CHAPTER II
Literature review
This chapter addresses the theoretical framework for the study. It provides background on CL in terms of its definitions and important factors. Specifically, this chapter discusses theoretical perspectives from the literature on CL, beginning with some definitions of CL, different CL methods in language learning, particularly one of them proposed by Slavin called Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD). It includes five major components which should be taken into account. Due to the vital role of speaking skill in communication this chapter will consider the components of speaking as a skill which include speaking accuracy and fluency and also their measurements.
2.1 Cooperative Learning (CL)
Johnson & Johnson, 1999 said that Cooperative learning has been around a long time. It will probably never go away due to its rich history of theory, research, and actual use in the classroom. Markedly different theoretical perspectives (social interdependence, cognitive-developmental, and behavioral learning) provide a clear rationale as to why cooperative efforts are essential for maximizing learning and ensuring healthy cognitive and social development as well as many other important instructional outcomes. Johnson & Johnson & Stanne (2000) also state that Cooperative learning is one of the most widespread and fruitful areas of theory, research, and practice in education.
Cooperative learning is one of the most remarkable and fertile areas of theory, research, and practice in education. According to Johnson & Johnson, (1999) Cooperative learning exists when students work together to accomplish shared learning goals. Deutsch, (1962) also believed that each student can then achieve his or her learning goal if and only if the other group members achieve theirs. (1)
Slavin (1982) stated that Cooperation is one of the most important human activities. In general, cooperative learning has been quite effective in increasing student achievement. When the classroom is structured in a way that allows students to work cooperatively on learning tasks. Students benefit academically as well as socially. The term "cooperative learning" refers to instructional methods in which students of all levels of performance work together in small groups toward a common goal. The essential feature of cooperative learning is that" the success of one student helps other students to be successful.(2)
There are various definitions of cooperative learning. According to Olsen and Kagan (1992), cooperative learning is defined as an approach to organize classroom activities so that students are able to learn from and interact with one another as well as from the teacher. In cooperative learning, a group learning activity is organized so that learning relies on the socially structured exchange of information between learners in a group where each learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is motivated to increase the learning of others.
Slavin (1995) refers cooperative learning to one of the most innovative and widely prescribed strategies to manage and build upon the strength of the increasing diversity found in a classroom.
In terms of language learning, Kagan, (1996) believes that cooperative learning has been proclaimed as an effective instructional approach in promoting the cognitive and linguistic development of learners of English as a second language or as a foreign language (A). Lawarn, (2007) states that cooperative learning refers to learning methods which are based on learning in small groups. In cooperative learning, students are divided into groups in order to learn and work cooperatively. They also learn to help each other reach the shared goal which leads to the team’s success. Cooperative learning also focuses on the interrelationships of the group members. Each student is responsible for his own learning and to encourage classmates to learn as well. The success of individual member of the group contributes to the team’s success.
Balkcom, (1992) said that cooperative learning is a successful teaching strategy in which small teams, each with students of different levels of ability, use a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject.
Kagan (1996) states that for language learning, cooperative learning has been announced as an effective instructional approach in promoting the cognitive and linguistic development of learners of English as a second language or as a foreign language.
According to Johnson and Johnson (1994), cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups in which students work together to maximize their own and each other's learning.
In terms of effectiveness of small group activities, Brown (2001) states that there are both theoretical and pedagogical reasons that help support the use of small group activities in the second language classroom.
Slavin and Cooper, (1999) believed that The purposes of using cooperative work groups is to enhance the academic achievement of students by providing them with increasing opportunity for discussion, for learning from each other, and for encouraging each other to excel.
Ghaith (2003) also claims that cooperative learning provides maximum opportunities for meaningful input and output in interactive and supportive environment.
Slavin (1995) also states that cooperative learning promotes individual learning because each student should perform better and this promotes the team’s learning as well. In the cooperative learning classroom, students are divided into groups. Then, each student has the shared goal of improving their own learning and encouraging their classmates’ learning. He said that success of one student is not the goal of learning; the success of all students is the goal of cooperative learning. Moreover, when students cooperatively study in teams, they can ask or help each other within the group, especially when they are not sure of the answers, they can first ask their classmates before asking the teacher.
In terms of language learning, Kagan, (1996) argued that cooperative learning has been proclaimed as an effective instructional approach in promoting the cognitive and linguistic development of learners of English as a second language or as a foreign language.(A)
2.1.1 Important Factors of CL
The widespread use of cooperative learning is due to multiple factors. According to Johnson&Johnson &Stanne (2000) three of the most important factors are that cooperative learning is clearly based on theory, validated by research, and operationalized into clear procedures educators can use.
First, cooperative learning is based solidly on a variety of theories in anthropology, sociology, economics, political science, psychology, and other social sciences.
Second, the amount, generalizability, breath, and applicability of the research on cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts provides considerable validation of the use of cooperative learning, perhaps more than most other instructional methods.
The third factor contributing to the widespread use of cooperative learning is the variety of cooperative learning methods available for teacher use, ranging from very concrete and prescribed to very conceptual and flexible. Cooperative learning is actually a generic term that refers to numerous methods for organizing and conducting classroom instruction.(1)
2.1.2 Cooperative Leaning Methods Evaluation
According to Johnson & Johnson & Stanne, (2000) there are five dimensions on which the methods of cooperative learning may be evaluated:
(a) ease of learning the method,
(b) ease of initial use in the classroom,
(c) ease of long-term maintenance of use of the method, and
(d) robustness of the method (applicability to a wide variety of subject areas and grade levels), and
(e) adaptability of method to changing conditions. Each cooperative learning method may be classified on a five-point scale (easy-moderate-difficult) on these dimensions.
Methods of cooperative learning may be placed on a continuum from direct to conceptual. More direct cooperative learning methods consist of very specific and well- defined techniques that teachers can learn in a few minutes and apply immediately. As Berman & McLaughlin, (1976) said, direct methods may initially be more appealing and seem more users friendly, while conceptual methods may be integrated into teachers' teaching repertoires and used throughout their career. More specifically, more direct methods tend to be easy to learn, tend to be easily implemented, are often focused on specific subject areas and grade levels.. More conceptual methods tend to be difficult to learn and use initially.(1)
Ghaith & Shaaban (2005) believe that research on the effectiveness of the various models of CL has shown that CL is a valuable instructional approach in the second/foreign language classroom and has underscored its potential for promoting meaningful learning.(4)
Hundreds of research studies demonstrate that cooperative efforts result in higher individual achievement than do competitive or individualistic efforts. This combination of theory, research, and practice makes cooperative learning one of the most distinguished of all instructional practices.
2.2 Cooperative Learning Methods
Jacobs, (2000) believes that in past years, there has been a growing interest in using cooperative learning activities in ESL/EFL field. In cooperative learning, students work together in groups of two to four members. However, cooperative learning is more than just putting students in groups and giving them something to do. Cooperative learning methods are tools which can be used to encourage mutual helpfulness in the groups and the active participation of students. There are different methods of cooperative learning, but there are three basic cooperative methods that are used widely as instructional strategies: Learning Together Johnson & Johnson, (1994), Structural Approach Kagan, (1996) and Student Team Learning Slavin, (1995).
2.2.1 Learning Together
The Learning Together method was proposed by Johnson & Johnson, (1994) involves a collaborative model in which students are directed to coordinate their efforts toward task completion with less emphasis on competition. They categorize learning into three categories: individual learning, competitive learning and cooperative learning. They see cooperative learning as the best learning strategy among these three styles of learning.
2.2.2 Structural Approach
This approach in cooperative learning is defined by Putman, (1998) as ‘an independent way of organizing social interaction in the classroom’. The Structural Approach has been developed by Kagan (1990) who divides it into four basic principles: positive interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation, and simultaneous interaction, or PIES. Kagan (1990) defines cooperative learning by looking at general structures which can be applied to any situation. In his view, the Structural Approach to cooperative learning is based on the creation, analysis and systematic application of structures, or content-free ways of organizing social interaction in the classroom.
2.2.3 Student Team Learning
The Student Team Learning method is a cooperative learning technique has been developed and researched at Johns Hopkins University. According to Slavin (1995), all cooperative learning methods are based on the concept that students should work together to learn and are responsible for their teammates’ learning as well as their own. Student Team Learning methods emphasize the use of team goals and team success. This means that the only way to achieve the learning goal is when all team members learn the objectives being taught. Slavin also indicates three essential concepts for all Student Team Learning methods: team rewards, individual accountability and equal opportunities for success. Students in a group can earn team rewards when they achieve the above designated and agreed criteria. Individual accountability exists when individuals contribute to the team for the team success. Every contribution of each member is important for the team. Equal opportunity for success means that every team member can contribute to the team by improving their previous scores and performance.(A)
Slavin (1995) divides Student Team Learning methods into five categories: 1) Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), 2) Teams Games Tournaments (TGT), 3) JIGSAW II, 4) Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) and 5) Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC).
Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Teams- Games-Tournaments (TGT) and “Jigsaw II” are the three most common forms of Student Team learning methods. (B)
2.3 Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD)
STAD was developed by Slavin (1995) and has been used in diverse subject areas. According to him, Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) is an instructional cooperative method which has positive effects on student learning in terms of communication and affective factors as it focuses on small groups of learners with divergent learning abilities to work together to complete a shared learning goal. STAD refers to an instructional cooperative method which emphasizes shared team goals and depends on combined learning of all group members. It also focuses on the group learning of students who are mixed in terms of ability.
Kagan, (1996) states that STAD is also implemented in ESL and EFL areas to develop learners’ language skills. In STAD, students are assigned to four-member learning teams that are mixed in performance level, gender, and ethnicity.
According to Lawarn, (2012) STAD consists of five major components: class participation, teams, quizzes, individual improvement scores and team recognition. The details of each component are discussed as follows:
Class participation
This component is mainly constructed by the teacher. Materials are presented and explained to students; however, the students must always realize that they must pay careful attention because the learning content will appear on the worksheet that they will be assigned in the next component.
Teams
Students are divided into groups of four of heterogeneous academic performance, sex, and race or ethnicity. This component is important because it prepares students to do well on the quizzes. All team members study the worksheets or materials together and they may need to explain them carefully to each other. Students should ensure that all members understand the material thoroughly before doing the quizzes. If students have questions, the teacher will act as a facilitator to explain those questions.
Quizzes
After studying the material or worksheet, students take individual quizzes and at that stage they cannot help each other. This component demonstrates individual accountability because each student is responsible for studying the material and working on the worksheets attentively. If every member in the group gets higher scores than previously, this will possibly help the team to improve their scores in the next component.
Individual improvement scores
The idea behind this component is that each student has a performance goal to encourage them to work harder and better than in the past. All students can improve the team scores if they do better in the quizzes. Students at all levels of achievement: High or low have equal opportunities to work for the team. However, each student has a base score derived from their score on their last performance. When the quiz scores exceed their base scores, they earn points for their team. The individual improvement scores are added together and divided by the number of people in the group.
Team recognition
Teams get a reward if the team‘s average scores satisfy the criteria. Teachers may have a role in creating how to reward successful groups. However, this component does not mainly focus on the award; it rather focuses on the recognition of the students‘accomplishment. Thus, students will realize the value of working cooperatively and help their teammates to understand the lessons.
Slavin (1995) claims that STAD is the most heavily researched of the entire cooperative learning methods and the positive effects have been consistent in all subjects. He found that students are more enthusiastic toward learning when using STAD than when doing individualized work. High achievers can improve their social and communication skills, enthusiasm in helping friends, and improving skills in working with low achieving students. On the other hand, low achievers can improve their self-esteem and motivation; reach a higher level of enthusiasm, gain in performance, and willingness to participate in learning. STAD also provides students with the opportunity to interact and socialize with others and to feel that learning is more interesting and less boring than just sitting in and listening to lessons. Slavin (1995) also points out that STAD is most appropriate and one of the simplest of all cooperative learning methods for teaching well-defined objectives such as language usage and mechanics. (A)
Researchers or practitioners find significant differences between STAD and other instructional methods in the EFL classroom. Students who work on a cooperative learning program using the STAD method should make some progress in their English learning performance. Similarly, Arends (1997) claims that STAD is perhaps the simplest and most straightforward of the cooperative learning approaches. Therefore, STAD is appropriate for teaching English language to students, especially those students who need encouragement in their English learning achievement.
2.3.1 Advantages of STAD
According to Lawarn, (2007), cooperative learning methods like STAD have been proven to be successful among a wide range of subjects and at different age levels. The greatest positive effects on student learning occur when groups are recognized or rewarded based on the individual learning of each of the group members. If students want their team to get a team reward, they must help each other to learn and support members in the team to do their best in order to get the reward. However, students must also do individual quizzes without any help from teammates which will show their individual accountability. This motivates students to explain to each other clearly so that each member understands the material before taking the individual quizzes. Each member should ensure that they understand the materials before doing the individual quizzes. The latest scores in the latest quiz will be calculated and compared to the previous scores in order to find the improvement scores for the team. Moreover, the team scores are based on the improvement scores from all members in the team. Thus, each member has an equal opportunity for success to improve their scores for their team. In addition, students can score better than the last base score. In other words, the improvement scores depend on how much better the teammates can score than in the past.(B)
Slavin (1987) argued that group contingencies are essential if small-group structures are to enhance achievement. By group contingencies, Slavin meant that, “the behavior of one or more group members brings rewards to a group”. Group contingencies worked in two steps. First, the teacher offered rewards or punishments to the groups. Then, the group members applied rewards or punishments to each other. Group contingencies motivated students to hope their teammates do well. In contrast, Slavin (1990) believed that practices in conventional education, such as having students study alone and grading on a curve, create a climate in which students hoped their classmates would fail.
Another important behaviorist concept behind STAD was vicarious reinforcement which is proposed by Bandura, (1971), which meant that students learned not only by being rewarded or unfinished themselves, but also by seeing other people receive rewards or punishments. Cooperative learning, especially when students were heterogeneously grouped, offered many opportunities for students to experience positive models who were rewarded for their efforts.
According to Slavin (1994) “the main idea behind STAD is to motivate students to encourage and help each other master skills presented by the teacher”. According to Slavin (1987), there were two types of motivation involved in STAD: (1) intrinsic motivation which flowed from within a person, and (2) extrinsic motivation that came from outside the person . While not denying the importance of intrinsic motivation, Slavin (1987) believed that “extrinsic motivation had to be used as they work in a group. In STAD, the teacher first lectured on the topic. Then, students studied the learning material provided by the teacher in preparation for a quiz. Each student’s grade was based on his or her own score on the quiz. But, at the same time, each student could contribute to a group score by making improvements. Each student’s contribution to their group’s score was based on how well they did on the quiz compared to their own average score on past quizzes. Thus, a relatively low achiever can contribute as much to their team as a high achiever without doing as well on the quiz as their higher-achieving teammate. The group score was used to determine which groups receive rewards, such as certificates and recognition in newsletters. (C)
According to Slavin (1990) STAD is one of the simplest and most extensively researched forms of all cooperative learning techniques, and it could be an effective instrument to begin with for teachers who are new to the cooperative learning technique.
Research studies in the use of STAD as a teaching technique was applied with great success in various research projects. (3)
Ghaith (2000)[as cited in Lawarn, (2007)] investigates the perceptions of the cooperative learning experiences of a group of middle school learners who study the rules and mechanics of English as a foreign language (EFL) using a Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) cooperative learning method. The results indicate that the learners are generally positive about their experiences and willing to recommend the use of STAD in other classes.(B)
Norman (2005)[as cited in Lawarn, (2012)] examines the impact of STAD in a South Korean elementary school. Norman finds that STAD has significantly positive effects on students’ achievements and students‘attitudes towards learning English.
Finally, Naghavi, Nakhle & Razavi (2012) [as cited in Lawarn, (2012)] examine the effect of STAD on developing the oral communication skills of intermediate language learners. The findings revealed that the program was effective in developing students’ oral communication skills as there was statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-test. (A).
2.4 Speaking
Celce-Murcia (2001) believes that if we try to understand the nature of what appears to be involved, the ability to speak a second or foreign language well is a very complex task.
Ellis (2003) stated that teaching oral language require more than managing the repeated oral production of structures in the target language, focusing on the development of grammatical and phonological accuracy, along with fluency.
Language production measurement, especially oral production, has long proved problematic for researchers. There are some classifications regarding specific measures of accuracy and fluency used in the various studies as follows:
Fluency measures: number of words/syllabus per minute, number of pauses of one/two seconds or longer, mean length of pauses, number of false starts and reformulations, length of run, and number of words per turn.
Accuracy dimensions: number of corrections, percentage of error-free clauses, target-like use of verbs, articles, vocabulary, and plurals.
2.5 Components of Speaking as a Skill
According to Housen & Kuiken, (2009) research on L2 pedagogy in the 1980s proved distinctions between fluent versus accurate L2 speakers to investigate the development of oral L2 proficiency in classroom contexts.
2.5.1 Fluency
Chambers (1997) mentioned two main characteristics of a fluent performance regardless of the context in which the concept is used. Those characteristics are speed and effortlessness. Rehbein (1987) said that “fluency means that the activities of planning and uttering can be executed nearly simultaneously by the speaker of the language” (p.104). He also added that fluency depends on the context, namely on the “speaker’s evaluation of the hearer’s expectations” (p.104).
2.5.2. More Definitions of Fluency
The definition proposed by Sajavaara (as cited in Kormos & Denes, 2004) can also be regarded as a broad conceptualization of fluency. He defined fluency as “the communicative acceptability of the speech act, or ‘communicative fit” (p. 62). He also points out that situation is considered as a key factor regarding various expectations about appropriate communicative context. Therefore, his definition seems to be very difficult to operationalize.
In a study, Lennon (2000) proposed a definition that “a working definition of fluency might be the rapid, smooth, accurate, lucid, and efficient translation of thought or communicative intention into language under the temporal constraints of on-line processing” (p.26).
2.5.3. Measures of Fluency
Many of studies have been concerned with establishing the appropriate measures of fluency. Lennon’s experiment (1990) was perhaps the most extensive in terms of measurement, as it analyzed 12 different factors related to speed, pausing, profile, self-corrections and other types of disfluency markers. Lennon’s main goal was to identify the factors that improve most during a study abroad period. Of course his study provided a wealth of interesting data, as well as a point of reference for subsequent research. .
Towel et al (1996) investigated what qualitative changes take place in the use of formulaic language alongside with the increase of fluency after participants spent a year in the target language environment. They found that the two selected students improved in how they employed different types of formulae after their staying abroad.
2.5.4. Accuracy
Accuracy concerns the extent to which the language produced match with target language norms (Yuan & Ellis, 2003). Researchers have various opinions in how accuracy is measured; for example Crooks et.al. (1985) and Wigglesworth, (2001) have preferred to examine how specific grammatical features are used accurately. Others have elected to use more generalized measures such as percentage of error-free clauses (Skehan & Foster, 1997). Regarding accuracy, Palloti (2009, p.592) believes that it is perhaps the easiest construct to define and also the most internally coherent of this triad, which refers to the degree of conformity to particular norm”.
2.5.5. Global accuracy
Global accuracy that is identifying any and all types of errors is what Foster & Skehan (1996 & 1999), Elder, Iwashita, and Mc Namara, (as cited in Kormos, 2004), Elder and Iwashita (2005) and Wigglesworth measured in their studies.
In global accuracy approach, all errors are considered so it has the potential to be the most comprehensive approach (Iwashita, 2008).
Mehnert (1998) suggests using general measures of accuracy. In his opinion, determining the overall accuracy will be more effective in contrast to specific measures. He argues that utilizing specific feature may not necessarily mean that other features will behave in the same manner; therefore using a more general measure is more effective. Foster &Skehan (1996) proposed proportion of error-free clauses as a more appropriate indicator of speech accuracy. According to Mehrnet (1998), the problem with using number of error-free clauses is that when such measures are used, no distinction is made between those clauses containing one or more errors. Therefore, error-free clauses may not be a particularly good measure in some cases. Hence, other researchers like Bardovi, Harlig, and Bofman (1989) suggest another measure of overall accuracy. They propose utilizing number of errors per clause or number of errors per one hundred words in order to account for different clause length. This measuring is also suggested by other scholars such as Mahnert, 1998.
2.5.6. Measures of Accuracy
Researchers have varied in how accuracy is measured; for example Crookes et.al., (1985) and Wigglesworth, (2001) have tried to examine how specific grammatical features are used accurately. Others have elected to use more generalized measures such as percentage of error-free clauses (Skehan & Foster, 1997). Housen and Kuiken (2009, p. 463) state that accuracy is “probably the oldest, most transparent and most consistent construct of the triad”. It is generally agreed that accurate speech does not contain errors, or in other words, it is error free.
Li (2000) proposed two ratios for measuring grammatical accuracy:
1. The number of grammatical errors to total number of sentences.
2. The number of types of errors to total number of errors. (ORAL DIALOGUE JOURNAL. THESIS 1