or more members have taken care of the task, other [members] usually rely on those who do the task (Interview CL2)
If students use group-work activities sometimes they are depend with other [students] (Questionnaire CL9)
In another section of the interview, participants 2 added his/her opinion:
Usually, if there is one smart student, other members due to their weak competence maybe are shy to share their opinion. Or also are not given chance by their friends [smart students]. But the smart students do the task in his/her own and do not need help from other [group members] (Interview CL2)
Another participant has also identified that, due to the problem in responsibility-
sharing among group members, there are members who become dependent on other
members, as one participants wrote in his/her questionnaire:
The negative aspects [of group work activities] is we become a dependent person (Questionnaire CL6)
It is clear that participants realized that in group work activities, they need to share
the responsibility among group members so that each group members contribute their
shared work to the success of the group. In addition, participants also revealed that
group work activities improved their sense of shared-responsibility as they indicated
that they are more responsible not only for themselves but also for the group (see
theme six in section 5.3.2.2). This finding from participants‟ experience in
participating in group work activities is important for teachers who want to use group
work activities in their classroom. The finding suggested that it is very important for
the teacher to divide a specific task and role to each group member as suggested by
the group and individual accountability principle in cooperative learning (see section
2.3.1.2). The finding is also in line with the findings from Pin Wei and Yu Tang‟s
195
(2015) investigation of the use of CL in China through theory analysis and
experiment which revealed some problems in using CL including diffusing the
responsibility, having vague objectives, and lacking time for learning individually.
Theme 11: “Dysfunctional group”
Participants identified dysfunctional group as a drawback in using group work
activities in Indonesia. Especially if the students are not familiar with group learning
and have not being trained to study in groups. Therefore, as suggested by many
researchers in cooperative learning, teachers need to train students the interpersonal
and social skills in order for them to be able to work in group effectively. In addition
to that, teachers have also to ensure that five basic principles of cooperative learning
are established properly. Here are participants‟ responses which depicted the problem
in group work activities:
Usually in group work, [students] tend to chat among themselves, so in order for the group to work together in their team, we [the teachers] should be able to decide activities to be done together (Interview CL3)
In addition, the teacher should also pay attention to all groups [because] not every group can manage themselves [well]. For example, like I said because they are [studying] in groups, there maybe group/s which enjoy with their own chats (Interview CL4)
If the students cannot do the teamwork, the group will not work well (Questionnaire CL23).
Time allocation for group work was also identified by the participants as one factor
that can cause problem in the implementation of group work activities. In addition to
group management of how students manage themselves in group work, time
management also becomes a problem in using group work activities. Teacher should
be careful in allocating time for group work activities. In group work where each
group works on their task in accordance to their effectiveness, sometimes there are
groups which finished task much quicker than other groups and they have more time
left. When the task or assignment given by the teacher has been done while there are
still time left, students tend to use it for chatting and worst, they usually chat in
Bahasa Indonesia instead of using English.
… moreover, if the task given has been done and there is time left, mostly [students] used it for curhat / chatting) (Interview CL1)
196
Therefore, it is very important for any teacher who wants to implement group work
activities in their classrooms to be aware of the potential of this problem of
dysfunctional groups. Teacher needs to train students the necessary skills for
working in groups as well as allocate time for group work activities carefully.
Theme 12: “Motivation”
Previous study on group work teaching conducted by Muamaroh (2013, p. 88)
suggested that although working in groups provided students with more opportunities
to practice speaking, it could also cause boredom if the group members stay together
for a long period of time. Students‟ interview data in the present study revealed
similar responses to the findings in Muamaroh‟s (2013) study that student teachers
feel bored of staying in the same group for longer period of time as one student
stated:
Maybe, sometimes there are students who feel bored staying with the same groups. Because [from my experience] in our class [Speaking 2], we only changed our group a few times. So, there must be some students feel bored. Because they have been talking to the same students every day and they have already known each other‟s competence, so they feel confuse what else to do with the same group members (Interview CL1)
Participants suggested that group members should be changed more frequently to
provide chances for them to get closer to all other students in the class. In addition
for socialization and knowing all their classmates better, changing group members
more frequently also argued to be important for them to practice English with
different students which keep them motivated.
And the group should not always stay together with the same members from the beginning till the end [of semester]. So [the group members] should be changed and it makes each student gets closer to all other students in the class. So [students] are not only close to certain students and it creates good socialization (Interview CL4)
If I become a teacher someday, I will also use group work activities but each week I will change the group (Interview CL6).
As discussed in Them 1 (see section 5.3.2.1), participants‟ perceptions on how long
groups should stay together to keep them motivated are somewhat in line with
Rhoades (2013) who suggested teachers to change groups at natural breaks such as at
the end of unit (Rhoades, 2013, p. 33). He believed that this will keep students
together for extended period of time and give them enough time to work together and
197
to know one another better. In addition, this will also provide chance for students to
change their groups so that they can meet and socialize with other classmates. This
finding, in relation to the present study which implemented cooperative learning,
suggested that any teacher or teacher educator who wants to implement cooperative
learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom should consider changing group compositions
several times during a semester to allow students to meet different classmates and
work and practice English with more students in their classes.
Theme 13: “Confidence”
As discussed in Theme 4 (see Section 5.3.2.2), participants revealed that working in
small groups build their confidence since it helped them to practice English among
their friends in small groups. This is in line with the finding from previous study
conducted by Muamaroh (2013). However, at the same time, students still feel not
confident in speaking English for their lack of vocabularies and afraid of making
mistake (see Section 5.3.1.3). Participants identified that because they are in group
with new friends, they are still afraid to speak as they are still shy and afraid of
making mistake. Here are some of participants‟ responses regarding their confidence
in group work activities:
In my opinion [if] we learn English with group work activities, the negative is we are afraid [of] making mistake (Questionnaire CL5).
For the silent students, they are shy to speak English so I think this is very difficult for them (Questionnaire CL11).
… And the second, like [students] in your class were not only from third semester but also from older semester, so maybe when divided into groups there are [students] from older semester who feel down at the beginning and shy to speak up and afraid if there is something wrong. But I think they should be confidence (Interview CL1)
This finding suggested that even though studying in groups builds participants‟
confidence (see theme 4 in section 5.3.2.2) because it gives them lots of practice in
using a language, allows them to speak to a partner or group mates first instead of
directly speaking in front of the whole class, and encourages them to help and
support each other in their learning. However, on the other hand, participants also
still feel afraid to speak and make mistakes even though in their own groups
especially for those silent students or when there are in new groups. Johnson et al.
(1998) argue that students might reluctant to talk and share their opinions with their
198
group mates for fear that other students might think little of their opinions or their
competence. Therefore, the teacher as suggested by the participants in Theme 2 (see
section 5.3.2.1) in addition to dividing group members, managing and monitoring
each group, and ensuring that all groups are working towards predetermined
objectives, should also be able to motivate the students to participate actively in the
group work and share their idea (see theme 2 in section 5.3.2.1)
Theme 14: “Language use”
In relation to the specific context of Indonesia where linguistically, it is a highly
diverse country with 722 languages used as a first language, of which 719 are
indigenous languages and Bahasa Indonesia as the national language which is taught
at schools in the entire nation (see section 2.6.1). Another drawback identified by
participants in the present study was related to the language used in group work
activities. Participants revealed that based on their experience, students tend to
switch to their national or local languages when working in groups as depicted in
their responses below:
If the lecturer monitors less, the student doesn't speak English well (Questionnaire CL2)
… we were obligated to use English however there are still some students who chat in Bahasa Indonesia even though they are discussing the materials but they are not using English and it decreased the point why we form group. So the lecturer or the teacher must be active in managing and reminding all students to refer to the initial objective of forming groups (Interview CL4)
… And if it is possible their ethnicity should also be mixed, if for example Javanese with Javanese [students] and Sundanese with Sundanese [students], at the end the Javanese will chat in Java as well as the Sundanese. So, what I can say, the main objective [of group work learning] won‟t be achieved. But if they are from different ethnics [background], so students can focus on one language, using English if possible … (Interview CL2)
Participants revealed that even though they were obliged to use English in their
group discussion, some students still use Bahasa Indonesia in doing group task or
discussing the teaching materials. In addition, related to their suggestion to divide
group members based on some criteria which include ethnical or linguistic
backgrounds (see section 5.3.2.1), participants also revealed that if they are in groups
with students from the same ethnical or linguistic backgrounds, they tend to use their
199
local languages in group discussion. Worse, a study on English language teaching in
Indonesia conducted by Marcellino (2008) through survey involving 258 students
and class observations of six classes at five Senior High Schools in Indonesia,
revealed that teachers frequently use Bahasa Indonesia to discuss the topics of the
English lessons with students (Marcellino 2008, p. 63). Combined with the dominant
teacher‟s talk in the classroom interaction, Suryati (2013) argued that these would
potentially hinder students‟ ability to use English in their classroom interaction.
Therefore, in addition to dividing heterogeneous groups, monitoring and ensuring the
groups to use English in their discussion, teacher also needs to provide example in
using English in explaining and discussing their teaching materials.
In summary, analysis from the qualitative data collected through questionnaire,
participants‟ learning diary, and group interview revealed that even though CL has
been widely accepted and recommended for language teaching and learning as
suggested by Liang (2002), there are several limitations and drawbacks in its
implementation.. In relation to Indonesia‟s EFL context, six main drawbacks in the
implementation of cooperative learning emerged from the data analyses which
include the level of noise, diffusion of responsibility, dysfunctional group,
motivation, confidence, and language use. These drawbacks will be discussed in
more details in section 6.4.
5.3.3 Participants’ Future Practice
One of the aims the present study wants to achieve is to explore if participating in
cooperative learning during the present study influenced student teachers‟ future
teaching practice. The data were collected through questionnaires and group
interview. Analysis of participants‟ responses in both pre- and post-treatment
questionnaires indicated that participants are less confidence that group work
activities are suitable in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom (see table 5.6 in section 5.2.1.1).
In the cooperative learning class, their responses to the statement “group work
activities are suitable for EFL classrooms in Indonesia” in the post-treatment
questionnaire seems to be less confident with 60% participants responded agree or
strongly agree compared to 72% responded agree or strongly agree in the pre-
treatment. Similar trend also appeared in the control treatment class. Compared to
their pre-treatment responses which indicated 44,5% participants are agree or
200
strongly agree to the statement, their post-treatment responses on agree or strongly
agree to the statement decrease to 41,5%. The quantitative data from the
questionnaire showed trend of decreasing confidence of the participants regarding
the suitability of group work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom. Surprisingly,
the CL class showed greater declined (12%) compared to the CT class which only
3% (see figure 5.15)
Figure 5.15: Group work activities are suitable for EFL classroom in Indonesia (%)
However, in regard to their likelihood to integrate group work activities into their
future teaching practice, different responses have been identified from the data (see
table 5.7 in section 5.2.1.1). After participating in the present study, participants in
the CL class are more likely to use group work activities in their future teaching
practices, in contrast, participants in the CT class are less likely compared to the
pretest data. While the pretest data showed that 64% participants in the CL and
66.6% participants in the CT class are likely to use group work activities in their
future teaching practice, a huge gap appeared between the CL and CT classes in the
posstest data. About 88% participants in the CL class would consider using group
work activities in their future teaching practices, in contrast, only about 41%
participants in the CT class consider to use group activities in their future teaching
practice. This result indicated that participants in the CL class are more likely to
integrate group work activities into their future teaching practices compared to
participants in the CT class (see figure 5.16).
72
60
44.5 41.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pretest Posttest
Cooperative Learning
Control Treatment
201
Figure 5.16: I would consider using group-work activities in my future teaching practice (%)
In addition to the quantitative data presented above, participants‟ comments on the
questionnaires and group interview revealed more data on their future teaching
practice. Analysis the data from group interview in the CL class revealed that all
participants consider implementing group work activities into their future teaching
practice. However, there were slightly different on how often they will use group
learning activities. Two participants specifically mentioned cooperative learning
methods (jigsaw and student team achievement division / STAD techniques). Two
participants, however, will use group work activities in combination with individual
learning. Those two students believed that individual learning is still needed for the
students to be more independent in their learning as well as to know each
individual‟s competence when in group and in individual learning.
In my opinion, yes I will use group work activities because I think group work is more effective compared to individual [learning] (Interview CL5)
For me, in my future teaching I will use group work activities, but more specific like cooperative learning type Jigsaw Sir … (Interview CL1)
I will also prefer to use group work Sir. More specifically like STAD technique. … It is true that in the learning process I will use group work activities, but in assessment I will use individual [assessment] (Interview CL2)
If I become a teacher someday, I will also use group work activities but each week I will change the group. Because referring to my own experience, I feel more motivated when learning in groups but if it‟s individual [learning], it‟s a bit more difficult for example when there is assignment, [in
64
88
66.6
41.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pretest Posttest
Cooperative Learning
Control Treatment
202
individual learning] none will ask [to do the assignment] therefore I prefer group work learning, I think it‟s more interesting … (Interview CL6)
In addition, two other students will combine both group work learning activities and
individual learning. In comparing between group work learning and individual
learning, they believed that group work is more effective than individual learning for
socialization or getting new friends, improving their confidence, and increasing their
competence. However, they also believed that individual learning tend to be more
effective in improving students‟ independence and courage in making decision.
I will teach by using sometimes group work activities, maybe first half using group, the second half using individual or in reverse [order] or mix. Because once in a while we need [to study in] groups for socialization and getting new friends, to improve [our] confidence or maybe with friends we can increase our vocabularies because our friends have other competencies. Individual [learning] is also needed to train our courage, our independence because we eventually will life alone in the future. To train, in the future, students to be able to make decision, to be brave to speak (Interview CL3)
I will be more or less similar to ICL 3. So there are times when we use group work activities and there are times for individual learning. So, we also need to know [student‟s] competence when she/he is alone and in group … And then when students are [learning] in groups there are some students who feel inferior, so there are times that she/he should be put in individual learning because if she/he always in group work activities, she/he will always depends on other students and should always be protected. So there are times that she/he for example doing individual presentation or doing individual task which makes her/him more independent (Interview CL4)
The quantitative data findings indicated that participants in both classes feel less
confident with the suitability of group work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom
(see figure 5.15) after participating in the present study. For their future teaching
practices, participants in the CT class revealed that they are also less likely to
integrate group work activities. In contrast, participants in the CL class indicated that
they are more likely to integrate group work activities into their future teaching
practice (see figure 5.16). These findings are supported by the findings from the
qualitative data analyses where participants in the CL class revealed that they will
use group work activities in their future teaching practices. Therefore, it can be
interpreted that compared to the control treatment, cooperative learning is more
effective to improve student teachers‟ likelihood to integrate group work activities
into their future teaching practice.
203
5.4 Conclusion
This chapter provided quantitative and qualitative data analyses to answer the
research questions in the present study. The results from paired-oral interview data
indicated that both CL and CT statistically significantly improved student teachers‟
communicative competence (see section 5.2.2.2 and section 5.2.2.3). These results
are in line with the results from student teachers‟ self-assessment data in the
questionnaires which also indicated that both CL and CT are effective in improving
student teachers‟ speaking skill (see section 5.3.1.3). These results implied that
cooperative learning, implemented in the present study, is effective in improving
student teachers‟ communicative competence. In addition, the results also implied
that the teaching method currently used by lecturers of “Speaking” subjects at STKIP
PGRI Bandar Lampung adopted as control treatment in the present study is also
effective to improve student teachers‟ communicative competence.
Further statistical analyses on student teachers‟ four components of communicative
competence indicated that cooperative learning statistically significantly improved
participants‟ linguistic competence (t = 3.490, p = .002), sociolinguistic competence
(t = 4.094, p = .000), discourse competence (t = 3.091, p = .005), and strategic
competence (t = 6.080, p = .000). Meanwhile, for the CT class, borderline statistical
significance was found in participants‟ linguistic competence (t = 1.988, p = .055),
barely statistically significant results in sociolinguistic competence (t = 2,029 p =
.050), no statistical significant was found in discourse competence (t = 1.255, p =
.218), and statistically significant improvement was found in strategic competence (t
= 2.183, p = .036).
As the main objective of the present study was to investigate if cooperative learning
is statistically significantly better in improving student teachers‟ communicative
competence and its four components compared to the control treatment, the
improvement scores between the two groups are compared. The results indicated that
cooperative learning is more effective in improving student teachers‟ communicative
competence with a borderline statistical significance (t = 1.861, p = .068). There was
trend identified in the data that participants in the CL class improved their scores
better than participants in the CT class (see figure 5.4. in section 5.2.1.2), therefore,
if the effects are true effect, it could be argued that covering more data and
204
conducting the study in longer period would results more significant difference.
Regarding the four components of communicative competence, the results indicated
that participants in the CL class outperformed their counterpart in the CT class with
borderline statistical significant difference in linguistic competence (t = 1.656, p =
.103) and discourse competence (t = 1.779, p = .080), and more statistically
significant difference in sociolinguistic competence (t = 2.106, p = .039) and
strategic competence (t = 2.967, p = .004) (see section 5.2.2.5).
The quantitative data analysis from the questionnaires also indicated that after
participating in the present study, participants in the CL class are more likely to
integrate group work activities into their future teaching practices compared to
participants in the CT class (see table 5.1 in section 5.2.1.1).
In addition to the quantitative data analyses, the qualitative data from questionnaires,
group interview, and participants‟ learning diaries were thematically analysed
through thematic analysis framework proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) (see
section 4.8.2.3). Themes and sub-themes emerged from the qualitative data analysis
are grouped into three categories related to issues on implementation which include
group implementation, group management, and assessment (see Section 5.3.2.1),
benefits of cooperative learning which include building confidence, improving
students‟ socialization and shared responsibility, promoting motivation and
improving communicative competence (see Section 5.3.2.2), and drawbacks in
implementing cooperative learning which include level of voice, diffusion of
responsibility, dysfunctional group, motivation, confidence, and language use (see
Section 5.3.2.3). The results from the qualitative data analysis revealed how student
teachers‟ perceive the implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL
classroom. It also revealed suggestions from the participants on how to effectively
implement cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom which will be further
discussed in section 6.6.
In the next chapter, critical integration of findings obtained from both the
quantitative and qualitative data analyses in relation to the research questions will be
provided. The outcomes from both the quantitative and qualitative data analyses will
be compared, combined and discussed. The findings will be critically evaluated with
reference to the theoretical underpinnings laid out in chapter two and three.
205
CHAPTER 6 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 Introduction
The main aims of the present study are to find out the effects (if any) of cooperative
learning on student teachers‟ communicative competence and how they perceive CL
will impact on their future teaching practice in Indonesia. In addition, the present
study is also aimed at exploring the student teachers‟ perceptions on the application
of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms. Therefore, the present study
was guided by two main research questions and three secondary research questions
to achieve its aims (see section 1.4). The two principle research questions are as
follows:
1. What are the effects (if any) of cooperative learning on Indonesian student
teachers‟ communicative competence?
2. How do student teachers perceive cooperative learning will impact on their future
teaching practice?
Connected to these broad questions are more specific questions such as:
a. What are the student teachers‟ perceptions of cooperative learning?
b. What problems (if any) do student teachers identify during their classroom
experience using cooperative learning?
c. What are the student teachers‟ suggestions to effectively implement cooperative
learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms?
This chapter attempts to answer the given research questions. It discusses the
significance and implications of the findings from both quantitative and qualitative
data analyses as well as consolidating them with regards to the aims of the present
study and theories in literature. Throughout the chapter, salient references will be
made to important findings in other studies in the literature of cooperative learning
and communicative competence and some final conclusions will be drawn.
This chapter provides an integrated discussion of the research findings derived from
quantitative and quantitative data analyses in chapter five. Quantitative data from the
paired oral interviews and questionnaires are triangulated with the qualitative data
generated from questionnaires, focus group interview, and student learning diaries.
206
Triangulation (see section 4.3.4) is intended to enhance validity and credibility and
also to provide a much richer data set for the study. Discussion on the effects of
cooperative learning on student teachers‟ communicative competence is presented in
section 6.2. Section 6.3 presents student teachers‟ perceptions of CL with relation to
their future teaching practice and their perceptions on the application of cooperative
learning in Indonesia‟s EFL context are discussed in section 6.4. Section 6.5 explores
benefits and drawbacks identified by student teachers during their classroom
experience using cooperative learning. In section 6.6, guideline to effectively adapt
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms is proposed.
6.2 Effects of Cooperative Learning on Communicative Competence
The first research question centred on the effects (if any) of cooperative learning on
student teachers‟ communicative competence. This first question tried to find out if
cooperative learning can improve participants‟ communicative competence
significantly higher than the control treatment. The null hypothesis is presented
below:
H0 : There are no statistically significant different communicative
competence improvement scores between participants in the
cooperative learning class and the control class.
To answer this question, paired-oral interviews (see section 4.5.1) were conducted to
assess participants‟ communicative competence. Paired-samples t-test statistical
procedure was then performed to see if cooperative learning significantly improved
participants‟ communicative competence after 14-weeks study. The results showed
that there is statistically significant communicative competence improvement with p
value less than .05 and effect size of 1.155 which is large effect size (see table 5.13
in section 5.2.2.2). Similar procedure was also employed for the control class to see
if the control treatment (see section 4.7.2.1) in the present study significantly
improved participants‟ communicative competence. The results showed that
statistically significant communicative competence difference has been indicated
with p value less than .05 (t = 4.394, p = .000) and effect size .730 (see table 5.14 in
section 5.2.2.3). These results suggest that both cooperative learning and the control
treatment given by the same teacher educator with identical teaching quality (see
207
section 4.7.2) for the same duration of the present study significantly improved
participants‟ communicative competence.
As the present study is aimed at comparing the effects of CL and CT on student
teachers‟ communicative competence, their improvement scores are then compared.
The data indicated that CL is better in improving the student teachers‟
communicative competence with 0.560 improvement points compared to 0.334
improvement points in the CT class. An independent samples t-test was then
performed to see if cooperative learning is significantly better compared to the
control treatment. The results showed borderline statistical significant different
communicative competence improvement scores with t value 1.861 and p value .068
(see table 5.15 in section 5.2.2.4). In addition, to ensure validity of the results
generated from parametric statistical analysis, a non-parametric statistical analysis
Mann-Whitney U Test was also performed. Similar result was also generated by
Mann-Whitney U Test which showed statistical significance of .069 (see table 5.16
in section 5.2.2.4). Interestingly, when the data were analysed using Analysis of
Covariate (ANCOVA) procedure with the pretest scores as the covariate, highly
significant result was obtained with p value of .007 (see table 5.17 in section 5.2.2.4).
This could indicate that covering larger data which meet ANCOVA assumptions and
providing longer period of teaching treatment could probably result in more
significant different improvement scores between both classes as also supported by
Muamaroh (2013) (see section 5.2.2.4).
In addition to the assessment conducted by the researcher through paired-oral
interviews (see section 4.5.1), participants also self-assessed their English skills
through questionnaires (see section 4.5.2). Their self-assessed data from the
questionnaires portrayed how confident student teachers of their own English skills
are. They were asked to rate their four English skills on a scale of 1 for very low to 5
very high. Data analysis of the questionnaires employing paired-samples t-test
showed that cooperative learning improved participants‟ scores significantly with t =
4.382 and p = .000 (see section 5.2.1.1). These results are in line with the results
from paired-oral interview tests which provide strong empirical evidence that
cooperative learning is effective in improving student teachers‟ communicative
competence.
208
The results from the quantitative data are further supported by the findings revealed
from the qualitative data. Analysis of the student teachers‟ questionnaires, learning
diaries, and group interview revealed that participants are confident that CL is
effective to improve their competence (see theme 8 in section 5.3.2.3). Furthermore,
participants also revealed that CL builds their confidence to speak English in
expressing and sharing and their opinions (see theme 4 in section 5.3.2.2). In
addition, participants also identified that studying through cooperative learning
motivate them to learn more and improve their competency (see theme 7 in section
5.3.2.2). These three benefits of cooperative learning (see section 5.3.2.2 for other
benefits identified by participants) might justify the effectiveness of cooperative
learning in improving student teachers‟ communicative competence as indicated by
the findings from the quantitative data analyses.
Further, the present study also measured if cooperative learning significantly better
in improving student teachers‟ four components of communicative competence
which include linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse
competence, and strategic competence (see section 3.5) compared to the CT. Four
paired-samples t-tests were performed to see if there was significant improvement
scores in the CL class and four independent samples t-tests were employed to see if
CL is significantly better compared to the CT. In order to make the t-tests acceptable,
a Bonferroni adjustment was applied to determine statistical significance of the t-
tests results (see section 4.8.1.2). Four paired-samples t-tests results indicated that
CL significantly improved participants‟ linguistic competence (t = 3.490, p = .002),
sociolinguistic competence (t = 4.094, p = .000), discourse competence (t = 3.091, p
= .005), and strategic competence (t = 6.080, p = .000) (see section 5.2.2.5). In
addition, in order to see if these improvement scores are significantly better
compared to the control treatment, four independent samples t-tests were then
performed. The results indicated significant statistical differences in participants‟
sociolinguistic competence (t = 2.106, p = .039) and strategic competence (t = 2.967,
p = .004). Meanwhile, no statistically significant differences were found in linguistic
competence (t = 1.656, p = .103) and discourse competence (t = 1.779, p = .080) (see
section 5.2.2.5). In conclusion, the study found that CL is more effective in
improving student teachers‟ four components of communicative competence
compared to the CT with statistically significant differences found in their
209
sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence. The summary of the statistical
results can be seen in table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1: Statistical Results Within Each Class and Between Classes
Competences Within CL class
over time (Paired-samples t-test)
Within CT class over time (Paired-
samples t-test)
Improvement Scores (independent samples t-test)
Communicative competence
t = 5.766, p = .000 t = 4.394, p = .000 t = 1.861, p = .068
Linguistic competence t = 3.490, p = .002 t = 1.988, p = .055 t = 1.656, p = .103
Sociolinguistic competence t = 4.094, p = .000 t = 2.029, p = .050 t = 2.106, p = .039
Discourse Competence t = 3.091, p = .005 t = 1.255, p = .218 t = 1.779, p = .080
Strategic Competence t = 6.080, p = .000 t = 2.183, p = .036 t = 2.967, p = .004
These mixed results found in the present study extended similar results from
previous studies examining the effects of cooperative learning conducted in
international as well as in Indonesian contexts (Al-Tamimi & Attamimi 2014; Lin,
2009; Muamaroh 2013; Ning & Hornby 2010: Sanjani 2015). Experimental study
conducted by Lin (2009), for example, assessing the effects of cooperative learning
on oral proficiency of Chinese students in tertiary level EFL classroom. Data analysis
using a mixed between-within ANOVA yielded similar result with the present study
where cooperative learning was found to be significantly improved participants oral
proficiency but not statistically better compared to the control treatment which also
improved participants‟ oral proficiency significantly. In addition to overall oral
proficiency, Lin‟s (2009) study also assessed four components of oral proficiency
including grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation, discourse management, and
interactive communication. CL was found to be significantly improved four aspects
of oral proficiency; however, it was not statistically better compared to CT which
also significantly improved participants‟ four aspects of oral proficiency.
Another experimental study conducted by Ning & Hornby (2010) assessing the
effectiveness of cooperative learning in teaching English to Chinese tertiary learners.
Their findings revealed significant differences in favour of CL in the areas of
listening, speaking, and reading but no differences were found in the areas of writing
and vocabulary. Al-Tamimi & Attamimi (2014) examining the effectiveness of
210
cooperative learning in enhancing speaking skill of undergraduate students at
Hadhramount University, Yemen found that CL significantly improved students‟
speaking skill. The study also revealed that CL was significantly better compared to
CT which did not improved students‟ speaking skill.
In the Indonesian context, recent study examining the effect of cooperative learning
in improving university students‟ spoken English conducted by Muamaroh (2013)
has also revealed mixed results where CL significantly improved students‟ speaking
duration but not their speaking quality. Non-parametric Wilcoxon matched pairs test
was also performed to see if there was any significant difference between students in
the experiment and control classes. However, the results indicated that the difference
between the results for experiment and control classes was not significant (p = .195).
Interestingly, when the study was conducted through action research with no control
class, Sanjani (2015), for example, revealed that cooperative learning significantly
improved students‟ speaking ability at junior secondary school in Indonesia.
In conclusion, from the quantitative data analysis, cooperative learning has been
found to be effective in improving student teachers‟ communicative competence and
its four components which include linguistic competence, sociolinguistic
competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. These results from the
quantitative data are further supported by the findings from the qualitative data
which revealed that participants perceived that CL is effective to improve their
competence (see theme 8 in section 5.3.2.3), build their confidence to speak English
in expressing and sharing their opinions (see theme 4 in section 5.3.2.2), and
motivate them to learn more and improve their competency (see theme 7 in section
5.3.2.2). Compared to the control treatment, CL has been identified to be more
effective in improving student teachers‟ communicative competence and its four
components. Independent samples t-tests comparing improvement scores between
CL and CT class indicated mixed findings with significant statistical differences
found in sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence, borderline statistical
significance in overall communicative competence and discourse competence, and
no statistically significant difference was found in linguistic competence (see table
6.1).
211
In terms of why the findings indicated mixed results, there were some possible
reasons. First, understanding the nature of the control treatment implemented in the
present study, whole-class teaching with some features of communicative language
teaching and use of group work activities (see section 4.7.2.1), which has also been
found significant in improving student teachers‟ communicative competence. It
could be argued that the absent of statistically significant different improvement
scores between CL and CT was due to the CT which was also statistically significant
in improving student teachers‟ competence as also been indicated in Lin‟s (2009)
study. It implies that the current teaching method implemented by English lecturers
at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung is effective in improving student teachers‟
communicative competence and its four components. Interestingly, CL was even
found to be better and more effective in improving student teachers‟ communicative
competence and its four components. Therefore, based on the results of the present
study, CL should be used by English lecturers at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung and
generally by all English lecturers and teachers in Indonesia in order to be better
improve students teachers‟ communicative competence.
Second, time limitation, as suggested by Muamaroh (2013), might have also
influenced seeing the results from the implementation of a teaching method, since it
may be difficult to show much improvement and change over a fourteen-week study.
It can be observed from the trend in student teachers‟ improvement scores (see figure
5.5 in section 5.2.1.2) that for CL to be statistically better in improving student
teachers‟ communicative competence compared to CT, it has to be sustained over
time. Therefore, providing longer treatment duration might result more significant
results. Third, limitations and drawbacks in the implementation of cooperative
learning in the present study as revealed from the analysis of qualitative data (see
themes 9-14 in section 5.3.2.3). Therefore, minimizing the drawbacks in
implementing CL could have resulted more significant student teachers‟
communicative competence improvement.
6.3 How Student Teachers Perceive Cooperative Learning with Relation to
Their Future Teaching Practice
The second main research question centred on how student teachers perceive
cooperative learning will impact on their future teaching practice. To answer this
212
question, data were collected through questionnaire, learning diary, and group
interview (see sections 4.5.2 – 4). Analysis of the questionnaire item on future use of
cooperative learning showed that more than 80% of participants in the CL class
would consider using group work activities in their future teaching practice (see table
5.7). Participants who responded agree and strongly agree increased in the CL class
from 64% in the pre-treatment questionnaire. This indicated that by participating in
cooperative learning treatment during fourteen weeks in the present study improved
student teachers‟ likelihood to integrate group work activities into their future
teaching practices.
Qualitative data analysis of student teachers‟ comments on questionnaires and group
interview revealed deeper understanding of their future teaching practice (see section
5.3.3). The results of qualitative data analysis which revealed that participants are
more likely to use group work activities into their future teaching practice supported
their quantitative data in the questionnaires. Data analysis from group interview in
the CL class revealed that all participants of the interview would consider using
group work activities in their future teaching practice. However, they were slightly
different on how often they said they would use group learning activities. Two
participants said they would use cooperative learning and specifically mentioned that
they will use Jigsaw and Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) techniques.
Another two participants said they would use group work activities and individual
learning interchangeably. These two participants believe that individual learning is
still needed for the students to be more independent in their learning as well as for
the teacher to recognise each student‟s competence when in group and in individual
learning situations. The other two participants, on the other hand, said they would
combine group work learning activities and individual learning. They believe that
group work is more effective than individual learning for socialization or getting new
friends, improving their confidence, and increasing their vocabulary mastery.
However, they also believe that individual learning tends to be more effective in
improving students‟ independence and courage in making decisions (see section
5.3.3).
These findings from the quantitative and qualitative data in the present study are in
line with findings from Veenman et al. (2002) who conducted an experimental study
on the implementation effects of a course on cooperative learning on teacher
213
education colleges in the Netherland. They found that the experimental group
improved their likelihood to use cooperative learning techniques in their future
lessons. Students participated in the CL class also indicated positive attitudes
towards learning in groups and they preferred learning in groups to learning
individually (Wachyunni 2015). Furthermore, Çelik et al. (2013) claim that teachers‟
attitudes toward the instructional method have a significant impact on whether or not
they choose to incorporate group activities in their instruction. The findings from the
quantitative and qualitative data in the present study provide empirical evidence that
student teachers‟ future teaching practices are influenced by their experience in
participating in group work activities using cooperative learning. Their perceptions
of cooperative learning as well as benefits and drawbacks they have identified in the
application of cooperative learning in the present study are discussed in more detail
in section 6.4 and section 6.5 respectively.
6.4 Student Teachers’ Perceptions of Cooperative Learning in Indonesia’s
EFL Classroom
The secondary research questions (see section 1.4) in the present study try to explore
student teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation of cooperative learning in their
EFL classroom. The findings provide insight into the student teachers‟ experience
and perceptions after participating in a fourteen weeks study using cooperative
learning. Themes have been identified related to three main issues including issues
on implementation of cooperative learning, themes related to benefits of cooperative
learning, and themes related to drawbacks of using cooperative learning in
Indonesia‟s EFL classroom (see section 5.3.2). In this section, themes related to
issues on the implementation of cooperative learning are discussed.
Three themes emerged from qualitative data analysis related to issues on how to
implement cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom which include group
implementation, group management, and assessment (see section 5.3.2.1). Regarding
group implementation, three sub-themes have been identified to be the concern of the
participants in the present study which include group formation, composition, and
duration (see theme 1 in section 5.3.2.1). Group formation focuses on who should be
responsible in forming groups and dividing members. Participants suggested that the
teacher should be responsible in forming groups and dividing group members.
214
Participants argued that the teacher knows more of the students‟ ability therefore
she/he will be able to divide them equally to each group. This is in line with Johnson
& Johnson (2010) who suggest that one of the teacher‟s roles in using cooperative
learning is to form heterogeneous groups. This is related to second sub-theme
revealed by participants which is group composition.
Composition of the groups has also been identified as important aspects by the
participants in implementing group work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom
(see theme 1 in section 5.3.2.1). Participants suggested that the composition of
groups should consider the students‟ competence, gender, and ethnical and language
backgrounds. Studies on composition of group work teaching have been conducted
by some researchers. A study conducted by Takeda & Homberg (2014), for example,
investigating effect of gender on group work process and achievement to 1001
students in British higher education. The results suggest that students in gender
balanced groups display enhanced collaboration in group work processes. The
enhanced collaboration could be associated with less social loafing behaviours and
more equitable contributions to the group work. The results also indicate
underperformance by all-male groups and reduced collaborative behaviours by solo
male in female‟s exception group. According to Thanh & Gillies (2010), in general
there are two main grouping methods of cooperative learning, namely
“heterogeneous” and “tracking” (Thanh & Gillies 2010, p. 12). Heterogeneous
grouping means students are mixed to make sure that each group has low-medium-
high ability members. Differently, tracking grouping means students are grouped
based on similar levels of capacity. Results obtained from the present study were in
line with what have been widely found in many other studies which strongly argue
that heterogeneous groups (high-medium-low) have been preferred and are more
beneficial to students (Johnson et al. 1984). It is also supported by Akdemir and
Arslan (2012) who contend that student should be selected based on various criteria
to make the distribution of the groups heterogeneous. Allowing students to select
peers in the group may lead to the construction of homogenous groups. However, the
findings of the present study did not concur with Thanh's (2011) studies in Vietnam
which found that students preferred friendship grouping that having close friends as
teammates enabled them to share responsibility and communicate in a comfortable
manner.
215
Another important aspect identified by the participants regarding the implementation
of cooperative learning in the present study was the duration of group membership in
the teaching and learning processes (see theme 1 in section 5.3.2.1). Participants
suggested that the group members should be changed more frequently. Participants
revealed that they feel bored if they have to stay with the same group members for
too long. They feel bored because they have already talked to each other and known
each other‟s competence so there is not much socialization topics left to be discussed
in groups. They also argue that by changing group members more frequently, it will
provide them with bigger opportunity to know their classmates more. Participants
suggested teachers or teacher educators to change the group members every three to
four meetings to keep students‟ motivation and for a better socialization with the
whole class members.
Reflecting on the implementation of cooperative learning in the present study where
three CL groups have been implemented including informal group, formal group, and
cooperative base group (see section 2.3.2), the reason for this result might be that the
teacher educator in the present study emphasized more on implementing cooperative
base group (see section 4.7.2.2). As cooperative learning was still new for the
participants, teacher educator focused on turning traditional group learning activities
into cooperative learning by ensuring the implementation of five basic principles of
cooperative learning and teambuilding activities. Therefore, even though formal and
informal cooperative learning groups have also been implemented, participants might
perceive that it was not well integrated.
The second theme to emerge from student teachers‟ perceptions on the
implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom is related to
how to ensure that the group works effectively. The participants indicated that
managing the group is very important in order for the group to work well and achieve
its objectives. This theme consists of three sub-themes which include student‟s roles,
teacher‟s roles, and teaching process (see theme 2 in section 5.3.2.1).
Participants in the present study identified that dividing a specific task or
responsibility in the group should be done for a group to work effectively and
function as expected. In other words, participants suggest that individual
accountability as well as group accountability (see section 2.3.1) as one principle in
216
cooperative learning should be established if successful group work is to be achieved
(see theme 2 in section 5.3.2.1). In the present study, specific roles such as group
leader, spokesperson, secretary, team monitor, and optionally honorary member (see
section 4.7.2.2) have been assigned to each group member. Further, participants
suggest that a member‟s roles in a group should be changed to provide the chance for
each group member to experience taking each assigned roles. In addition,
participants also see their own roles as students in group work activities as more
embedded to the group and responsible in keeping all the group members „on task‟ as
well as ensuring that all group members attend the class and finish their task. They
revealed that a member‟s role in group learning is not only academic in the learning
process but also social in motivating and reminding each other of the benefit of the
attainment of group goals.
The teacher, in addition to the student, must also ensure the successful
implementation of cooperative learning. Participants believe that the teacher after
dividing and forming the group should also be active in managing the group,
monitoring each group, and ensuring that all groups are working towards
predetermined objectives (see theme 2 in section 5.3.2.1). Participants noticed that in
group work activities, not all students have the competence and the sense of
responsibility to be fully trusted to manage their own groups. Therefore, participants
suggest that the teacher should pay more attention and help students to manage their
groups. Especially in Indonesia‟s EFL context where all students are speaking the
same national language (Bahasa Indonesia), so there is tendency that when the
students are discussing the teaching materials, they will switch to their own language
instead of practicing English in order to be able to finish the task quickly. Therefore,
the teacher must actively monitors and reminds the group of the main objective of
why they form and study in groups.
Furthermore, as discussed in section 5.3.2.1, the way to deliver the teaching materials
is important in the group learning activities. Participants suggest that the teacher is
responsible in deciding how she/he will deliver the materials and how the students
learn. Group presentation, debate, and game have been suggested to be a good way to
deliver the teaching materials through group work activities (see theme 2 in section
5.3.2.1). In doing presentation, participants argue that not only the spokesperson who
has always to speak in the name of whole group members, but each group member
217
must also be able to speak up to represent their groups‟ ideas or point of views.
Games which require all group members to pull their work together physically and
mentally was also suggested to be good way to deliver the teaching materials.
Further, participants believe that debate could also be implemented in the classroom
to allow groups to interact, share, and debate with other groups.
In addition, participants also identified attendance as important in ensuring the
maximum effectiveness of group work. Participants argue that absenteeism will
influence the students‟ work because if one member of the group is absent it will
affect the effectiveness of the group which then hinder the attainment of the group
goals. Group members‟ absenteeism will make other group members re-explain the
previous materials as well as disturb the group work as the specific task of the absent
student will not be finished on time to achieve group goals. And they believe that it
will be burden for other group members.
The last theme emerged related to the issue of implementation of cooperative
learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom was the assessment process (see section
5.3.2.1). How assessment of student‟s learning should be conducted when the teacher
is implementing group work activities was apparently a concern for the participants.
As argued by Frykedal and Chiriac (2011), there seems to be a tension between the
demand for individual assessment of students‟ knowledge and abilities and the
demand to teach students collaboration abilities through group work (Frykedal &
Chiriac 2011, p. 331). Participants in the present study revealed that even though
they are going to use group activities in their future teaching practice, their
approaches to assessing students‟ learning varied with some participants
acknowledging that they will use individual assessment.
The second and third issues identified from the student teachers‟ perceptions are
related to benefits and drawbacks of the implementation of cooperative learning in
Indonesia‟s EFL classroom which will discussed in section 6.5 below.
6.5 Benefits and Drawbacks in Implementing Cooperative Learning in
Indonesia’s EFL Classrooms
From the qualitative data analysis, several key benefits and drawbacks on the
implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom have been
218
identified (see section 5.3.2.2 and section 5.3.2.3). Five themes related to benefits of
cooperative learning and six themes related to drawbacks in implementing
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom are discussed in this section.
Participants revealed that cooperative learning is effective in building their
confidence to speak and share their opinions (see theme 4 in section 5.3.2.2).
Participants‟ confidence increased because they do not feel shy to speak and share
their opinions. The chance to practice in small group before speaking to the whole
class built their confidence. Participants also revealed that their confidence to speak
improved because they have friends or group mates who can support them when
there is something wrong. Participants‟ responses in the present study are in line with
the study conducted by Sanjani (2015) investigating the use of Think-Pair-Share
(TPS) technique of CL in improving students‟ speaking ability at junior secondary
school in Indonesia. The study revealed that CL increases students‟ confidence to
speak English and actively participant during the teaching and learning processes. It
is also supported by the findings from Pin Wei and Yu Tang‟s (2015) investigation
of the use of CL in China through theory analysis and experiment which revealed
that CL fostering student‟s confidence (see Section 2.5.1).
As discussed in chapter five, for some other participants, the benefit of working in
group is more on the social aspect (see theme 5 in section 5.3.2.2). Participants
noticed that working in group provides chance for students to know each other better.
Participants have also recognized that as they work together for certain period of
time in a group and then chance their group members, they feel more comfortable to
talk to each other and share their opinions.
Furthermore, participants also identified that one of the benefits of studying through
group work activities is that they learn to be responsible not only to themselves but
also to the group (see theme 6 in section 5.3.2.2). In cooperative learning where
individual accountability is ensured, each group member has to put their shared work
to the success of the group. In addition, positive interdependence principle creates a
situation where students feel that they sink or swim together. There will be no way
that the group is successful unless all group members contribute their shared work.
Therefore, as they suggested from their response they are more responsible not only
for themselves but also for the group and they are motivated to help each other to
219
attain their specific assigned task. Participants also suggested that because they are
working with peers from different level of competence, they feel more motivated to
improve their own competence (see theme 7 in section 5.3.2.2).
The last theme related to benefits of implementing cooperative learning in
Indonesia‟s EFL classroom as discussed in chapter five is competence (see theme 8
in section 5.3.2.2). Participants believe that by working in group with specific roles
which they have to change the roles expand their competence related to those roles in
group work activities. Studying with their peers improved student teachers‟
vocabulary as well as strategic competence. This is because when they worked in
groups with different students from different competence, they learned from each
other and they also learned strategies on how to explain their ideas so others will
understand. These results support the findings from quantitative data analysis which
indicated that participants improved their strategic competence significantly (see
section 5.2.2.5).
The findings on the benefits of cooperative learning in the present study are further
support the findings from previous study of CL conducted by Shachar & Sharan
(1995) in the EFL setting of a heterogeneous Israeli classroom having a broad variety
of ethnic and cultural multiplicities among students. They found that CL methods
applied by teachers have positive effects on improving peer interaction in small
groups and increasing students‟ motivation to learn and to show more flexibility and
multiplicity in the subject matter and to increase the speed of learning and teaching.
Students reported that they had more fun and enjoyed learning by this method. They
found that they developed other skills such as working in a team. They improved
their relationships, had good attitudes about studying English, and gained more self-
confidence. They enjoyed learning from peers and discussing ideas. They found that
working in a team helped them remember the lesson and their attendance and self-
discipline increased (Sarobol 2012).
Despite the benefits, participants of the present study have also identified a number
of drawbacks in implementing cooperative learning. Six themes have been
constructed regarding the drawbacks of using group work activities in Indonesia‟s
EFL classroom including level of voice, shared responsibility, group management,
motivation, confidence, and language use. In relation to face-to-face promotive
220
interaction principle of cooperative learning, participants did not find the principle to
be conflicting with the concept of group harmony and tolerance as found in the
literature study conducted by Prastyo et al. (2014).
Cooperative learning activities are generally unlikely to be very quiet activities as
students are engaging socially and intellectually through the exchange of ideas as
also has been identified by participants in the present study. The level of noise
therefore has been noticed as the main drawback in using group work activities (see
theme 9 in section 5.3.2.3). Participants also suggested that the level of noise could
be positive as a sign that participants are actively sharing their ideas and opinions; it
could also be negative as participants are actually discussing things not related to the
task or assignment.
In addition to the level of noise, participants also identified sharing responsibility
amongst the drawbacks of using group work activities in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom
(see theme 10 in section 5.3.2.3). It is important to ensure that positive
interdependence and individual accountability should be established. Teacher also
needs to ensure that interpersonal and social skills are taught to students along with
the curriculum materials. It is argued that if the teacher just put the students into
groups to learn and did not structure the positive interdependence and individual
accountability, then it would not be unusual to find groups where one person does
most (or all) the works and the others sign off as if they have learned it or have done
the work. Or it might be easy to have a “bossy” student who does not allow the
others to take part (see section 2.4). Social loafing is a reduction in effort due to not
being noticed or lack of identification in a group task (Davies 2009, p. 567). It occurs
when group members fail to contribute to teamwork, benefit from the effort of
others, and acquire the same rewards as other members (Takeda & Homberg 2014 p.
374).
This problem of shared responsibility triggered a group management problem,
especially if the students are not familiar with group learning and have not been
trained to study in groups. Therefore, teachers need to train students in the
interpersonal and social skills in order for them to be able to work in group
effectively and ensure that the five basic principles of cooperative learning are
properly established. Time allocation for group work was also identified by the
221
participants as one factor that can cause drawback in the implementation of group
work activities. In addition to group management of how students manage
themselves in group work, time management also becomes a drawback in using
group work activities. Teacher should be careful in allocating time for group work
activities because group works on the task on their own pace and effectiveness.
Sometimes there are groups which finished task much quicker than other groups and
they have more time left. When the task or assignment given by the teacher has been
done while there is still time left, students tend to use it for chatting and they usually
chat in Bahasa Indonesia instead of using English (see theme 14 in section 5.3.2.3).
One way of solving the drawbacks related to students‟ shared responsibility, group
and time management is to carefully consider the nature of the task given to students
and to reward the effort of groups as well as reward the work of individuals. Tasks
need to be designed to maximise students‟ contribution and to recognise and notice
their efforts (Davies 2009, p. 567).
In addition, participants have also identified students‟ confidence and motivation as
problematic in the implementation of group work activities. On the one hand, they
revealed that participating in group work activities build their confidence to speak
and share their opinions (see theme 4 in section 5.3.2.2) as well as improve their
motivation to learn more and help each other (see theme 7 in section 5.3.2.2).
However, on the other hand, if the teacher does not change the group members and
students have to stay with the same group for the whole semester, it makes them feel
bored and less motivated. Moreover, even though participating in group work
activities promoted student teachers‟ confidence, however, at the same time, students
felt not confidence in speaking English for their lack of vocabularies and afraid of
making mistake especially when they have to work with new friends.
These findings on student teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation of
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom are important for any teachers or
teacher educators who want to integrate cooperative learning into their teaching
practices. Teachers and teacher educators should take into consideration issues on
how to implement cooperative learning in their classrooms as well as on how to
maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks in implementing cooperative
learning. Therefore, an alternative guideline on how to implement cooperative
learning effectively in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms is provided in the next section.
222
6.6 How to Implement Cooperative Learning in Indonesia’s EFL Classrooms
Considering the results and findings from the present study (see sections 6.2-5), this
section proposes way to successfully implement cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s
EFL classrooms. First, the teacher has to prepare as much as possible by studying the
theory and practice of CL. In implementing cooperative learning as discussed in
section 2.3, five basic principles which include positive interdependence, group and
individual accountability, promotive interaction, interpersonal and social skills, and
group processing (see section 2.3.1) are essential and need to be included in order for
a lesson to be cooperative. Muamaroh (2013) argues that each method which is
implemented in the class will be formed by the teacher, the students, the conditions
of instruction, and the broader socio-cultural context (Muamaroh 2013, p. 25).
Therefore, in addition to those five basic principles of cooperative learning,
educational and cultural contexts as well as the nature of curriculum, teaching
materials, and characteristics of students and teachers in Indonesia (see section 2.6)
also need to be considered for successful implementation of cooperative learning in
Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms. In addition, student teachers‟ perceptions and
suggestions on the implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL
classrooms are also taken into consideration as summarized below.
Analysis of the qualitative data revealed some recommendations suggested by
participants for successful adaptation and implementation of cooperative learning in
Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms (see section 5.3.2.1). Their recommendations are
categorised into three main issues including group implementation, group
management, and assessment.
Regarding the group implementation, participants recommended the teacher and
teacher educator should first consider how to form groups in the classroom, what the
most effective member compositions for effective learning are and how long groups
should stay together for an effective working atmosphere which motivates students to
work in groups. Participants suggested that the teacher or teacher educator should be
responsible for forming groups and deciding the members of each group (see theme 1
in section 5.3.2.1). Participants also believe that groups should consist of members
from different academic level, gender, and ethnical and linguistic backgrounds. For
the teacher and teacher educator to form groups and divide group members,
223
participants suggested that group member should be divided equally based on
student‟s competence, gender, and ethnical and linguistic backgrounds (see theme 1
in section 5.3.2.1). Furthermore, participants also suggested that group members
should be changed not too often and not too rare for example every three to four
meetings (see theme 1 in section 5.3.2.1). This is to keep students motivated to work
together in groups as well as to provide them enough time to socialize, to know each
member as well as to understand each other‟s competence and characteristics.
The next issue participants considered to be important is how to ensure that the group
work works effectively (see theme 2 in section 5.3.2.1). Regarding this issue,
participants identified three aspects which include students, teachers, and teaching
and learning processes for group to function effectively. Participants identified that
in group work, it is not uncommon that if there is one student has taken care of the
task, other students are relying on her/him. Participants also argued that this problem
of what so called “free rider” (Liang 2002, p. 31) or “social loafing” (Kyndt et al.
2013, p. 134) can also be caused by those “smart or high ability” students (see theme
2 in section 5.3.2.1) who dominate the group and do not allow other students to
contribute. Furthermore, participants also revealed that students‟ role in group
learning include not only academically in the learning process but also socially in
motivating and helping each other for the benefit of group goals attainment.
Participants identified that dividing specific task or responsibility in group should be
done for a group to work effectively and function as expected. In addition,
participants suggested that teacher or teacher educator needs to be active in
managing, monitoring, and guiding the groups to work effectively. Another issue is
concerned with the class management of handling the students with respect to turn
taking and class participation. Participants suggested group presentation, games, or
debate might be effective way in delivering the teaching materials and at the same
time ensuring that all group members are working together as a team (see theme 2 in
section 5.3.2.1).
Regarding the assessment, participants preferred individual evaluation because they
are not comfortable with group evaluation. Participants feel that in group evaluation,
individual competence will not be visible because the scores they got will be derived
from the group. Therefore, they suggested teacher or teacher educator in using group
224
work activities to assess students‟ performance individually (see theme 3 in section
5.3.2.1).
Based on the findings of the data analyses and the suggestions proposed by
participants in the present study as well as considering the educational and cultural
contexts in Indonesia, the researcher then proposes an alternative way to implement
CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom effectively. It is not the researcher‟s intent to
provide an overview of all possible implementation, but to present an example of a
solution which illustrates how to effectively implement CL in Indonesia‟s EFL
classroom. In this section, why the proposed solutions are consistent with principles
of CL, cultural values, and educational context in Indonesia and why they are
thought to lead to better group work are discussed.
In general, five key steps are proposed in order to design and implement cooperative
learning properly including pre-instructional planning, introducing the activity to
students, monitor and intervene, assessment, and reflective processing.
1). Pre-instructional planning
Pre-instructional planning helps to establish the specific cooperative learning type
(see section 2.3.2) and technique (see section 2.3.3) to be used and lays the
foundation for effective group work. In pre-instructional planning, teacher needs to
decide how to establish five basic principles of cooperative learning. In addition, pre-
instructional planning also includes areas of setting academic and social objectives,
choosing group size and composition, deciding how long the group will work
together, determining roles for group members, structuring how the members will
interact with each other, and choosing reporting out technique.
First of all, teacher who wants to implement cooperative learning needs to decide
how to establish five basic principles which include positive interdependence, group
and individual accountability, promotive interaction, interpersonal and social skills,
and group processing (see section 2.3.1) in accordance to Indonesian cultural and
educational context (see section 2.6) as well as suggestions from student teachers
revealed in the present study (see section 5.3.2).
Teacher can structure positive interdependence through outcome, means, and
boundary interdependence (see section 2.3.1.1). Outcome interdependence can be
225
established by designing a common group goal (e.g. creating video presentation,
designing poster). Means interdependence can be structured by assigning specific
resource, role or task to each group member and boundary interdependence can be
structured by creating group identity (e.g name, uniform).
For group and individual accountability, teacher can structure it by forming small
group size (generally three to five members), assigning specific role for each member
(see section 4.7.2.2), monitoring and documenting contribution of each member (see
section 2.3.1.2). In forming groups, teacher should consider the type of tasks and the
time and resources available. The shorter the time available, the smaller the group
should be, as there is less setting up time. Teacher should also consider the nature of
tasks or the resources available, for example, if the class consists of forty students,
and there are ten specific subjects to be discussed, teacher may decide to group
students in fours, and allocate a subject to each group. For group compositions in
Indonesian educational and cultural contexts with diverse ability level and ethnical
and linguistic backgrounds as suggested by participants, group should be
heterogeneous (see theme 1 in section 5.3.2.1). In a group of four, for example, four
students from completely different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds and consist of
students from high, medium, and low ability would be ideal. After deciding group
size and composition, teacher needs also to decide how long the group will work
together. According to the suggestions proposed by participants in the present study,
changing the composition of groups every three or four meetings would give enough
time for each student to know and understand each other as well as to have chance to
work with large number of classmates during the semester (see theme 1 in section
5.3.2.1). In addition, teacher also needs to determine roles for group members. Each
group member should be assigned a duty to perform during the task, for example as a
group leader, secretary, spokesperson, team monitor, and possibly honorary member
(see section 4.7.2.2). The teacher may have to explain and demonstrate or practice
these roles previously to and during the projects. Students need to know what the
roles actually look and feel like in order to play each role well, and redirect their
teammates when necessary in order to ensure productive performance.
In order to establish promotive interaction, teacher should ensure that students sit in
close proximity to their group members so each group member can hear what is
being discussed, see each other‟s faces, and participate in the group‟s discussion (see
226
section 2.3.1.3). Furthermore, for successful implementation of cooperative learning,
teacher needs to develop academic goals for students and prepare materials for each
lesson. Avoid activities that do not really encourage (or require) students to actively
cooperate in group. In addition, teacher also needs to develop interpersonal and
social skills for students such as trust-building, leadership, decision-making,
communication and conflict management (see section 2.3.1.4) which need to be
explicitly negotiated (older students) or taught (younger children) by creating
classroom rules (see section 4.7.2.2). Finally, teacher also needs to provide class time
required for group processing and teach students how to analyse their group works
effectively (see section 2.3.1.5).
2). Introduce the activity to the students
The second step in implementing cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL
classrooms is introducing the activity to the students. This step is where the teacher
describes the academic task of the activity. This includes describing the objectives of
the task, listing necessary concepts and principles students need to understand, and
describing the procedures they need to follow. Teacher needs to explain the criteria
for judging whether the students are successful in the task. Here, teacher needs to
emphasize the structure and cooperative aspects of students‟ work with special
attention to the components of positive interdependence and individual
accountability. Make sure students understand that they are not only responsible for
their own learning, but for each member‟s learning. Ensure that each individual feels
responsible for learning the material. Consider doing frequent, random oral quizzes
or having a group member assigned to check in with everyone to make sure they
understand.
Describe the behaviours teacher expects to see. Explain what will include, for
example, contributing to the team effort, listening to teammates, helping other team
members, and asking the teacher for help only if it is a question of everyone in the
group. Set up time limits for the activity. This provides a guide for the expected work
pace. For groups finishing early, have an extension exercise ready to keep them
engaged in the activity. Allow for clarifying questions. In order to avoid the potential
for multiple groups simultaneously having start-up questions that demand your
attention, allow for a few minutes for students to process the task at hand and clear
227
up remaining uncertainties. Teacher should also be ready with a way to eliminate
complaints from high achievers and group of students who may not happy with the
composition of their group. Arrange students into teams so that each member is
included. Develop a positive classroom environment and cooperative climate by
encouraging polite and respectful behaviour toward others. Reward students for such
social skills as helping others, giving and accepting praise, compromising, and
listening attentively.
Present and explain clearly the assignment or project that will probably take several
class periods to complete. Emphasize that positive interaction and cooperation will
result in a group reward, and that meeting a set standard of performance beyond
expectations will result in bonus points. Perhaps these points can be awarded
frequently during the activity to motivate further cooperation.
3). Monitor and Intervene
This step is where teacher lets the groups run while teacher circulate through the
room to collect observation data, see whether students understand the assignment,
give immediate feedback and praise for working together. As participants suggested
that after dividing group, teacher needs to monitor and guide students to work
together effectively (see theme 2 in section 5.3.2.1). If a group is having problems,
teacher can intervene to help them get on the right tract but avoid the temptation to
lead the groups. Teacher‟s role has changed from transmitter of knowledge to
mediator of thinking. Praising and encouraging the less academically skilled team
members is still indicated however. Move among the groups to assure that they are
actively engaged in their roles and following designated procedures (unless free-form
creativity is desired). Do not answer student‟s questions unless the group members
are unable to resolve the issue by themselves. Intervene as necessary to promote
positive interdependence among group members. Frequently reinforce positive group
interaction. Check individual accountability by moving from group to group and
randomly asking one group member to explain a part of the assignment already
covered. When student realize that all group members must be able to explain the
material and that the teacher is checking to see that they do, they are less likely to try
to “free riding”.
228
4). Assessment
The teacher can do informal assessment while monitoring the groups during the
exercise. However, once group finishes their project, work should be assessed by
both teacher and group. Evaluation can be conducted by teacher, student (self-
assessment), and peers. Evaluation by the teacher provides students with feedback on
the understanding of contents, concepts, and applications. It is the most traditional of
all formats and typically is the primary basis for evaluation. Students can develop a
better understanding of their learning process, a metacognitive perspective which
enhances future learning, through active reflection on their achievement (self-
assessment). Such assessments also build writing and speaking skills as students
demonstrate their knowledge of the subject, problem solving skills and contributions
to group processing. Allowing peer assessment provides important feedback on the
relieve merits of contributions and promotes cooperation as students realize their
accountability to the group. However, teacher needs to be cautious as the peer review
process is complex and relies on well-defined criteria and evidence-building that is
clearly understood by all participants.
The teacher may assign grades based upon the average performance of the group
(thus promoting positive interdependence) or the effort or quality of performance of
individual members in the execution of their duties. The teacher should evaluate each
group‟s work on its own merit rather than in comparison with the outcomes of other
groups. If inter-group competition is involved, perhaps the winning and most
improved teams will receive prize. The teacher may also give recognition to groups
that were the quietest, quickest, neatest, and most creative. In the present study,
participants revealed that they prefer individual evaluation because they are not
comfortable with group evaluation. Participants argued that in group evaluation,
individual competence will not be visible because the scores they got will be derived
from the group (section 5.3.2.1).
5). Group Processing
Group processing involves asking the groups to rate their own performance and set
goals for themselves to improve their cooperative work. The teacher sets up group
processing for students in a number of ways. First, the teacher chooses the skills she /
he wants the groups to focus on as a part of setting the objective for the activity.
229
Second, the teacher explains to the students what actions are expected of them
throughout the activity. Then the teacher monitors the different groups during the
activity, observing student actions and intervening if necessary to improve a group‟s
learning. This all forms the foundation from which students and groups conduct their
own parts of group processing. Each student in the groups then gives and receives
feedbacks on their contribution to the group. It is very important that the feedback is
positive in order to generate forward momentum towards improving performance.
Students are also then analyse and reflect on the feedback they received. After that,
individual student and groups set goals for improving their work. Students can pick a
particular social skill to use more effectively. Groups can decide on a collaborative
skill to work on next time. In short, students respond to specific questions such as
“what worked?”, “what did not work?” and “what can be changed to improve the
group functioning process?” (see section 4.7.2.2). Finally, groups celebrate the hard
work and contributions of the members as well as the success of the group.
Celebrations provide students with encouragement to continue improving their group
work.
6.7 Conclusion
The findings from quantitative data in the present study indicated that CL is effective
in improving student teachers‟ communicative competence with p value less than .05
(t = 4.394, p = .000) and its four components including linguistic competence (t =
3.490, p = .002), sociolinguistic competence (t = 4.094, p = .000), discourse
competence (t = 3.091, p = .005), and strategic competence (t = 6.080, p = .000) (see
section 6.1). The findings is also supported by the data from participants‟ self-
assessed speaking skills which indicate significant speaking skill improvement with t
= 4.382 and p = .000 (see section 6.1). The results also indicated that CL improved
participants‟ likelihood to integrate group work activities into their future teaching
practices (see section 6.3). In addition, the findings from qualitative data revealed
that participants perceived that CL improved their motivation, self-confidence, and
competence, and create a sense of socialization and shared responsibility. These
results imply that implementing CL in EFL student teachers‟ classroom would
improve their communicative competence and develop their likelihood to integrate
group work activities into their future teaching practice. However, participants also
230
revealed some drawbacks in the implementation of CL in their EFL classroom
including level of noise, diffusion of responsibility, dysfunctionality of the group,
decreased motivation and confidence, and problems in language use.
The findings are very important for those who are interested in improving the quality
of English education and English teachers in Indonesia. Institutions that conduct
English teacher education as well as the teacher educators can use the findings in
redirecting and focusing on the target competence. School teachers and teacher
educators can adapt the assessment task and instrument to assess students and student
teachers‟ communicative competence for their own situations and contexts. The
findings could explain potential drawbacks as well as suggest effective ways of
implementing CL in the Indonesian EFL context. The implication is that English
teachers and teacher educators could use CL in their own contexts to improve
learners‟ communicative competence.
231
CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Introduction
The previous chapter presented a comprehensive description and discussion of
findings from the present study. At this point, all data have been presented, analysed,
and discussed to address the research questions in the present study. In this chapter,
first a summary of results and findings reported in the previous chapters in relation to
the research questions are presented. Then the chapter highlights the significance of
the study, presents the strengths of the present study as well as its limitations and
suggestions for future research.
7.2 The Study Overview
The present study investigated the effects (if any) of cooperative learning on student
teachers‟ communicative competence and how they perceive cooperative learning
will impact on their future teaching practice. It also explored participants‟
perceptions on the implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL
classroom and provided practical suggestions for effective implementation of
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms.
A mixed-methods approach incorporating classroom-based quasi-experimental
research design was adopted (see section 4.3.1). The design was adopted due to the
nature of research questions which require mixed-methods quantitative and
qualitative approaches and the study which was conducted in real classroom
conditions where random sampling was not possible due to the inflexibility of the
classroom division of the participants. The participants of the present study were 61
second-year student teachers at English Education Study Programme, STKIP PGRI
Bandar Lampung, Indonesia. The data were collected through paired-oral interview,
questionnaire, group interview, and students‟ learning diaries (see section 4.5). The
data analysis was divided into quantitative data analyses which include descriptive
and inferential analyses, and qualitative data analysis through thematic analysis.
The findings of the present study showed that CL improved student teachers‟
communicative competence and its four components significantly. Compared to the
control treatment which was also found to have significantly improved student
232
teachers‟ CC, cooperative learning was found to be more effective with borderline
statistical significance (see section 6.2). Data analysis of student teachers‟ self-
assessed speaking skill in the questionnaires also indicated that cooperative learning
improved participants‟ speaking skill significantly and corroborated that cooperative
learning is more effective compared to the control treatment (see section 6.2).
Furthermore, cooperative learning was also observed to significantly improve student
teachers‟ likelihood to implement group work activities in their future teaching
practices. In addition, the findings from the qualitative data on student teachers‟
perceptions on the implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL
classroom revealed fourteen themes which were grouped into three categories related
to issues of implementation, benefits of cooperative learning, and drawbacks of using
cooperative learning (see section 5.3.2).
By examining the findings from the present study and exploring the education and
cultural contexts in Indonesia, a guideline for effective implementation of CL in
Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms is proposed (see section 6.6). Based on the findings, it
is recommended that teacher educators in Indonesian teacher education institutions
should consider implementing CL in order to improve student teachers‟ oral
communicative competence as well as motivate them to integrate this teaching
method into their future teaching practice. The findings offer further support for
Nguyen‟s (2010, p. 40) proposal that if we are to effectively provide EFL student
teachers with a model of active student-centred teaching, we must consider
integrating cooperative learning as our main teaching method.
7.3 Significance of the Study
The present study provides empirical evidence and improves our understanding of
the effects of cooperative learning on student teachers‟ communicative competence
and their perceptions on the implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s
EFL classroom. In addition, the findings related to student teachers‟ perceptions on
the implementation of CL in the present study contribute significantly for designing
guidelines for student teachers, teachers, and teacher educators for effective
implementation of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms.
233
As discussed in section 1.2, student teachers need to be equipped with the skills and
competences to communicate and teach their students effectively in Indonesia‟s EFL
context where students with mixed ability levels are in big classes. The present study
improves student teachers‟ understanding of CL and its practice which may shape
their beliefs and benefits their future teaching practice. Furthermore, the present
study highlights the importance of ensuring that student teachers are trained in the
skills needed to implement CL in their future teaching practice. These include
ensuring that CL experiences are well structured, tasks are complex and challenging,
and that students are taught the social and interpersonal skills required to manage
conflict as well as to monitor and review the group‟s progress. Student teachers and
teacher educators need to be aware that CL differs from other group instruction
methods based on five principles including positive interdependence, group and
individual accountability, promotive interaction, interpersonal and social skills, and
group processing and CL will no longer be true CL without those elements.
Therefore, steps need to be taken to ensure those five principles in order to
implement CL appropriately. Based on the findings of the present study where
cooperative learning was indicated to be more effective than the control treatment
(see section 5.2.2), it is suggested that CL should be considered for a daily
instructional method used in all teacher training and education programmes in
Indonesia.
In addition, as discussed in section 3.2, even though the framework of
communicative competence has been studied widely for about 50 years, as suggested
by Tsai (2013), there is still debate among theoreticians on the appropriate
framework of communicative competence. After examining available theoretical
frameworks of communicative competence, its assessment procedures, and empirical
studies as well as considering the characteristics of CC outlined by Savignon (2002),
the proposed theoretical framework of communicative competence with four
components including linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse
competence, and strategic competence (see section 3.5), the testing procedure, and
the scoring rubric in the present study will be a significant contribution for
researchers, teachers, teacher educators, and teacher education institutions.
Researchers will be able to use the proposed framework as the theoretical foundation
in conducting studies on communicative competence in Indonesian context and
234
elsewhere. Teachers and teacher educators will be able to use the proposed
framework as a guideline in designing teaching materials as well as to apply the
testing procedure (see section 3.6) and the scoring rubric (see appendix 6) in their
daily practices. For teacher educators and teacher education institutions, in order to
ensure that the expectations of student teachers, teacher educators, and institutional
agenda are compatible, student teachers‟ initial communicative competence needs to
be assessed and the paired-oral interview guided by scoring rubric as designed in the
present study could be an effective way to assess student teachers‟ communicative
competence. The findings are significant for EFL teacher educators and teacher
education institutions particularly to redesign the contents and teaching instructions
of English teacher education programmes to best prepare more qualified English
student teachers in terms of their communicative competence and teaching method
appropriate for large classes in Indonesia‟s EFL context and other comparable
contexts.
With respect to research methodology, combining quantitative and qualitative
methods in the present study by collecting data using different instruments allows the
researcher to examine and explore particular areas of interest as suggested by Liao
(2006). In this way, the researcher is able to go beyond the differential effects of
cooperative learning and get clear pictures of the implementation of CL in
Indonesia‟s EFL classroom. The present study further supports Gilmore (2007) who
argues that future classroom-based research would benefit more from combining
quantitative and qualitative methods in order to better explain the complex and multi-
faceted nature of language learning. The lesson learned from the present study is that,
in order to understand the essence of a phenomenon, a researcher may employ a
mixed-methods approach and take a close look at his or her participants,
measurement tools, data from multiple angles, and then he or she may experiment by
employing diverse analysis procedures to see if the analyses add any new dimension
to the phenomenon.
7.4 Strengths of the Study
The present study has shed lights on the effects of cooperative learning on student
teachers‟ communicative competence and how they perceived CL impact their future
teaching practices in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom. It has also explored the student
235
teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s
EFL classroom. By considering many of the criticisms commonly made with respect
to classroom-based research, the present study has several strengths. First, the
investigation was carried out entirely in a genuine classroom context which means
that the results have higher external validity and other teachers and researchers are
more easily able to generalize the findings to their own pedagogical contexts.
Second, the quasi-experimental study conducted thoroughly during the whole
semester with a reasonable sample size (61 students) increasing the likelihood of
detecting real changes in participants‟ communicative competence. Third, the use of
both quantitative and qualitative (mixed-methods) approaches in the present study
which involved various data collection methods and gathered information from
participants‟ point of views provided a more comprehensive picture of what
happened in the investigation and enhanced the findings. Utilizing quantitative and
qualitative approaches enriched the interpretation of the data gathered which in turn
address relevant issues about student teachers‟ competence and their perceptions on
the implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL context.
The findings presented in chapter five and six provided empirical evidence about the
effects of cooperative learning on student teachers‟ communicative competence and
how they perceive CL impact their future teaching practice. It also identified the
possible benefits and drawbacks which might appear in implementing cooperative
learning as well as proposing a practical guide on how to effectively implement
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms and elsewhere. In addition, the
findings also enabled the identification of theoretical and practical significance of the
present study as well as provided recommendations for improvement of EFL teacher
education in Indonesia (see section 7.3). The practical guide for the implementation
of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms and for improving EFL teacher education are
derived from the findings of the present study (see section 6.6). The present study
also provides valuable insights for all Indonesian institutes that have EFL teacher
education programmes and indeed for other countries with similar EFL contexts.
7.5 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Study
In evaluating the results of the present study, some aspects have been identified that
could have helped to strengthen the present study and these can serve as starting
236
points to conduct future research. This quasi-experimental study conducted in regular
classes brought several possible limitations. First, there are many factors to affect
individual learning and it was not possible for the researcher to deal with all of them.
However, in the present study, the condition of both experiment and control classes
(teaching materials, learning duration, classroom facilities, and teacher educator)
were made as identical as possible except for the independent variable (teaching
method). Thus, further research employing a different research design (true
experimental study or action research study) could contribute to a comprehensive
understanding of the implementation and effects of cooperative learning in
Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms.
Second, one academic semester with only two hours per week for fourteen weeks
may be a relatively short time for CL to be fully internalized and it may be difficult
to show much improvement and change over a limited period of time, as also
identified by Muamaroh (2013). Despite the significant improvement of participants‟
communicative competence in the CL class, it was at the borderline statistical
significance compared to the CT class. It has been observed from the trend in
participants‟ improvement scores that for CL to be significantly better in improving
communicative competence, it has to be sustained over time as discussed in section
6.2. Therefore, a longer study needs to be conducted to allow the results of the
treatment to become more salient and to gain a better understanding of the effects of
cooperative learning. It is worth examining to see if a longer implementation of
cooperative learning would yield significantly better improvement compared to the
control treatment to cross-validate the results of the present study.
Third, the size of the present study is small, especially in regard to the complexity of
Indonesian cultural and educational context. The present study was conducted in a
private teacher training and education institute in Lampung Province involving 61
participants (25 in the CL class and 36 in the CT class) and one teacher educator
implementing cooperative learning in both classes. Future studies involving more
participants or more teachers or teacher educators implementing cooperative learning
in more classes or institutions would have added further breadth to the findings from
the data collected and generated more evidence of the effects of cooperative learning
to allow a better generalizability.
237
Fourth, it is important to be aware of the potential bias in the present study which
comes from the present researcher‟s dual role as a researcher and a teacher educator
(see section 4.4.3). This dual role could have influenced the data collected, analysed,
and interpreted particularly in the interview and students‟ learning diary. Although it
was assumed that participants would be truthful in their responses, there might have
been some desire to please the researcher or teacher educator by giving good
opinions regarding class activities (see Grych 2014). Therefore, further study which
detaches the researcher from implementing the treatments and collecting data might
increase the authenticity, validity, and reliability of the findings.
Fifth, the present study focused on student teachers‟ oral communicative competence
while their written communicative competence was not covered. Further research
should also focus on whether the same results will be yielded by investigating the
impact of CL on student teachers‟ written communicative competence. Future studies
could also replicate the same study on all other disciplines, in private and public
teacher training and education institutes.
Nonetheless, despite these limitations, the results obtained in the present study
provide a reliable insight into the relative benefits of cooperative learning due to the
randomly assigned students group, the use of the same teacher educator to teach both
conditions, the rigorous measurement procedures of communicative competence, the
various data collection methods to ensure triangulation, and the steps taken to ensure
the correct implementation of the two learning conditions.
7.6 Conclusions of the Study
Teaching English as a foreign language requires teachers with strong communicative
competence and teaching skills which are crucial to help teachers to be a source of
language input and act as role model in how to use English for the purpose of
communication as well as to guide students‟ learning (Sulistiyo 2015). The present
study examined the effects of cooperative learning on student teachers‟
communicative competence and how they perceive cooperative learning will impact
on their future teaching practice. It also explored the student teachers‟ perceptions on
the implementation of cooperative learning. The present study has provided
empirical evidence on the efficacy of cooperative learning and proposed practical
238
suggestions for effective implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL
classrooms.
The findings of the present study revealed that CL is effective in improving student
teachers‟ communicative competence and their likelihood to use group work
activities in their future teaching practice. This improvement is even better compared
to the improvement made by student teachers in the CT class (see section 5.2.2). The
findings also revealed participants‟ perceptions on the implementation of CL in
Indonesia‟s EFL context (see section 5.3.2). Therefore, the present study contributes
to enriching the data on the efficacy and applicability of cooperative learning in
Indonesian context as well as providing guideline for effective implementation of
cooperative learning in Indonesia‟s EFL classrooms (see section 6.6). The findings of
the present study suggest that student teachers need to experience being taught using
cooperative learning so that they are familiar with this teaching method and feel
confident to integrate it into their future teaching practice.
On the basis of the evidence provided by the present study, it seems quite reasonable
to state that CL has many benefits in Indonesian context. Although there is no
„perfect methodology‟, CL is an instructional method which is effective in enhancing
the acquisition of oral communicative competence and improving student teachers‟
likelihood to integrate active group work into their future teaching practice. In
addition, the present study has also identified some benefits and drawbacks of the
implementation of CL in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom (see section 5.3.2). Therefore,
to implement cooperative learning in the local context, the present study supports
Thanh (2011) who proposes that it may not be appropriate to impose so-called
Western practices on local students, rather, there must be adjustments of such
practices to make them more adaptive to the local context. Teachers or teacher
educators who wish to implement CL in Indonesia‟s classrooms need to address
disjunctions between CL and the local culture and infrastructures conditions (see
section 2.6.2). Prastyo et al. (2014) identified some of these disjunctions such as
while CL aims to encourage students to open up their own ideas, Indonesian learners
were not comfortable with questioning, evaluating, and debating each other‟s idea
and while face-to-face interaction is emphasized as a main principle of CL, the deep-
seated perceptions of „surviving in harmony‟ strongly hindered Indonesia learners
from exchanging true opinions. In short, CL has a number of principles which are
239
incongruent with the norms and values of Indonesian cultures such as the principles
of face-to-face interaction which involves expressing opinion, challenging each
other‟s and teacher‟s reasoning, and dealing with conflict directly and the concept of
group harmony and tolerance in Indonesian culture as suggested by Prastyo et al.
(2014). Therefore, teachers and teacher educators need to address how to adjust some
cooperative learning principles in ways that suit the local cultures and the learning
resources and how to accommodate local cultures in a way to supporting CL.
Based on these findings, it is anticipated that by providing student teachers with
cooperative learning classroom experience, they will also utilise this approach in
their future teaching practices. Further, the findings suggest that it is possible to
improve a learning experience by involving student teachers to experience first-hand
education by implementation of CL in their classrooms. Therefore, improving
student teachers‟ training using CL may contribute to boost teachers‟ communicative
competence and teaching skills and, consequently, the quality of teaching and
education in general. The use of CL is very likely to trigger important changes in
Indonesian educational practices.
The findings are very important for those who are interested in improving the quality
of English education and English teachers in Indonesia. Researchers can use the
theory of cooperative learning and the proposed framework of communicative
competence as theoretical foundation in conducting study in Indonesian context.
School teachers and teacher educators can adapt the theory of CL and the proposed
framework of CC as a guideline in designing teaching materials as well as to apply
the testing procedure and the scoring rubric in their own situations and contexts. For
teacher educators and teacher education institutions, the findings are significant
particularly to redesign the contents and teaching instructions of English teacher
education programmes to best prepare more qualified English student teachers in
terms of their communicative competence and teaching method appropriate for large
classes in Indonesia‟s EFL context.
The present study and the above findings and recommendations are significant not
only for English teacher education programmes in the site of the present study, it
should also be relevant to other teacher education programmes in Indonesian or
international contexts. The guidelines on the implementation of cooperative learning
240
in Indonesia‟s EFL classroom proposed in the present study may also be of use for
other practitioners in different fields.
241
Reference
Acosta, M (2012) Effects of cooperative learning on academic achievement of
primary pupils: A systematic review, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), Leiden
University.
ADB & OECD. (2015) Education in Indonesia, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-in-
indonesia_9789264230750-en
Adnyani, D.P.D.P. (2015) Professional development for pre-service teacher: A case
study of professional development for pre-service teacher in State
University in Central Indonesia, unpublished thesis (Master), Stockholms
Universitet.
Akdemir, E. & Arslan, A. (2012) „From past to present: Trend analysis of
cooperative learning studies‟, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
55, 212-217.
Al-Tamimi, N. O. M. & Attamimi, R. A. (2014) „Effectiveness of cooperative
learning in enhancing speaking skills and attitude towards learning English‟,
International Journal of Linguistics, 6(4), 27-45.
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.
Bachman, L. F. (1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996) Language testing in practice, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bagarić, V. & Djigunović, M. J. (2007) „Defining communicative competence‟,
Metodika, 8(1), 94-103.
Baker, J. & Heather, W. (2000) The English language teacher‟s handbook: How to
teach large class with few resources, London: Continuum.
242
Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. (2007) How the world‟s best performing schools come
out on top, London: McKinsey and Company.
Batang, B. L. (2014) „Communicative competence and language learning styles of
prospective teachers of English‟, Researchers World – Journal of Arts,
Science & Commers, 5(4), 182-187.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) „Using thematic analysis in psychology‟, Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2012) „Thematic analysis‟ in Cooper, H., ed, APA handbook
of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative,
qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological, Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association, 57-71.
Canale, M. (1983) „From communicative competence to communicative language
pedagogy‟ in Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (eds), Language and
communication, London: Longman, 2-27.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980) „Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing‟, Applied Linguistic, 1(1), 1-48.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2008) „Rethinking the role of communicative competence in
language teaching‟ in Soler, E. A. & Safont Jordà, M. P. eds., Intercultural
language use and language learning, California: Springer, 41-57.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1993) „A pedagogical framework for
communicative competence: Content specifications and guidelines for
communicative language teaching‟ in Proceedings of the 1993 Deseret
language and linguistic society symposium, 13-29.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1995) „Communicative competence:
A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications‟, Issues in
Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
243
Çelik, S., Aytın, K. & Bayram, E. (2013) „Implementing cooperative learning in the
language classroom: Opinions of Turkish teacher of English‟, Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1852-1859.
Chan, K. W. (2014) „Cooperative learning in a Hong Kong primary school:
Perceptions, problems and accommodation‟, Intercultural Education, 25(3),
216-228.
Chang, M. C., Shaeffer, S., Al-Samarrai, S., Ragatz, A. B., de Ree, J. & Stevenson,
R. (2013) Teacher reform in Indonesia: The role of politics and evidence in
policy making, The World Bank.
Chen, S-F. (2006) Cooperative learning, multiple intelligences and proficiency:
Application in college English language teaching and learning, unpublished
thesis (Ph.D.), Australian Catholic University.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research methods in education (5th
edition), London; New York: Routledge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007) Research methods in education (6th
edition), London; New York: Routledge.
Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for language:
Learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge University Press. Retrieved
from www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/framework_en.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (1994) Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.), Boston: Pearson.
Crotty, M. (1998) The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in
the research process, London: Sage Publications.
244
Davies, W. M. (2009) „Groupwork as a form of assessment: Common problems and
recommended solutions‟, High Educ, 58, 563-584.
Dewi, A. (2007) „Improving English teaching in Universitas Islam Indonesia:
Implementation of cooperative learning‟, Presented at the second biennial
international conference on teaching and learning of English in Asia:
Exploring new frontier (TELiA2), Universiti Utara Malaysia: Universiti
Utara Malaysia. Retrieved from http://repo.uum.edu.my/3271/
Dörnyei, Z. (1997) „Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group
dynamics and motivation‟, The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 482-493.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative
and mixed methodologies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Education First (2016) EF EPI – Education First English proficiency index,
Retrieved from http://www.theewf.org/uploads/pdf/ef-epi-2016-english.pdf
Educational Testing Service (2014) accessed from
https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/toefl_speaking_rubrics.pdf
Ellis, R. (1991) „Communicative competence and the Japanese learner‟, JALT
Journal, 13(2), 103-129.
Fraser, S. (2010) „Different course, different outcomes?‟ A comparative study of
communicative competence in English language learners following
„Academic‟ and „International understanding‟ courses at high schools in
Japan, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), Durham University. Retrieved from
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/294/
Frykedal, K. F. & Chiriac, E. H. (2012) „Group work management in the classroom‟,
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(5), 1-13.
Gay, L. R. (1992) Educational Research (4th Ed.), New York: Merrill.
Ghaith, G. (2003) „Effects of learning together model of cooperative learning on
English as a foreign language reading achievement, academic self-esteem,
245
and feeling of school alienation‟, Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3) 451-
474.
Gillies, R. M. (2016) „Cooperative learning; Review of research and practice‟,
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39-54.
Gillies, R. M. & Boyle, M. (2010) „Teachers‟ reflections on cooperative learning:
Issues of implementation‟, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933-
940.
Gilmore, A. (2007) Getting real in the language classroom: Developing Japanese
students‟ communicative competence with authentic materials, unpublished
thesis (Ph.D.), University of Nottingham. Retrieved from
http://ethesis.nottingham.ac.uk/1928/
Glass, G. V. & Hopkins, K. D. (1996) Statistical methods in education and
psychology (3rd ed.), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Grych, D. S. (2014) The role of in-service teachers in pre-service teacher
preparation for multicultural education, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), Walden
University.
Guest, G. & MacQueen, K. M. (2008) Handbook for team-based qualitative
research, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M. & Namey, E. E. (2012) Applied thematic analysis,
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
Han, M. (2015) „An empirical study on the application of cooperative learning to
English listening classes‟, English Language Teaching, 8(3), 177-184.
Harjono, H. S. & Wachyunni, S. (2011) „Is cooperative learning better than
individual learning in reading comprehension workshop?‟, Tekno-Pedagogi,
1(1), 1-13.
Hsiung, C. (2012) „The effectiveness of cooperative learning‟, Journal of
Engineering Education, 101(1), 119-137.
246
Hymes, D. (1972) „Models of the interaction of language and social setting‟, Journal
of social issues, 23(2), 8-38.
IELTS Australia, British Council, IDP and Cambridge English Language
Assessment. Assessed from https://www.ielts.org/-/media/pdfs/speaking-
band-descriptors-ashx?la=en
Johnson, D. W., Bjorkland, R. & Krotee, M. (1984) „The effects of cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic student interaction patterns on the
achievement and attitudes of students learning the golf skill of putting,
Research of Quarterly, 55, 129-134.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009) „An educational psychology success story:
Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning‟, Educational
Researcher, 38(5), 365-379.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2015) „Theoretical approaches to cooperative
learning‟ in Gillies, R. (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Developments in
research and practice, New York: Nova, 17-46.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. J. (1993) Cooperation in the
classroom, Edina, MN: International Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A. (1998) „Cooperative learning returns
to college what evidence is there that it works?‟, Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 30(4), 26-35.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A. (2007) „The State of cooperative
learning in postsecondary and professional settings‟, Educational
Psychology Review, 19(1), 15-29.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Stanne, M. B. (2000) „Cooperative learning
methods: A meta-analysis, EXHIBIT. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsstl.com/sites/default/files/Cooperative%20Learning%Resear
ch%20.pdf
247
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D. & Skon, L. (1981) „Effects
of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on
achievement: A meta-analysis‟, Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47-62.
Kawamura, K. (2011) „Consensus and democracy in Indonesia: Musyawarah-
mufakat revisited‟, IDE Discussion Paper No. 308, Institute of Developing
Economies (IDE), JETRO. Accessed from
http://ir.ide.go.jp/dspace/bitstream/2344/1091/1/ARRIDE_Discussion_No.3
08_kawamura.pdf
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2012) Dokumen Kurikulum 2013, Jakarta:
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Kristiawan, M. (2013) „The implementation of cooperative learning in English class
of favourite school of secondary high school 5 Batusangkar, West Sumatra‟,
International Journal of Education Administration and Policy Studies, 5(6),
85-90.
Kyndt, E., Raes, E., Lismont, B., Timmers, F., Cascallar, E. & Dochy, F. (2013) „A
meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent
studies falsify or verify earlier findings?‟, Educational Research Review, 10,
133-149.
Lasala, C. B. (2012) „Communicative competence of secondary senior students:
Language instructional pocket‟, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
134, 226-237.
Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C. & Morgan, G. A. (2015) IBM SPSS for intermediate
statistics: Use and interpretation (5th Edition), New York: Routledge.
Liang, T. (2002) Implementing cooperative learning in EFL teaching: Process and
effects, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), National Taiwan Normal University.
Liao, H-C. (2006) Effects of cooperative learning on motivation, learning strategy
utilization, and grammar achievement of English language learners in
Taiwan, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.) University of New Orleans. Retrieved
from http://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/329
248
Lim, C. P. (2009) Innovative practice in pre-service teacher education: An Asia-
Pacific perspective, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lin, M. (2009) Effect of cooperative learning on oral proficiency of Chinese students
in the tertiary-level EFL classroom, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University
of Leicester. Retrieved from https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/8941
Lindblad, A. H. (1994) „You can avoid the traps of cooperative learning‟, The
Clearing House, 67(5), 291-293.
Liu, Y. (2015) Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) in Chinese higher education:
EFL teachers‟ perceptions, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University of
Limerick.
Maman, M. & Rajab, A. A. (2016) „The implementation of cooperative learning
model „Number Heads Together (NHT)‟ in improving the students‟ ability
in reading comprehension‟, International Journal of Evaluation and
Research in Education (IJERE), 5(2), 174-180.
Marashi, H. & Dibah, P. (2013) „The comparative effect of using competitive and
cooperative learning on the oral proficiency of Iranian introvert and
extrovert EFL learners‟, Journal of Language Testing and Research, 4(3),
545-556.
Marcellino, M. (2008) „English language teaching in Indonesia: A continuous
challenge in education and cultural diversity‟, TEFLIN Journal-A
Publication on the Teaching and Learning of English, 19(1), 57-69.
Mardiningrum, A. (2016) EFL Preservice teachers‟ beliefs about English language
teaching in role-play based activities, unpublished thesis (Master), Indiana
University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from
http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2252&context
=etd
Marshall, C. & Rosman, G. B. (2015) Designing qualitative research (6th Ed.),
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
249
Mertens, D. M. (1998) Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage
Publications.
Metto, E. & Makewa, L. N. (2014) „Learner-centered teaching: Can it work in
Kenyan public primary schools?‟, American Journal of Educational
Research, 2(11A), 23-29.
MoEC (2013) Overview of the education sector in Indonesia: Achievements and
challenges, Jakarta: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Muamaroh (2013) Improving Indonesian university students‟ spoken English using
group work and cooperative learning, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), Charles
Darwin University. Retrieved from
https://espace.cdu.edu.au/view/cdu:38908
Murtiningsih, S. R. (2014) Indonesian student teachers beliefs and practices in
teaching L2 reading, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University of Oklahoma,
USA.
Murtono (2015) „Cooperative learning model toward a reading comprehensions on
the elementary school‟, Journal of Education and Practice, 6(18), 208-215.
Neuman, W. L. (2006) Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (7th Edition), USA: Pearson Education Limited.
Nguyen, P., Elliott, J. G., Terlouw, C. & Pilot, A. (2009) „Neocolonialism in
education: Cooperative learning in an Asian context‟, Cooperative
Education, 45(1), 109-130.
Ning, H. (2010) „Adapting cooperative learning in tertiary ELT‟, ELT Journal, 65(1),
60-70.
Ning, H. & Hornby, G. (2010) „The effectiveness of cooperative learning in teaching
English to Chinese tertiary learners‟, Effective Education, 2(2), 99-116.
Nunan, D. (1991) „Methods in second language classroom-oriented research‟,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 249-274.
250
Nunan, D. (1992) Research Methods in Language Learning, USA: Cambridge
University Press.
OECD & ADB (2015) Education in Indonesia: Rising to the challenge, Paris: OECD
Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/education/education-in-indonesia_9789264230750-en
Ohno, A. (2002) Communicative competence and communicative language teaching.
Retrieved from http://cicero.ubunkyo.ac.jp/lib/kiyo/fsell2002/25-32.pdf
Olsen, R. E. W. B. & Kagan, S. (1992) „About cooperative learning‟ in C. Kessler
(Ed.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher‟s resource book,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1-30.
Oxford, R. L. (1997) „Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction:
Three communicative strands in the language classroom‟, The Modern
Language Journal, 81(4), 443-456.
Pillar, G. W. (2011) „A framework for testing communicative competence‟,
Presented at ELLE International Conference, Partium Christian University,
Romania.
Prasetyo, T. (2014) „Improvement activities and student learning outcomes in
reading comprehension through cooperative learning type teams-games-
tournament (TGT) fifth grade class elementary school 8 south metro‟ in
Seminar nasional dan temu alumni “Peran pendidikan dalam pembangunan
karakter bangsa”, Program Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta,
501-511. Retrieved from http://eprints.uny.ac.id/24937/
Prastyo, Y. D. (2014) „Is cooperative learning appropriate instructional methodology
to support the implementation of curriculum 2013 in Indonesia?: Theoretical
and cultural analysis‟ in The second international conference on education
and language (2nd ICEL) 2014 (Vol. 1), Bandar Lampung, Indonesia:
Universitas Bandar Lampung.
251
Prastyo, Y. D., Mishan, F. & Vaughan, E. (2014) „Cooperative learning in
Indonesian context: Potential benefits and drawbacks for application‟ in The
third international language conference, Malaysia: IIUM Malaysia.
Rhoades, G. (2013) „Minimizing the chaos through cooperative classroom
management‟ in English Teaching Forum, China: ERIC, 51, 28-34.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1020702
Sahiruddin (2013) „The implementation of the 2013 curriculum and the issues of
English language teaching and learning in Indonesia‟ Presented at the Asian
conference on language learning, Osaka, Japan: 567-574. Retrieved from
www.iafor.org
Salinas, J. V. G. (2016) Pre-service teachers‟ perceptions of cooperative learning in
a face-to-face and 3D virtual environment: An exploratory study,
unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), The University of Queensland. Retrieved from
https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:417361/s42454377_phd_thesis.pd
f
Sanjani, E. D. (2015) Improving students‟ speaking ability using think-pair-share of
cooperative learning for the 8th grade students of MTsN Karangmojo in the
academic year of 2014/2015, unpublished thesis (BA), Yogyakarta State
University.
Sarobol, N. (2012) „Implementing cooperative learning in English language
classroom: Thai university students‟ perceptions‟, The International Journal
of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(10), 111-122.
Savignon, S. J. (1991) „Communicative language teaching: State of the art‟, TESOL
Quarterly, 25(2), 261-277.
Savignon, S. J. (Ed.). (2002) Interpreting communicative language teaching:
Contexts and concerns in teacher education, New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Sellars, M. (2014) Reflective Practice for Teachers (1st Edition), Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
252
Seng, T. H. (2006) Cooperative learning and achievement in English language
acquisition in a literature class in a secondary school, unpublished thesis
(Ph.D.), University Teknologi Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://eprints.utm.my/6550/1/TokHoonSengMP041194d06TTT.pdf
Sentosa, F. & Arlianti, R. (2015) Linking pre-service teacher education and in-
service teacher training for effective results in Indonesia, USAID
PRIORITAS.
Shachar, H. & Sharan, S. (1995) „Cooperative learning in the heterogeneous Israeli
classroom‟, International Journal of Educational Research, 23(3), 283-292.
Sihombing, S. O. & Feriadi, D. P. (2011) „Understanding Indonesian values: A
preliminary research to identify Indonesian culture‟, Paper presented at
international conference political economy of trade liberalization in
developing east Asia: Sustainability, governannce, and the role of small
business. 24-25 November 2011, Brawijaya University, Malang.
Slavin, R. E. (1980) „Cooperative learning‟, Review of Educational Research, 50(2),
315-342. http://doi.org/10.2307/1170149
Slavin, R. E. (1994) Using student team learning (2nd ed.), Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
Slavin, R. E. (1996a) „Cooperative learning in middle and junior schools‟, The
Clearing House, 69(4), 200-204.
Slavin, R. E. (1996b) „Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we
know, what we need to know‟, Contemporary Educational Psychology,
21(1), 43-69.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A. & Leavey, M. (1984) „Effects of team assisted
individualization on the mathematics achievement of academically
handicapped and nonhandicapped students‟, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(5), 813-819.
253
Sopantini (2014) Reforming teaching practice in Indonesia: A case study of the
implementation of active learning in primary school in North Maluku,
unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University of Tasmania.
Stevens, J. P. (2002) Intermediate statistics: A modern approach (2nd Ed.), Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Subejo (2009) „Characteristics and functions of labour institutions in rural Java: A
case study in Yogyakarta province‟, Journal ISSAAS, 15(1), 101-117.
Sulistiyo, U. (2015) Improving English as a foreign language teacher education in
Indonesia: The case of Jambi University, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), RMIT
University. Retrieved from
https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161521/Sulistiyo.pdf
Supriatna, A. (2012) „Indonesia‟s issues and challenges on teacher professional
development‟, in Center for the study of international cooperation in
education (Ed.) Africa-Asia University dialogue for education development:
Actual status on issue of teacher professional development, Hiroshima:
Hiroshima University, 29-41. Retrieved from http://aadcice.hiroshima-
u.ac.jp/j/publications/sosho4_2-04.pdf
Suryati, N. (2013) Developing an effective classroom interaction framework to
promote lower secondary school students English communicative
competence in Malang, East Java, Indonesia, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.),
The University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Takeda, S. & Homberg, F. (2014) „The effects of gender on group work process and
achievement: An analysis through self- and peer-assessment‟, British
Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 373-396.
Tamaela, J. C. (2010) The implementation of cooperative learning in developing
students‟ speaking ability at SAM Negeri 1 Malang, unpublished thesis
(Master), State University of Malang, Indonesia.
Gergen, Kenneth J. (1995) „Social construction and the educational process‟,
Constructivism in Education, p. 17-39.
254
Thanh, P. T. H. (2011) „An investigation of perceptions of Vietnamese teachers and
students toward cooperative learning (CL)‟, International Education
Studies, 4(1), 3-12.
Thanh, P. T. H. & Gillies, R. (2010) „Group composition of cooperative learning:
Does heterogeneous grouping work in Asian classrooms?‟, International
Education Studies, 3(3), 12-19.
Tsai, M-J. (2013) „Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers: An
integrated approach to its nature and assessment‟, Pragmatics & Cognition,
21(1), 158-177. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21.1.07tsa
Veenman, S., van Benthum, N., Bootsma, D., van Dieren, J. & van der Kemp, N.
(2002) „Cooperative learning and teacher education‟, Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18(1) 87-103.
Wachyuni, S. (2011) Cooperative learning, reading comprehension, and vocabulary
learning, unpublished thesis (Master), University of Groningen.
Wachyuni, S. (2015) Scaffolding and cooperative learning: Effects on reading
comprehension and vocabulary knowledge in English as a foreign
language, unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University of Groningen.
Wagner, E. (2010) „Survey research‟ in Paltridge, B. & Phakiti, A., eds., Continuum
companion to research methods in applied linguistics, London: Continuum,
22-29.
Wei, P. & Tang, Y. (2015) „Cooperative learning in English class of Chinese junior
high school‟, Creative Education, 6(03), 397-404.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.63039
Wengraf, T. (2001) Qualitative research interviewing, London: SAGE Publications.
Wilson, K. & Yang, L. (2007) „A social constructivist approach to teaching reading:
Turning the rhetoric into reality‟, CELEA Journal, 30(1), 51-56.
255
Xue, M. (2013) „Effects of group on English communicative competence of Chinese
international graduates in United States institutions of higher education‟,
The Qualitative Report, 18(14), 1-19.
Zhang, Y. (2010) „Cooperative learning and foreign language learning and teaching‟,
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(1) 81-83.
https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.1.81-83
256
Appendices
257
Appendix 1 – Information sheet given to participants
Department of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences School of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics
Information Letter
The Effects of Cooperative Learning on the Student Teacher’s Communicative Competence in Indonesia.
This study investigates the effects of cooperative learning (CL). It also aims to explore your perceptions on the application of CL in Indonesian English classrooms. This study is part of the PhD research of Yanuar Dwi Prastyo. My role is to introduce and explain this project to you as well as facilitate if you have any question regarding this study. I can be contacted at email: [email protected].
The study will be scheduled to last for one semester (14 meetings during September 2015 – January 2016). Your participation will include completing questionnaires, doing oral tests, attending group interview, and writing a learning diary. The oral tests will entail 7-10 minutes paired-oral interview to assess your communicative competence at the beginning and the end of the study. At the end of the study, you may also be requested to attend small group interview (five persons per group) with Mr. Yanuar regarding your learning experience. During the study, you will also be requested to write a learning diary, a brief weekly record of your classroom experience.
You will also be recorded (video/audio) during paired-oral interview and the 20-30 minutes small group interview. However, your participation in the study is completely anonymous and confidential and there will be no way to connect your name with your responses. Once the data have been transcribed and analysed, the audio/video recordings will be deleted or electronically stored in Mr. Yanuar‟s personal password protected computer laptop and the questionnaire and the learning diary will be stored in his personal locked filing cabinet. The participation in this study is voluntarily and you are free to discontinue participation at any time without
258
giving a reason. Participation and non-participation will not impact on your grade or future care in any way.
This study has been approved by the Chief of the Teacher Training and Education Institute (STKIP) PGRI Bandar Lampung (Permission Letter No.030/STKIP PGRI/Q/2015) and has received Ethics approval from the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee of University of Limerick, Ireland (2015_02_01_AHSS).
Any further queries regarding this study should be directed to Mr. Yanuar Dwi Prastyo at English Education Study Program, Bandar Lampung University, Rectorate Building Lt. 3, Phone (0721) 3666625, email: [email protected]. or [email protected]. If you have any concerns about this study and wish to contact an independent authority, you may contact:
Chairperson Art, Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee, AHSS Faculty Office, University of Limerick,
Phone (+353) 61202286 Email: [email protected]
Any concerns will be treated in confidence and investigated fully. You will also be informed of the outcome. If you agree to participate in this study, you should sign the consent form and return it to me.
Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, PhD Researcher English Education Study Program, Bandar Lampung University, Rectorate Building Lt. 3, Phone (+62) 821 234 27 121, Email: [email protected]. / [email protected] Signed: Yanuar Dwi Prastyo date:
259
Appendix 2 – Consent Form Signed by Participants
Department of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
School of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics
Consent Form
I, the undersigned, declare that I am willing to take part in this research project for
Yanuar Dwi Prastyo entitled “Effects of Cooperative Learning on the Student
Teacher‟s Communicative Competence in Indonesia”.
I declare that I have been fully briefed on the nature of this study and my role
in it and have been given the opportunity to ask questions before agreeing to
participate.
The nature of my participation has been explained to me and I have full
knowledge how the information collected be used.
I am also aware that my participation in this study may be recorded
(video/audio) and I agree to this. I am am fully informed as to what will
happen to these recordings once the study is completed.
I fully understand that my participation in this study is voluntarily and will
not impact on my grades. I am free to withdraw at any time.
I am also entitled to full confidentiality in terms of my participation and
personal details.
Signed
Name of Participant :
Signature :
Date :
260
Appendix 3 – Ethical Approval University of Limerick
261
Appendix 4 – Research Approval STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung
262
Appendix 5 – Paired-Oral Interview
Paired-Oral Interview
Part 1: Greeting and Personal Interest (3 minutes)
Instruction: This paired-oral interview begins with the interlocutor greeting and
checking the candidate‟s identification. It then continues as an
interview.
1. Greeting and checking candidate‟s identification.
T : Hello, good morning / afternoon.
T to SA : What is your name and student number?
T to SA : Where are you from?
T to SB : And your name and student number please?
T to SB : Where are you from?
2. Personal interest
T to SA : We would like to know something about you, so I am going to ask
you some questions.
1. What do you usually do in your free time … (name of student A)?
Which one is your favourite? (if the answer is more than one activity)
2. Why do you like to do it? Is there any advantages or benefits of … (name of
activity)?
Thank you.
T to SB : And how about you … (name of student B)?
1. What do you usually do in your free time?
Which one is your favourite? (if the answer is more than one activity)
2. Why do you like to do it? Is there any advantages or benefits of … (name of
activity)?
Thank you.
263
Part 2: Individual long turn (1,5 minutes)
Instruction: Part 2 requires each candidate to talk about two different pictures in
about 1,5 minutes.
T to All : Now, I am going to give you two pictures. I want you to describe it
in 1,5 minutes and also to answer question about your partner‟s
pictures.
T to SB : (Name of candidate B) here are your pictures about two classroom
teaching activities. (Interviewer hands over the picture to candidate
B). I want you to describe the pictures and compare which one you
prefer.
SB : (Describes and compares the two pictures)
T to SB : Thank you.
T to SA : Now, (name of candidate A). Which one do you prefer to do in
your classroom teaching? (SA says something about the pictures in
0,5 minutes)
Interviewer retrieves the picture.
T to SA : (Name of candidate A) here are your pictures about two class
break-time activities. (Interviewer hands over the picture to
candidate A). I want you to describe the pictures and compare
which one you prefer.
SB : (Describe and compare the two pictures)
T to SA : Thank you.
T to SB : Now, (name of candidate B). Which activity do prefer to spend
your class break-time? (SB says something about the pictures in 0,5
minutes)
Interviewer retrieves the picture.
264
Part 3: Two candidates interact with each other (3 minutes)
Instruction: Part 3 involves interaction of two candidates around certain topic
(places people like to visit).
T to All : Now, you have about three minutes to discuss four pictures of places
people like to visit. Here are the pictures (give time for participants to
look at the pictures)
1. Nature / Beach
2. Historical place / Museum
3. Hometown / Family
4. Shopping Mall
T to All : I want you together to describe all pictures and discuss why do you
think people would like to visit these places?
Candidates : (Discuss the subject for about 3 minutes)
T to All : Thank you.
T to All : Now, what place do you like to visit most in your holidays and why?
Candidates : Candidate A and candidate B give their answer.
T to All : Thank you (Retrieve the pictures)
T to All : Thank you and this is the end of the test.
265
Part 2: Describe and compare two classroom teaching activities
Picture 1
Picture 2
Part 2: Describe and compare two class break-time activities
Picture 1
266
Picture 2
267
Part 3: Describe and discuss places people like to visit
Picture 1: Beach Picture 2: Museum
Picture 3: Family Picture 4: Shopping Mall
268
Appendix 6 - Scoring Rubric of Communicative Competence
General Scale of Communicative Competence
Level Score Description of Competence
Proficient User
6 Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations.
5
Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes without much obvious searching for expressing. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.
Independent User
4
Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
3
Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.
Basic User
2
Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar routine matters (basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.
1
Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared for help.
Non User 0 No or little communication possible
269
Linguistic Competence
Score Grammar accuracy, vocabulary range and pronunciation
6
Can select an appropriate formulation from a broad range of
language structures and vocabularies to express him/herself
clearly using wide range of pronunciation features naturally and
appropriately.
5
Can express him/herself at length clearly with sufficient range of
language structures and vocabularies without much sign of
having to restrict what he/she wants to say.
4
Has sufficient range of language structures and vocabularies to
express viewpoints and develop arguments, describe
unpredictable situations, explain the main points of an idea with
reasonable precision and can generally be understood throughout.
3
Has enough language structures and vocabularies to express
him/herself with some hesitation and mispronunciations cause
repetition and self-correction and slow speech to keep going.
2
Has a basic language structures and vocabulary to deal with
everyday situations with predictable content, though he/she will
generally have to compromise the message and search for words
and speak slowly.
1 Has a very basic range of simple expressions about personal
details and needs and speak with long pauses.
0 Cannot produce or very little basic sentence forms
270
Discourse Competence
Score Cohesion and Coherence
6 Can create coherent and cohesive text using appropriate variety of
organisational patterns and a wide range of cohesive devices.
5 Can use a variety of linking words efficiently to mark clearly the
relationships between ideas.
4
Can use a limited number of cohesive devices to link his/her
utterances into clear, coherent discourse, though there may be
some „jumpiness‟ in a long contribution.
3 Can link a series of shorter, discrete simple elements into a
coherence, connected, and linear sequence of points.
2
Can use the most frequently occurring connectors to link simple
sentences in order to tell a story or describe something as a simple
list of points.
1 Can link groups of words with simple connectors like „and‟, „but‟,
„because‟ and “then”.
0 No or little communication possible.
Sociolinguistic Competence
Score Appropriacy and Politeness
6 Appreciate fully the sociolinguistic and sociocultural implications
of language used by native speakers and can react appropriately.
5
Can express him/herself confidently, clearly and politely in a
formal or informal register, appropriate to the situation and
person(s) concerned.
4
Can express him/herself appropriately in different situations and
sustain relationships with others without unintentionally amusing
and irritating other persons.
3 Can perform and respond to a wide range of language functions,
271
using their most common exponents in a neutral register and
aware of politeness conventions and act appropriately.
2
Can socialise simply but effectively using the simplest common
expressions and following basic routines. Can make and respond
to invitations, suggestions, apologies, etc.
1
Can establish basic social contact by using the simplest everyday
polite forms of: greetings and farewells; introductions; saying
please, thank you sorry, etc.
0 No or little communication possible
Strategic Competence
Score Verbal and Non-verbal strategies
6 Can use very wide range of verbal and non-verbal cues effectively
to maintain and enhance effective communication.
5 Can use broad range of verbal and non-verbal cues effectively to
maintain and enhance effective communication
4
Can use range of verbal and non-verbal achievement strategies to
overcome deficits of other communicative competences and to
achieve communication goal(s)
3
Can use range of verbal and non-verbal achievement strategies
with several noticeable reduction strategies to achieve
communication goal(s).
2
Can use basic verbal strategies and more use of non-verbal
strategies to express communication goals and many features of
reduction strategies.
1 Employ many non-verbal cues to cope with communication
breakdown due to lack of other competence.
0 No or little communication possible
272
Appendix 7 – Questionnaire Pre-treatment
Questionnaire
Student Teachers’ Perceptions on Cooperative Learning
Name (optional) : _______________________________
Gender : _______________________________
Age : ______ years old
Learning English experience : ______ years
Your mother tongue? (tick (√ ) one)
Javanese [ ] Lampungnese [ ] Balinese [ ] Palembangnese [ ] Bataknese [ ] Sundanese [ ] Bahasa Indonesia [ ] Other (Please specify): [ ]
This questionnaire is aimed to investigate your English learning experience and to provide a better understanding of your perceptions on group work activities in Indonesia. Please answer all items – your comments are particularly important. The questionnaire will take about 15 – 20 minutes to complete. Thank you for your time and assistance in completing this questionnaire. LEARNING EXPERIENCE
Please tick (√) the box which best describes your English learning experience. Add any comments you wish to describe your learning experience. 1 = Always, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Seldom, 4 = Never
No English learning experience 1 2 3 4 Comments
1 At secondary school, I learned English through pair/group work activities.
273
2 At college, I learn English through pair/group work activities.
LEARNING MOTIVATION
Please tick (√) the box which best describes whether you disagree or agree with each statement. Add any comments you wish to describe your opinions. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
No Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Comment / Reasons of learning English
3 At secondary school, I learned English to get good grade in examination.
4 At secondary school, I learned English to get better job opportunity.
5 At secondary school, I learned English to improve my English communication skills.
6 At college, I learn English to get good grade in examination.
7 At college, I learn English to get better job opportunity.
8 At college, I learn English to improve my English communication skills.
ENGLISH SKILLS ABILITY
How would you assess your English skills? Please tick (√) the box which best describes your English skills. 1 = lowest; 5 = highest. Add any comments you wish to describe your opinions.
No Your English
skills 1 2 3 4 5 Comment
9 Listening skill
274
10 Speaking skill
11 Reading skill
12 Writing skill
STUDENT TEACEHRS’ PERCEPTION
Please tick (√) the box which best describes whether you disagree or agree with each statement. Add any comments you wish to describe your opinions. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
No Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Comment
13
I enjoy learning through pair/group work activities in English classes.
14 A clear group goal is important in pair/group work activities.
15
Supportive interaction and communication among individuals are important in pair/group activities.
16
Dividing specific task and responsibility for each member is important in pair/group work activities.
17
Member‟s interpersonal and social skills are important in pair/group work activities.
18
Discussion of how well you work together after pair/group work activities is important.
275
19
Clear teacher‟s instruction before pair/group work activities is important.
20 Pair/group work activities improve my speaking skill.
21. In your opinion, what are the negative aspects (if any) of using pair/group work activities in Indonesian English classroom?
22. In your opinion, what are the positive aspects (if any) of using pair/group work activities in Indonesian English classroom?
FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHING In relation to your future classroom teaching, please tick (√) the box which best describes whether you disagree or agree with each statement. Add any comments you wish to describe your opinions. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
No
Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Comment
23
Pair/group work activities are suitable for English classrooms in Indonesia.
24
I would consider using pair/group work activities in my future English classroom teaching.
276
Appendix 8 – Questionnaire Post-treatment
Questionnaire
Student Teachers’ Perceptions on Cooperative Learning
Name (optional) : _______________________________
Gender : _______________________________
Age : ______ years old
Learning English experience : ______ years
Your mother tongue? (tick (√) one)
Javanese [ ] Lampungnese [ ] Balinese [ ] Palembangnese [ ] Bataknese [ ] Sundanese [ ] Bahasa Indonesia [ ] Other (Please specify): [ ]
This questionnaire is aimed to investigate your opinions and perceptions of group work activities in Indonesian English classroom. Please answer all items – your comments are particularly important. The questionnaire will take about 15 – 20 minutes to complete. Thank you for your time and assistance in completing this questionnaire. ENGLISH SKILLS How would you assess your English skills? Please tick (√) the box which best describes your English skills. 1 = lowest; 5 = highest.
No Your English skills 1 2 3 4 5 Comment
1 Listening skill
277
2 Speaking skill
3 Reading skill
4 Writing skill
LEARNING MOTIVATION
Please tick (√) the box which best describes whether you disagree or agree with each statement. Add any comments you wish to describe your opinions. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
No Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Comment / Reasons of learning English
5 I learn English to get good grade in examination.
6 I learn English to get better job opportunity.
7 I learn English to improve my English communication skills.
STUDENT TEACEHRS’ PERCEPTIONS In relation to your learning experience in Speaking 2 this semester, please tick (√) the box which best describes whether you disagree or agree with each statement. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
No Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Comment
8 I enjoy learning English through pair/group work activities.
9 Pair/group work activities can improve my speaking skills.
278
10. In your opinion, what are the negative aspects (if any) of using pair/group work activities in Speaking 2 classes?
11. In your opinion, what are the positive aspects (if any) of using pair/group
work activities in Speaking 2 classes?
FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHING In relation to your future classroom teaching, please tick (√) the box which best describes whether you disagree or agree with each statement. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
No Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Comment
12
Pair/group work activities are suitable for English classroom in Indonesia.
13
I would consider using pair/group work activities in my future English classroom teaching.
279
Appendix 9 – Group Interview Questions
INTERVIEW
Student Teachers’ Perceptions on Cooperative Learning
1. What do you think as important aspects in the teaching and learning through
group work activities in Indonesia?
2. What do you see as negative aspects (if any) in using group work activities in
Indonesia‟s English classrooms?
3. What do you see as positive aspects (if any) in using group work activities in
Indonesia‟s English classrooms?
4. Do you plan to use group work activities in your future teaching practice?
Give your reason.
5. What do you think the impacts (if any) of group work activities in the
relationship among students?
280
Appendix 10 – Paired-Oral Interview Data
Appendix 10.1 – Paired-Oral Interview Assessed by Two Raters
Appendix 10.1.1 – Control Treatment Class (Pre-test) No Student’s Code Rater1 Rater2 Average 1 SCT1 1.5 2 1.75 2 SCT2 3 2.5 2.75 3 SCT3 1.5 1.5 1.5 4 SCT4 1 1.5 1.25 5 SCT5 2 1 1.5 6 SCT6 1 1 1 7 SCT7 2.5 2.5 2.5 8 SCT8 1 1 1 9 SCT9 1 1 1 10 SCT10 1 1 1 11 SCT11 1 1 1 12 SCT12 1.5 1.5 1.5 13 SCT13 1 1 1 14 SCT14 3 3 3 15 SCT15 3 2.5 2.75 16 SCT16 1 1 1 17 SCT17 1 1 1 18 SCT18 1 1 1 19 SCT19 1 1 1 20 SCT20 1 0.5 0.75 21 SCT21 2.5 2 2.25 22 SCT22 1.5 1 1.25 23 SCT23 1 1 1 24 SCT24 2.5 2.5 2.5 25 SCT25 1 1.5 1.25 26 SCT26 1 1 1 27 SCT27 1 1 1 28 SCT28 1.5 1.5 1.5 29 SCT29 1 1 1 30 SCT30 1 1 1 31 SCT31 1.5 1.5 1.5 32 SCT32 1.5 1.5 1.5 33 SCT33 1 1 1 34 SCT34 1.5 1 1.25 35 SCT35 1 1 1 36 SCT36 1 1 1
281
Appendix 10.1.2 – Control Treatment Class (Post-test) No Student’s Code Rater1 Rater2 Average 1 SCT1 3 3 3 2 SCT2 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 SCT3 2 2.5 2.25 4 SCT4 2 2 2 5 SCT5 2.5 2.5 2.5 6 SCT6 2 2 2 7 SCT7 2.5 2 2.25 8 SCT8 1.5 1.5 1.5 9 SCT9 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 SCT10 1.5 1.5 1.5 11 SCT11 1 1 1 12 SCT12 1.5 1 1.25 13 SCT13 1 1 1 14 SCT14 3 2.5 2.75 15 SCT15 2.5 2.5 2.5 16 SCT16 2.5 2 2.25 17 SCT17 2 1.5 1.75 18 SCT18 2 1 1.5 19 SCT19 1.5 1 1.25 20 SCT20 1 1 1 21 SCT21 2.5 2 2.25 22 SCT22 1.5 1.5 1.5 23 SCT23 1.5 1 1.25 24 SCT24 2.5 2 2.25 25 SCT25 1.5 1.5 1.5 26 SCT26 1.5 1.5 1.5 27 SCT27 1 1 1 28 SCT28 1.5 1.5 1.5 29 SCT29 1 1.5 1.25 30 SCT30 1 1 1 31 SCT31 1.5 1 1.25 32 SCT32 1.5 1 1.25 33 SCT33 2 1.5 1.75 34 SCT34 2 2.5 2.25 35 SCT35 1 1 1 36 SCT36 1.5 1.5 1.5
282
Appendix 10.1.3 – Cooperative Learning Class (Pre-test) No Student’s Code Rater1 Rater2 Average 1 SCL1 2 2 2 2 SCL2 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 SCL3 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 SCL4 3 3 3 5 SCL5 2.5 2.5 2.5 6 SCL6 2.5 2.5 2.5 7 SCL7 0.5 0.5 0.5 8 SCL8 1 1 1 9 SCL9 1 1 1 10 SCL10 1 1 1 11 SCL11 1.5 1.5 1.5 12 SCL12 0.5 0.5 0.5 13 SCL13 1.5 2 1.75 14 SCL14 1 0.5 0.75 15 SCL15 1.5 2 1.75 16 SCL16 1 1 1 17 SCL17 1.5 2 1.75 18 SCL18 2.5 3 2.75 19 SCL19 2.5 2.5 2.5 20 SCL20 1 1 1 21 SCL21 1 1 1 22 SCL22 1.5 1.5 1.5 23 SCL23 1 1 1 24 SCL24 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 SCL25 2 2 2
283
Appendix 10.1.4 – Cooperative Learning Class (Post-test) No Student’s Code Rater1 Rater2 Average 1 SCL1 3 2.5 2.75 2 SCL2 2.5 2 2.25 3 SCL3 4 3.5 3.75 4 SCL4 3 3 3 5 SCL5 3 2 2.5 6 SCL6 3 2 2.5 7 SCL7 2 1.5 1.75 8 SCL8 1.5 2 1.75 9 SCL9 1.5 2 1.75 10 SCL10 2.5 2 2.25 11 SCL11 2.5 2 2.25 12 SCL12 1 1 1 13 SCL13 2.5 2 2.25 14 SCL14 2 2 2 15 SCL15 2.5 2.5 2.5 16 SCL16 1.5 1.5 1.5 17 SCL17 2.5 2.5 2.5 18 SCL18 2.5 2.5 2.5 19 SCL19 2.5 2 2.25 20 SCL20 2.5 1.5 2 21 SCL21 2.5 2 2.25 22 SCL22 2.5 2 2.25 23 SCL23 1.5 1.5 1.5 24 SCL24 1 0.5 0.75 25 SCL25 3 3 3
284
Appendix 10.2 – Results of Pretest and Posttest of Paired-Oral Interview
Appendix 10.2.1 – Control Treatment Class No Student’s Code Pretest Posttest Difference 1 SCT1 1.75 3 1.25 2 SCT2 2.75 3.5 0.75 3 SCT3 1.5 2.25 0.75 4 SCT4 1.25 2 0.75 5 SCT5 1.5 2.5 1 6 SCT6 1 2 1 7 SCT7 2.5 2.25 -0.25 8 SCT8 1 1.5 0.5 9 SCT9 1 1.5 0.5 10 SCT10 1 1.5 0.5 11 SCT11 1 1 0 12 SCT12 1.5 1.25 -0.25 13 SCT13 1 1 0 14 SCT14 3 2.75 -0.25 15 SCT15 2.75 2.5 -0.25 16 SCT16 1 2.25 1.25 17 SCT17 1 1.75 0.75 18 SCT18 1 1.5 0.5 19 SCT19 1 1.25 0.25 20 SCT20 0.75 1 0.25 21 SCT21 2.25 2.25 0 22 SCT22 1.25 1.5 0.25 23 SCT23 1 1.25 0.25 24 SCT24 2.5 2.25 -0.25 25 SCT25 1.25 1.5 0.25 26 SCT26 1 1.5 0.5 27 SCT27 1 1 0 28 SCT28 1.5 1.5 0 29 SCT29 1 1.25 0.25 30 SCT30 1 1 0 31 SCT31 1.5 1.25 -0.25 32 SCT32 1.5 1.25 -0.25 33 SCT33 1 1.75 0.75 34 SCT34 1.25 2.25 1 35 SCT35 1 1 0 36 SCT36 1 1.5 0.5
285
Appendix 10.2.2 – Cooperative Learning Class No Student’s Code Pretest Posttest Difference 1 SCL1 2 2.75 0.75 2 SCL2 2.5 2.25 -0.25 3 SCL3 3.5 3.75 0.25 4 SCL4 3 3 0 5 SCL5 2.5 2.5 0 6 SCL6 2.5 2.5 0 7 SCL7 0.5 1.75 1.25 8 SCL8 1 1.75 0.75 9 SCL9 1 1.75 0.75 10 SCL10 1 2.25 1.25 11 SCL11 1.5 2.25 0.75 12 SCL12 0.5 1 0.5 13 SCL13 1.75 2.25 0.5 14 SCL14 0.75 2 1.25 15 SCL15 1.75 2.5 0.75 16 SCL16 1 1.5 0.5 17 SCL17 1.75 2.5 0.75 18 SCL18 2.75 2.5 -0.25 19 SCL19 2.5 2.25 -0.25 20 SCL20 1 2 1 21 SCL21 1 2.25 1.25 22 SCL22 1.5 2.25 0.75 23 SCL23 1 1.5 0.5 24 SCL24 0.5 0.75 0.25 25 SCL25 2 3 1
286
Appendix 10.3 – Results of Components of Communicative Competence
Appendix 10.3.1 – Linguistic Competences Control Treatment Class No Student’s Code Pretest Posttest Difference 1 SCT1 2 3 1 2 SCT2 2.75 4 1.25 3 SCT3 1.25 2 0.75 4 SCT4 1.5 2.25 0.75 5 SCT5 1.75 2.75 1 6 SCT6 1 2 1 7 SCT7 2.25 2 -0.25 8 SCT8 1 1.75 0.75 9 SCT9 1 1.25 0.25 10 SCT10 1 1.75 0.75 11 SCT11 1.25 1 -0.25 12 SCT12 1.25 1.25 0 13 SCT13 1 1 0 14 SCT14 3.25 2.75 -0.5 15 SCT15 2 2.75 0.75 16 SCT16 1 2.25 1.25 17 SCT17 1 1.5 0.5 18 SCT18 1 1.25 0.25 19 SCT19 1 1.25 0.25 20 SCT20 0.75 1 0.25 21 SCT21 3 2.25 -0.75 22 SCT22 2 1.5 -0.5 23 SCT23 1 1 0 24 SCT24 3 2.5 -0.5 25 SCT25 1 1.75 0.75 26 SCT26 1.25 1.5 0.25 27 SCT27 2 1 -1 28 SCT28 2 1.5 -0.5 29 SCT29 2 1.75 -0.25 30 SCT30 1.5 1 -0.5 31 SCT31 2 1.25 -0.75 32 SCT32 2 1.25 -0.75 33 SCT33 1 2 1 34 SCT34 1 2 1 35 SCT35 1 1 0 36 SCT36 1.25 1.75 0.5
287
Appendix 10.3.2 – Sociolinguistic Competence Control Treatment Class No Student’s Code Pretest Posttest Difference 1 SCT1 1.5 3 1.5 2 SCT2 2.5 3 0.5 3 SCT3 1.5 2 0.5 4 SCT4 1.25 2 0.75 5 SCT5 2 2 0 6 SCT6 1 2 1 7 SCT7 2.25 2 -0.25 8 SCT8 1 1 0 9 SCT9 1 1 0 10 SCT10 1 1.25 0.25 11 SCT11 1 1 0 12 SCT12 1.25 1 -0.25 13 SCT13 1 1 0 14 SCT14 3 2.5 -0.5 15 SCT15 2 2 0 16 SCT16 1 2 1 17 SCT17 1 1.5 0.5 18 SCT18 1 1 0 19 SCT19 1 1.25 0.25 20 SCT20 0.5 1 0.5 21 SCT21 2 2 0 22 SCT22 1.5 1.25 -0.25 23 SCT23 1 1 0 24 SCT24 2 2 0 25 SCT25 1 1 0 26 SCT26 1 1 0 27 SCT27 1 1 0 28 SCT28 1.75 1 -0.75 29 SCT29 1 1.25 0.25 30 SCT30 1 1 0 31 SCT31 1.5 1 -0.5 32 SCT32 1.5 1 -0.5 33 SCT33 1 2 1 34 SCT34 1 2 1 35 SCT35 1 1 0 36 SCT36 1 1 0
288
Appendix 10.3.3 – Discourse Competence Control Treatment Class No Student’s Code Pretest Posttest Difference 1 SCT1 2 3 1 2 SCT2 2.75 3.5 0.75 3 SCT3 1 2 1 4 SCT4 1 2 1 5 SCT5 1.5 2.75 1.25 6 SCT6 1 2 1 7 SCT7 2.75 2.5 -0.25 8 SCT8 1 1 0 9 SCT9 1 1 0 10 SCT10 0.5 1 0.5 11 SCT11 0.75 1 0.25 12 SCT12 1 1 0 13 SCT13 1 1 0 14 SCT14 3.25 2.75 -0.5 15 SCT15 3 3 0 16 SCT16 1 2 1 17 SCT17 1 1.5 0.5 18 SCT18 1 1 0 19 SCT19 1 1 0 20 SCT20 1 1 0 21 SCT21 3 2.5 -0.5 22 SCT22 2 1 -1 23 SCT23 1 1 0 24 SCT24 3 2.5 -0.5 25 SCT25 1 1.25 0.25 26 SCT26 1 1 0 27 SCT27 1 1 0 28 SCT28 2 1 -1 29 SCT29 1.5 1 -0.5 30 SCT30 1 1 0 31 SCT31 2 1 -1 32 SCT32 1.5 1 -0.5 33 SCT33 1 1.5 0.5 34 SCT34 1 2.5 1.5 35 SCT35 1 1 0 36 SCT36 1 1 0
289
Appendix 10.3.4 – Strategic Competence Control Treatment Class No Student’s Code Pretest Posttest Difference 1 SCT1 2.25 3 0.75 2 SCT2 2.75 4 1.25 3 SCT3 1 2 1 4 SCT4 1.5 2 0.5 5 SCT5 2 2.75 0.75 6 SCT6 1 2 1 7 SCT7 2.25 2 -0.25 8 SCT8 0.75 2 1.25 9 SCT9 1.25 1 -0.25 10 SCT10 0.75 1.75 1 11 SCT11 1 1 0 12 SCT12 1.25 1 -0.25 13 SCT13 1 1 0 14 SCT14 2.5 2.25 -0.25 15 SCT15 3 2 -1 16 SCT16 1 2 1 17 SCT17 1 1.5 0.5 18 SCT18 1 1.5 0.5 19 SCT19 1 1 0 20 SCT20 0.5 1 0.5 21 SCT21 2 2 0 22 SCT22 1.5 1.75 0.25 23 SCT23 1 1 0 24 SCT24 2.25 2 -0.25 25 SCT25 1 2 1 26 SCT26 1.25 1.5 0.25 27 SCT27 2 1 -1 28 SCT28 2.25 1.5 -0.75 29 SCT29 1.5 1.5 0 30 SCT30 1 1 0 31 SCT31 2 1.5 -0.5 32 SCT32 2 1 -1 33 SCT33 1 2 1 34 SCT34 1 2 1 35 SCT35 1 1 0 36 SCT36 1 1.5 0.5
290
Appendix 10.3.5 – Linguistic Competences Cooperative Learning Class No Student’s Code Pretest Posttest Difference 1 SCL1 2 3 1 2 SCL2 3 3 0 3 SCL3 3.25 4 0.75 4 SCL4 3.25 3.25 0 5 SCL5 2.25 3 0.75 6 SCL6 3 3 0 7 SCL7 0 1.75 1.75 8 SCL8 1 2 1 9 SCL9 1 2 1 10 SCL10 1 2.25 1.25 11 SCL11 2 2.25 0.25 12 SCL12 1 2 1 13 SCL13 2.75 2.75 0 14 SCL14 1 2 1 15 SCL15 1.75 2.75 1 16 SCL16 1 1.75 0.75 17 SCL17 2 2.75 0.75 18 SCL18 3.5 3 -0.5 19 SCL19 2 2.25 0.25 20 SCL20 2 1.75 -0.25 21 SCL21 2 2.75 0.75 22 SCL22 2 2.5 0.5 23 SCL23 2 1.25 -0.75 24 SCL24 2 0.75 -1.25 25 SCL25 2 3.75 1.75
291
Appendix 10.3.6 – Sociolinguistic Competence Cooperative Learning Class No Student’s Code Pretest Posttest Difference 1 SCL1 1.75 3 1.25 2 SCL2 2 2 0 3 SCL3 3 3.25 0.25 4 SCL4 3 3 0 5 SCL5 2 2.25 0.25 6 SCL6 2 2.5 0.5 7 SCL7 0 1.5 1.5 8 SCL8 1 1.5 0.5 9 SCL9 1 1.5 0.5 10 SCL10 1 2 1 11 SCL11 1 2.25 1.25 12 SCL12 0.5 1 0.5 13 SCL13 2 2 0 14 SCL14 1 2 1 15 SCL15 1.75 2 0.25 16 SCL16 1 1 0 17 SCL17 1 2 1 18 SCL18 2.75 2 -0.75 19 SCL19 2.5 2 -0.5 20 SCL20 1 1.5 0.5 21 SCL21 1 2 1 22 SCL22 1.25 2 0.75 23 SCL23 1 1 0 24 SCL24 0.5 0.75 0.25 25 SCL25 2.75 3 0.25
292
Appendix 10.3.7 – Discourse Competence Cooperative Learning Class No Student’s Code Pretest Posttest Difference 1 SCL1 1 3 2 2 SCL2 2.5 2.25 -0.25 3 SCL3 4 4 0 4 SCL4 3 3 0 5 SCL5 3 2.5 -0.5 6 SCL6 3 2.5 -0.5 7 SCL7 0 2 2 8 SCL8 1 1.75 0.75 9 SCL9 1 1.75 0.75 10 SCL10 1.25 2 0.75 11 SCL11 2 2 0 12 SCL12 0.5 1 0.5 13 SCL13 3 2 -1 14 SCL14 0.75 2 1.25 15 SCL15 2 2.25 0.25 16 SCL16 0.75 1 0.25 17 SCL17 1.5 2 0.5 18 SCL18 2.5 3 0.5 19 SCL19 2 2 0 20 SCL20 1 1.5 0.5 21 SCL21 1 2 1 22 SCL22 1 2 1 23 SCL23 1 1 0 24 SCL24 0.75 1 0.25 25 SCL25 2 3 1
293
Appendix 10.3.8 – Strategic Competence Cooperative Learning Class No Student’s Code Pretest Posttest Difference 1 SCL1 1.5 3 1.5 2 SCL2 2 2.5 0.5 3 SCL3 3.25 3.5 0.25 4 SCL4 3 3 0 5 SCL5 3 3 0 6 SCL6 3 3 0 7 SCL7 0 2 2 8 SCL8 1 2 1 9 SCL9 1 1.75 0.75 10 SCL10 1 2 1 11 SCL11 2 2.75 0.75 12 SCL12 1 2 1 13 SCL13 2.5 3 0.5 14 SCL14 0.5 2 1.5 15 SCL15 2 3 1 16 SCL16 1 1.5 0.5 17 SCL17 2 2.75 0.75 18 SCL18 3 3 0 19 SCL19 2.5 2.5 0 20 SCL20 1 2.5 1.5 21 SCL21 1.25 2.5 1.25 22 SCL22 1.25 2.5 1.25 23 SCL23 1 1 0 24 SCL24 1 1 0 25 SCL25 2 3 1
294
Appendix 11 – Indonesia‟s Formal Education System
Age Scho
ol Year
Education Level
Education Delivery
Decentralized Centralized
Above 22
23 Doctoral (includes General &
Islamic, and Vocational, Academic & Professional)
22
21
20 Master (includes General &
Islamic, and Vocational, Academic & Professional) 19
22 18 Undergraduate (includes General &
Islamic, and Vocational & Academic
21 17 20 16 19 15 18 14 General Senior
Secondary &Vocational
Senior Secondary (SMA & SMK)
Islamic General Senior Secondary & Islamic
Vocational Senior Secondary
(MA & MAK)
17 13
16 12
15 11 Junior Secondary (SMP)
Islamic Junior Secondary (MTs) 14 10
13 9 12 8
Primary (SD) Islamic Primary (MI)
11 7 10 6 9 5 8 4 7 3
6 2
Kindergarten (TK) Islamic Kindergarten (RA)
5 1
Source: Ministry of Education and Culture (2013, p. 10)
Higher
Education
Secondary Education
Basic Education
Early Childhood Education
295
Appendix 12 - Curriculum Structure in Indonesian Education System
Curriculum Structure for Elementary School
Subjects Time allocation per week I II III IV V VI
Group A 1 Religion Education 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 Civic Education 5 6 6 6 6 6 3 Indonesian Language 8 8 10 10 10 10 4 Math 5 6 6 6 6 6 Group B 1 Arts, Cultures, and Skills
(including local contents) 4 4 4 6 6 6
2 Physical Education (including local contents) 4 4 4 4 4 4
Total Hours / Week 30 32 34 36 36 36
= Integrated thematic learning
Curriculum Structure for Junior Secondary School (SMP)
Subjects Time allocation per week VII VIII IX
Group A 1 Religion Education 3 3 3 2 Civic Education 3 3 3 3 Indonesian Language 6 6 6 4 Math 5 5 5 5 Science Education 5 5 5 6 Social Education 4 4 4 7 English 4 4 4 Group B 1 Arts and Cultures (including local contents) 3 3 3 2 Physical Education (including local contents) 3 3 3 3 Prakarya (including local contents) 2 2 2 Total time allocation per week 38 38 38
296
Curriculum Structure for Senior Secondary School (SMA) and Vocational Senior Secondary School (SMK)
Subjects Time allocation per week X XI XII
Core Subjects 1 Religion Education 3 3 3 2 Civic Education 2 2 2 3 Indonesian Language 4 4 4 4 Math 4 4 4 5 Indonesian History 2 2 2 6 English 2 2 2 7 Arts and Cultures 2 2 2 8 Prakarya 2 2 2 9 Physical Education 2 2 2 Total time allocation for core subject per week 23 23 23 Specification Subjects Subjects for Academic Specification (SMA) 20 20 20 Subjects for Academic and Vocational Specification (SMK) 28 28 28
Specification and elective subjects for Senior Secondary School
Subjects Class X XI XII
Core Subjects 23 23 23 Math and Science Specification I 1 Math 3 4 4
2 Biology 3 4 4 3 Physics 3 4 4 4 Chemistry 3 4 4
Social Specification II 1 Geography 3 4 4
2 History 3 4 4 3 Sociology and Anthropology 3 4 4 4 Economics 3 4 4
Language Specification III 1 Indonesian Language and Literature 3 4 4
2 English Language and Literature 3 4 4 3 Other Foreign Languages and Literatures 3 4 4 4 Sociology and Anthropology 3 4 4
Elective Subjects Elective for Interest or Across Interest 6 4 4 Total subjects available 73 75 75 Total credits should be taken 41 43 43
297
Appendix 13 - Curriculum Structure of English Education Study Programme at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung, Indonesia
List of EESP Subjects at STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung
Semester Code Subject Name Credit Points
Semester I MPK306 Religious Education 3 MPK302 Pancasila Education 2 MPK308 National Language Education 3 MKK306 Student Counselling and Development 3 MKK310 Introduction to Education 2 MKB358 English Grammar I 4 MKB361 Pronunciation Practice 2 MPB339 Reading I 2 MKK315 Introduction to Computer Application 2
Total 22 Semester II MPK307 Civic Education 3
MPK304 Environment, Social and Culture, and Technology Education 2
MKK308 Entrepreneurship 2 MKB313 Introduction to Linguistics 2 MKB359 English Grammar II 4 MKB328 Listening Comprehension I 2 MKB332 Speaking I 4 MKB340 Reading II 2 MKB344 Writing I 2
Total 23 Semester III MKK307 1. Educational Profession 2
MKB356 English Morphology 2 MKB315 English Phonology 2 MKB316 English Syntax 2 MKB360 English Grammar III 2 MKK313 Statistics I 2 MKB329 Listening Comprehension II 2 MKB333 Speaking II 2 MKB341 Reading III 4 MKB345 Writing II 2 MKB349 Vocabulary *) 2
Total 24 Semester IV MKK314 Statistics II 2
MKB327 Cross Cultural Understanding 2 MKB342 Extensive Reading I 2 MKB346 Writing III 4 MKB334 Speaking III 3
298
MKB335 Translation I 2 MPB358 English Lesson Plan 2 MPB360 Curriculum & Material Development 4 MPB367 Language Assessment 3 MKB350 Language Lab and Library *) 2
Total 22 Semester V MKB320 Semantics 2
MKB324 Literature 2 MKB336 Translation II 2 MKB343 Extensive Reading II 2 MKB362 Scientific Writing 2 MPB356 Methodology of Research 4 MPB359 Teaching Media 2 MPB362 Learning and Teaching Strategy 4 MKB347 Dictation *) 2
Total 21 Semester VI MKK312 Test of English as a Foreign Language 0
MKB321 Sociolinguistics 2 MKB322 Psycholinguistics 2 MKB352 Teaching English for Children *) 4 MKB357 Pragmatics 2 MPB357 Seminar on Language Teaching 2 MPB363 Micro Teaching 4 MKB364 Interpreting *) 3 MKB351 Error Analysis *) 2
Total 21 Semester VII MKB324 Prose 2
MKB326 Drama 2 MKB348 English for Specific Purpose 2 MKB363 Discourse Analysis 2 MPB364 Field Teaching Practice 4 MKB354 Innovation on Language Teaching 2
Total 14 Semester VIII MKB353 Literature Appreciation *) 2
MPB456 Thesis 6 Total 8
Note: Subjects with *) is optional subjects provided by the study programme totalling of 13 credit points in which each student should take at least 8 credit points, so the total credit points taken for 8 semester is 150 credit points.
299
Appendix 14 – Example of Lesson Plans for the Experiment Class
Lesson Plan
Study Programme / Class : English Education / Class B Semester / Subject : III / Speaking 2 Meeting / Lang. Function : 1 / Introduction and Learning contract Date / Time : 22 September 2015 / 08.00 – 09.30 Lecturer : Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, MA (TESL)
Objectives:
By the end of the lesson the students are able to tell the learning contract during this semester
Language learning aims:
The students are asked to: Introduce themselves Set the learning contract
Social aims:
Students are expected to know each other well and build a supportive relationship and conducive classroom learning atmosphere.
Presupposed background knowledge and language competence:
The students already know how to introduce themselves and familiar with university‟s rules.
Time Teaching focus and materials
Lecturer’s activities Students’ activities
Teaching methods
10‟ Greeting and lecturer‟s introduction
Introduce himself Listening and asking questions
Whole class
10‟ Students‟ introduction (briefly)
Listen and ask questions Introduce themselves to the class
Whole class
300
20‟ Group building
Dividing students into groups and setting cooperative learning groups by explaining the principles of positive interdependence, individual and group accountability, promotive interaction, interpersonal and social skills, and group processing)
Seating in groups
Whole class Group work
15‟ Drafting classroom contract
Set the task, monitoring students‟ work, and encouraging students to practice positive interdependence, individual and group accountability, promotive interaction, and interpersonal and social skills from CL principles.
Draft classroom contract for students and lecturer in groups
Group work
10‟ Discussing classroom contract
Moderate classroom discussion
Discuss the rules of classroom behaviours
Whole class
5‟ Agreement on classroom contract
Sign classroom contract Sign classroom contract (class representatives)
Whole class
10‟ Group processing
Guiding group processing (how they feel learning in group)
Expressing their thoughts
Whole class
10 Learning diary
Explain the learning diary Listen and respond to lecturer
Evaluations: Students‟ introduction Student‟s participation in cooperative groups discussion Students‟ reactions and classroom learning atmosphere
Bandar Lampung, September 2015
Chief of Art and Language Department Lecturer
Dr. Akhmad Sutiyono, M.Pd. Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, MA
301
Lesson Plan
Study Programme / Class : English Education / Class B Semester / Subject : III / Speaking 2 Meeting / Lang. Function : 2 / introducing oneself and others Date / Time : 29 September 2015 / 08.00 – 09.30 Lecturer : Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, MA (TESL)
Objectives:
By the end of the lesson the students are able to introduce themselves and others.
Language learning aims:
The students are asked to: Introduce themselves Introduce someone to someone else
Social aims:
Students are expected to know each other better.
Presupposed background knowledge and language competence:
The students already know how to introduce themselves and familiar with vocabularies used in introduction.
Time Teaching focus and materials
Lecturer’s activities Students’ activities
Teaching methods
3‟ Greeting and checking attendance
Greeting students and checking their attendance
Responding to lecturer
Whole class
20‟ Introducing oneself
Divide students into their CL groups and ask students to introduce themselves
Introducing each other in CL groups
Group work
10‟ Introducing yourself
Set task for groups to identify how do introduction
Draft how to introduce yourself
Group work
10‟ Class discussion Guide and summarize class discussion
Share their draft
Whole class
10‟ Introducing someone to someone else
Play video clip on introduction
Watch video clip and make note
Whole class
302
20‟ Practice introducing someone to someone else
Set the task for students to make a role play in their CL groups
Practice introduction in role play
Group work
5 Lesson summary
Summarize the lesson Summarize the lesson
Whole class
10‟ Group processing
Guiding and monitoring group processing (member participation)
Evaluating how their groups performed
Group work
2‟ End of lesson Closing the lesson Closing the lesson
Whole class
Evaluations: Student‟s participation in group work Student‟s participation in classroom discussion
Bandar Lampung, September 2015
Chief of Art and Language Department Lecturer
Dr. Akhmad Sutiyono, M.Pd. Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, MA
303
Lesson Plan
Study Programme / Class : English Education / Class B Semester / Subject : III / Speaking 2 Meeting / Lang. Function : 3 / expressing opinion Date / Time : 6 October 2015 / 08.00 – 09.30 Lecturer : Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, MA (TESL)
Objectives:
By the end of the lesson the students are able to express her/his opinion appropriately.
Language learning aims:
The students are asked to: Asking other‟s opinion Giving her/his opinion Responding to other‟s opinion
Social aims:
Students are expected to be able to start an informal conversation by asking, giving and responding opinions.
Presupposed background knowledge and language competence:
The students already know how some words or phrases used in asking and giving opinion (What is your opinion?, What do you think?, In my opinion, I think).
Time Teaching focus and materials
Lecturer’s activities Students’ activities
Teaching methods
3‟ Greeting and checking attendance
Greet students and check their attendance
Respond to lecturer
Whole class
5‟ Activating students‟ schemata
Ask students‟ opinion about their university
Respond to lecturer‟s questions
Whole class
304
35‟ Asking and giving opinion
Give some environmental pictures and ask students in CL groups to express their opinion using different words and phrases, monitoring the implementation of CL principles
Asking and giving opinion in CL groups
Group work
10‟ Asking and giving opinion
Play video clips and ask students in CL groups to identify words and phrases used to ask and give opinion
In CL groups, identifying words and phrases used in asking and giving opinion
Group work
10‟ Asking and giving opinion
Summarize words and phrases used in expressing opinion
Summarize words and phrases used in expressing opinion
Whole class
15‟ Asking and giving opinion
Ask students to practice in groups using different words and phrases used in expressing opinion
Practice in groups
Whole class
10‟ Group processing
Guide group processing (individual and group accountability)
Group processing
Group work
2‟ End of lesson Closing the lesson Closing the lesson
Whole class
Evaluations: Student‟s participation in group work Student‟s participation in classroom discussion
Bandar Lampung, October 2015
Chief of Art and Language Department Lecturer
Dr. Akhmad Sutiyono, M.Pd. Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, MA
305
Lesson Plan
Study Programme / Class : English Education / Class B Semester / Subject : III / Speaking 2 Meeting / Lang. Function : 4 / expressing agreement and disagreement Date / Time : 13 October 2015 / 08.00 – 09.30 Lecturer : Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, MA (TESL)
Objectives:
By the end of the lesson the students are able to express agreement and disagreement.
Language learning aims:
The students are able to: Express agreement Express disagreement Provide reason
Social aims:
Students are expected to be able to agree or disagree on issues in a formal discussion appropriately.
Presupposed background knowledge and language competence:
The students already know how to express opinion and know some words or phrases used in expressing agreement and disagreement (I agree, I disagree, I think so, I don‟t think so).
Time Teaching focus and materials
Lecturer’s activities Students’ activities
Teaching methods
3‟ Greeting and checking attendance
Greet students and check their attendance
Responding to lecturer
Whole class
5‟ Activating students‟ schemata
Discuss previous lesson and relate to today‟s lesson
Listen and respond to lecturer
Whole class
35‟ Expressing agreement and disagreement
Set the task and ask student in groups to plan a classroom activity to improve their English and reminding students of CL principles
Discuss in CL groups
Group work
306
20‟ Expressing agreement and disagreement
Ask students to share their groups sport events with other CL groups
Share their plans to other CL groups
Group work
15‟ Expressing agreement and disagreement
Ask groups to summarize words and phrases used to agree and disagree Clarifying expressions of agreement and disagreement
In CL groups, summarize words and phrases used to agree and disagree
Group work
10‟ Group processing
Guiding group processing (supportive interaction)
Group processing
Group work
2‟ End of lesson Closing the lesson Closing the lesson
Whole class
Evaluations: Student‟s participation in group work Student‟s participation in classroom discussion
Bandar Lampung, October 2015
Chief of Art and Language Department Lecturer
Dr. Akhmad Sutiyono, M.Pd. Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, MA
307
Lesson Plan
Study Programme / Class : English Education / Class B Semester / Subject : III / Speaking 2 Meeting / Lang. Function : 5 / expressing likes, dislikes, and preference Date / Time : 20 October 2015 / 08.00 – 09.30 Lecturer : Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, MA (TESL)
Objectives:
By the end of the lesson students are able to express likes, dislikes and show their preference.
Language learning aims:
The students are able to: Express likes Express dislikes Show preference
Social aims:
Students are expected to be able to express themselves regarding what they like and dislike and show their preference in social interaction.
Presupposed background knowledge and language competence:
The students already know how some words or phrases used in expressing likes, dislikes and preference (I like, I don‟t like, I prefer … than …).
Time Teaching focus and materials
Lecturer’s activities
Students’ activities
Teaching methods
3‟ Greeting and checking attendance
Greet students and check their attendance
Respond to lecturer
Whole class
5‟ Reviewing previous lesson and activating students‟ schemata
Ask students‟ hobby
Respond to lecturer‟s questions
Whole class
308
20‟ Expressing likes, dislikes and preference
Ask students to discuss their hobby in CL groups using likes, dislikes, and preference expressions
Discuss in CL groups
Group work
5‟ Expressing likes, dislikes and preference
Give handout of dialogue and ask students to identify likes, dislikes and preference expression
Read the handout and identify likes, dislikes, and preference expressions
Group work
35‟ Expressing likes, dislikes and preference
Ask students in pairs within their CL groups to prepare a dialogue containing expression likes, dislikes and preference
Pairs in CL groups prepare a dialogue Share their dialogue with other pair within their CL group
Group work
10‟ Expressing likes, dislikes and preference
Ask some groups to present their dialogue
Perform their dialogue
Group presentation
10‟ Group processing Guide group processing (interpersonal and social skills)
Group processing
Group work
2‟ End of lesson Closing the lesson Closing the lesson
Whole class
Evaluations: Student‟s participation in group work Student‟s participation in classroom discussion
Bandar Lampung, October 2015
Chief of Art and Language Department Lecturer
Dr. Akhmad Sutiyono, M.Pd. Yanuar Dwi Prastyo, MA