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: aksendro@gmail.com.

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: yanuar@ubl.ac.id. or Yanuar.DwiPrastyo@ul.ie. 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: FAHSSEthics@ul.ie

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: yanuar@ubl.ac.id. / Yanuar.DwiPrastyo@ul.ie 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