ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING
A GRADUATING PAPER
Submitted to the board of Examiners in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan Islam (S.Pd.I)
In the English and Education Department
By:
Muhamad Hasbi
NIM: 11307075
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FACULTY STATE ISLAMIC STUDIES INSTITUTE (STAIN)
ii
MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS
STATE ISLAMIC STUDIES INSTITUTE (STAIN) SALATIGA
Jl. Tentara Pelajar 02 Phone. (0298) 323706, 323433 Fax. 323433 Salatiga 50721 Website: www.stainsalatiga.ac.id E-mail: administrasi@stainsalatiga.ac.id
DECLARATION
In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful
Hereby the writer fully declares that this is made by writer himself, and it is
not containing materials written or has been published by other people, and other people’s ideas except the information from the references.
The writer in capable accounts for this graduating paper if in the future this graduating paper can be proved of containing others ideas or in fact writer imitates
the others’ graduating paper.
Likewise, the declaration is made by writer and writer hopes that this declaration can be understood.
Salatiga, September 7, 2011 Writer
iii
Jl. Tentara Pelajar 02 Phone. (0298) 323706, 323433 Fax. 323433 Salatiga 50721 Website: www.stainsalatiga.ac.id E-mail: administrasi@stainsalatiga.ac.id
Hammam, M. Pd
The Lecturer of Educational Faculty State Islamic Studies Institute of Salatiga ATTENTIVE COUNSELOR NOTES
Salatiga, September 7, 2011 Case: Muhamad Hasbi’s Graduating Paper
Dear,
The Head of State Islamic
Studies Institute of Salatiga
Assalamu’alaikum Wr. Wb.
After reading and correcting Muhamad Hasbi’s graduating paper entitled “A Descriptive Study of Cooperative Learning for English as a Foreign Language Learning”, I have decided and would like to propose that if it could be accepted by the educational faculty. I hope it could be examined as soon as possible.
Wassalamu’alaikum Wr. Wb.
Consultant
iv
MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS
STATE ISLAMIC STUDIES INSTITUTE (STAIN) SALATIGA
Jl. Tentara Pelajar 02 Phone. (0298) 323706, 323433 Fax. 323433 Salatiga 50721 Website: www.stainsalatiga.ac.id E-mail: administrasi@stainsalatiga.ac.id
A GRADUATING PAPER
A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING FOR
ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING
WRITTEN BY MUHAMAD HASBI
NIM: 11307075
The paper was approved by board of examiners of the English Department of the Education Faculty, State Islamic Studies Institute (STAIN) Salatiga on August, 18st 2011 and has been declared eligible to obtain a degree of Sarjana Pendidikan Islam
(S.Pd.I) in the English and Education Department. Board of the Examiners
1. Chair : Benny Ridwan, M. Hum 2. Secretary : Faizal Risdianto S.S., M. Hum 3. 1st Examiner : Hanung Triyoko, M.Hum, M.Ed 4. 2nd Examiner : Setia Rini, M.Pd
5. 3rd Examiner : Hammam, M.Pd
Salatiga, September 7, 2011 The Head of STAIN Salatiga
v
““““The Best of Us
The Best of Us
The Best of Us
The Best of Us
iiiis the
s the
s the
s the Most Contributing
Most Contributing
Most Contributing
Most Contributing for
for
for
for People
People
People””””
People
(Hadith by Thabrani dan Daruquthni)
““““Man
Man
Man Propose
Man
Propose
Propose
Proposessss, , , , Allah Dispose
Allah Dispose
Allah Dispose
Allah Disposes”
s”
s”
s”
(A Reflective Proverb)
“None of Us is as
“None of Us is as
“None of Us is as
“None of Us is as Best
Best
Best
Best as All of Us”
as All of Us”
as All of Us”
as All of Us”
vi DEDICATION
This work is sincerely dedicated for:
My parents (Mrs. Sumiyatun and Mr. Ruslan), my siblings (Mbak Umi, Mbak Wat,
Mbak Era, Mas Muh, Mas Fauzi), my nephew Awan, and my nieces Evi, and Lia. May
Allah award best for every single ‘gold’ you give. Your names are always engraved in my heart.
My ikhwah family in LDK Darul Amal and KAMMI Salatiga; militant people I always tag
in my heart. Thanks for being my dearest family in Salatiga.
My voo-fun TBI-C Class 2007. I love you guys. We do make a real harmony.
CEC members. Thanks for all the togetherness.
Readers who are thirsty for Allah’s knowledge outstretched on Earth.
Written with love inks,
vii
Hasbi, Muhamad. 2011. A Descriptive Study of Cooperative Learning for English as a Foreign Language Learning. Graduating Paper. English Department of Education Faculty. State Islamic Studies Institute (STAIN) Salatiga. Consultant: Hammam M. Pd.
Keywords: cooperative learning, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning. This research is aimed to study cooperative learning applied for English as a Foreign Language learning. General questions are going to answer are: (1) What is the concept of cooperative learning for English as a foreign language learning, (2) What are the strengths and the weaknesses of cooperative learning for English as a foreign language learning, and (3) What are cooperative methods and classroom activities compatible with four language skills. To obtain the answers, writer uses qualitative approach and library research.
Findings of previous research shows that English as a foreign language learners face some difficulties in learning English since it is not as easy as their native language. Most learners (1) feel that English learning today has not been successfully delivered and (2) desire for a new approach and methods more compatible with their condition.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Assalamu’alaikum Wr. Wb.
Alhamdulillahirabbil ‘alamiin, greatest praises to Allah SWT who lead this heart, mind, soul, eyes and hands tends to do such a kindness. Sholawat and salam may be upon to prophet Muhammad SAW, eternal model for us.
This graduating paper is such a result of the contributions from people around writer. Therefore, express special gratitude would like writer give to:
1. Dearest family: your pray and supports were the biggest power for writer to start
writing.
2. Mrs. Maslihatul Umami, S.Pd.I., M.A., the head of English Department.
3. Mr. Zakiyuddin Baidhawy, writer’s academic consultant who hand writer
cumlaude reports every semester.
4. Mr. Hammam, M. Pd., the consultant of this graduating paper. Thanks for all your details, improving assistance, and motivational charge.
5. Ikhwah LDK and KAMMI for all the ukhuwah and tarbiyah. Keep hamasah! in tanshurullaha yanshurkum.
6. Special “oases” and “magnets” of life: Akh Sa’dullah, Akh Rosyid, Akh Ron Ron, Akh Dwi, Akh Nura, and Akh Wahib.
ix
9. Influential people for writers’ improvements: Mas Arif Rahman, Nataly Reed, Vincent Scardino, Mrs. Sari Famulatsih, Foshdal Family, Mrs. Endang Subariyah,
Akh Bubud, Akh Zaidun, Akh Andi Kanuragan, Ayaros, Desi Mambang Melati, IELSP Grantee 7 (Arizona), Akh Arif Budi, Ma’had 2007, and Mas Azis.
10.Nothing less for whomever friends of writer. Go ahead! Life never goes back. Finally, writer expects for great feed-backs from readers since nothing in this world is perfect.
Wassalamu’alaikum Wr. Wb.
Salatiga, September 7, 2011
Writer
x
A. Background of the Study ………... B. Problem Statement ………...………….. C. Objective of the Study ……… D. Benefit of the Study ………...………...……….
E. Limitation of the Problem ………...………... F. Clarification of the Key Terms ………...……... G. Previous Research Review ………...…..………
xi
2. Theoretical and Empirical Support ……….…………. 3. Characteristics of Cooperative Learning ……….
B. English Language Learning …………...………... 1. English as a First Language, ESL, and EFL ……….……….. 2. EFL Learning ………..
3. Characteristics of EFL ………. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ……….
A. Research Design ………....
B. Data and Data Collection ……….…... C. Method of Collecting Data and Research Instrument ……… D. Data Analysis ……….
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS ……….. A. Cooperative Learning for English as a Foreign Language Learning …… B. Methods of Cooperative Learning ………..…... C. Cooperative Activities Compatible with Four Language Skills ………...
1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language (1993: 2) said
that language and communication are at the heart of human experience. That
statement infers that human’s daily routines is mostly influenced by both
language and communication. Nevertheless, in the further concept of
sociolinguistics, communication itself is essentially one form of language, a
verbal language form exactly. Thus, language holds a very important role in
the long-life human experience.
From time to time, human language develops. The process itself can be
categorized into two ways; language acquisition and language learning.
Learning is seen as a conscious process, while acquisition proceeds
unconsciously (Hutchinson, 1987: 49). There are no significant problems with
language acquisition since with or even if without any serious treatments and
efforts, language does acquire. Nonetheless, language learning requires
cooperative correlation between learners and teachers, so does all the learning
instruments needed.
Foreign language learning is more complex. Since it is not used in
everyday speaking, it deserves its own way to deliver. English language
learning, for instance, also has this intricacy.
That complexity however triggers teacher to select choices and then
data in a large amount of research shows, compared with competitive and
individualistic efforts, cooperation has positive effects on a wider range of
outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Slavin, 1995; Kagan, 1999).
Arends (2004: 356) said that cooperative learning model was
developed to achieve at least three instructional goals: academic achievement,
tolerance and acceptance of diversity, and social skill development. As a
benefit, teachers will not need to worry about the progress of both their
students’ individual progress, i.e. achievement, and social progress, i.e.
tolerance, acceptance of diversity, and the like. Additionally, Ahmad Sudrajad
(2010) in his field research on cooperative learning added that cooperative
learning is proper to teach in Indonesia, of which English is a foreign
language, because its philosophy “homo homini socius” matches to most
Indonesians who adore togetherness and mutual aid.
To more promising fact, a survey held by writer himself in July 3,
2011 on cooperative tendency towards fifty English as foreign language
learners in SIBA (Intensive Foreign Language Study) Class of STAIN
Salatiga also helps to support for reasoning (see Appendix). The results
showed that (1) learners tended to be cooperative in English learning (for
example: to work in group for doing assignments, to ask friends for answers
during test, to clarify the confusing materials with classmate), and (2) learners
felt sure that cooperative learning can help them to make progress in English
3
Thus, writer believed that, with the help of cooperative tendency and
desire, cooperative learning is applicable and beneficial to use in, in this case,
English as a foreign language classroom.
Those theoretical and experiential supports are the reasons why writer
feels interested in cooperative learning. Therefore, the writer is going to have
deeper study throughout composing a graduating paper entitled “A
DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING FOR ENGLISH
AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING”.
B. Problem Statement
Questions needed to reveal based on the background of the study are:
1. What is the concept of cooperative learning for English as a foreign
language learning?
2. What are the strengths and the weaknesses of cooperative learning for
English as a foreign language learning?
3. What are the cooperative methods and classroom activities compatible
with each language skill?
C. Objective of the Study
The objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To know the concept of cooperative learning for English as a foreign
2. To know the strengths and the weaknesses of using cooperative learning
for English as a foreign language learning.
3. To know the cooperative methods and classroom activities compatible
with each language skill applied in English as a foreign language learning.
D. Benefit of the Study
1. For readers
This study will be a guidance for readers to know deeper the
understanding and the application of cooperative learning for English as a
foreign language learning.
2. For up-coming researchers
This study will be a good reference for conducting further research on
cooperative learning.
3. For writer
This study gives worthy chance to writer to dig up the concept of
cooperative learning especially for English as a foreign language learning.
E. Limitation of the Problem
To avoid mistakes in understanding this research, writer limited the
problems as follows:
1. The concept of cooperative learning for English as a foreign language
learning.
2. The cooperative methods and classroom activities which are compatible
5
F. Clarification of the Key Terms
This scientific writing is a very abstract semantically; therefore, the
writer needs to define the term used in this study as follows:
1. Cooperative learning
Etymologically, cooperative learning is a combination of two
words. Cooperative means working together, and learning is study (Echols
& Shadily, 2003: 147 & 354). Meanwhile, In Oxford Learner’s pocket
Dictionary, cooperative means joint, willing to cooperate, business that is
owned and run by the people involved, and they share the profits.
Meanwhile, learning is gained by study (Manser, 2005: 93& 224).
In the more descriptive definition, Cooperative learning is teacher
helping student groups work together more effective by using the huge
amount of theory, research, and practical experience of our fellow
educations, both past and present. In short definition, cooperative learning
is concepts and technique for helping students to work together (Jacobs &
Goh, 2007: 4). Cooperative Learning refers to a systematic instructional
method in which students work together in small groups to accomplish
shared learning goals. The data in a large amount of research shows,
compared with competitive and individualistic efforts, cooperation has
positive effects on a wider range of outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 1991;
Slavin, 1995; Kagan, 1999).
Cooperative learning activities allow students opportunities to
(McCafferty et al, 2006: 25). Cooperative learning is more effective in
increasing motivation and performance of students (Michaels, 1997 in
Solihatin et al. 2007: 5).
2.
English as a Foreign Language LearningEnglish, according to Merriam Webster, is the language of the
people of England, U.S., and most of British Colonies and Dominions
(Merriam, 1976: 752).
As a language of wider communication, that English is the
International language par excellence. It may instances, it is a language of wider communication both among individuals from different countries and
between individuals from one country. In this way, English is an
international language in both a global and local sense (McKay, 2002: 5).
English as a foreign language (EFL) is English language used in
non-English-speaking country; as the rest of English as first and or second
language (Broughton: 6, 2003). Thus, English as a foreign language
learning is an English learning proceeded in non-English-speaking
country. Except the term EFL, there also exists ESL (English as a second
language) and ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) which all
refer to the use or study of English by speakers with a different native
language. However, those two terms do not involve as the focus of this
graduating paper.
7
In acquiring and learning language, people learn to listen first, then
to speak, then to read, and finally to write. These, in language learning
theory, are called language skills, i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and
writing (SIL International, 1999).
G.
Previous Research Review
Composing this graduating paper, writer does cross-referencing four
graduating papers previously composed by other writers.
Those four graduating papers are “Attention Deficit of Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Students as Beneficiaries of Cooperative Learning” (Sarah, 2002) focusing on the benefits of ADHD as the medium for the successfulness
of cooperative learning, “The Use of Cooperative Learning Using Jigsaw Method to Teach Vocabulary to Children: A Case Study at Satya Wacana Primary School” (Perdana, 2002) concerning on the benefits of the Cooperative Jigsaw Method for the triumph of cooperative learning, “Types of Cooperative Learning Provided in Look Ahead 3” (Dewinta, 2003) reviewing the classroom activities on practicing cooperative learning and “The Implementation of Cooperative Learning in English Class of International Standardized School of SMPN 1 Purwodadi” (Dwi, 2010) which revealed the benefits of the application of cooperative learning in that school.
Those graduating papers, similar to writer’s, research applied
cooperative learning in English as a foreign language learning, but they
concern all on the observation or analysis of the applied cooperative learning
research however only has a very small scope and strength for making general
validity of a unit. It means that theoretically the world or the concept of
cooperative learning itself has not been completely revealed. That is why
writer feels interested to make its systematic description.
H. Outline of the Graduating paper
Writer arranges this study in the following order: the cover of the
paper contains the title page and the body consists of: Chapter I is introduction
which contains background of the study, problem statement, objective of the
study, benefit of the study, limitation of the problem, clarification of the key
terms, previous research review, and outline of the graduating paper. Chapter
II is literature Review. This chapter reviews the separate theory of cooperative
learning and English as a Foreign Language Learning with their own
characteristics. Chapter III is research methodology which describes research
design, data and data collection, method of collecting data, research
instrument, and data analysis used in this graduating paper. Chapter IV is data
analysis which contains cooperative learning for English as a foreign language
learning, methods of cooperative learning, and cooperative activities
compatible with four language skills. Chapter V is closure containing
9 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Cooperative Learning
1. Definition of Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning refers to a systematic instructional method in which students work together in small groups to accomplish shared learning goals. The data in a large amount of research show, compared with
competitive and individualistic efforts, cooperation has positive effects on a wider range of outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Slavin, 1995; Kagan, 1999).
According to Arends (2004: 355), the model requires student cooperation and interdependence in its task, goal, and reward structures. The term goal and reward structures both refer to the degree of cooperation or
competition required of students to achieve their goals or rewards. He explained:
His statement infers that talking about task structure means discussing
much more about the state of teacher and students themselves toward the kind and the organization of a task. In other words, it focuses on how teacher positions his or her role and how students been positioned in accordance with
the task given. Arends continued:
A lesson’s goal structure refers to the amount of interdependence required of students as they perform their work. Three types of goal structures have been identified. Goal structures are individualistic if achievement of the instructional goal requires no interaction with others is unrelated to how well others do. Competitive goal structures exist when students perceive they can obtain their goals if the other students fail to obtain theirs. Cooperative goal structures exist when students can obtain their goal only when other students with whom they are linked can obtain theirs.
Here, the main point is on the goal of the model itself, which emphasizes on individuals, competition, and cooperation. To target goals or purposes is very important in order to keep running cooperative learning in
such discipline system. Afterward, Arends thought that it is also necessarily essential to appreciate students with rewards, as he explained:
11
structures. Most team sports, such as football, have a cooperative reward structure, even though teams may compete with each other.
As Arends introduced, certain rewards will help cope with gaining those three goals. When every part of them, i.e. individuals, competition, and
cooperation, is accompanied with rewards, students’ willingness to achieve hopefully triggers.
2. Theoretical and Empirical Support
The cooperative learning does not appear from individual’s theory or
single approach to learning. It evolves from a long analysis on previous applied works on learning. The three most-supporting theories, as introduced by Arends (2004) are as follows:
a. Concepts of Democratic Classroom
A democratic classroom was firstly discussed in 1916 by John Dewey through his book Democracy and Education followed by Herbert Thelen (1954) who developed more precise procedures for helping students work in groups. Dewey’s concept of education was that the classroom should mirror the larger society and be a laboratory or miniature democracy for real-life learning in which required teachers to create a
The specific classroom procedures by Dewey (and his latter-day
followers) emphasized small, problem-solving groups of students searching for their own answers and learning democratic principles through day-to-day interaction with one another. While Thelen, with his interest in-group
dynamics, put more specific structure on the pedagogy of group investigation and, as is described later, provided the conceptual basis for contemporary developments in cooperative learning.
Dewey and Thelen believed that the application of cooperative
group work went beyond improving academic learning with considering cooperative behavior and processes important to human endeavor. They both viewed, at last, cooperative behavior as the foundation of democracy
and saw schools as laboratories for developing democratic behavior. b. Intergroup Relations
Intergroup members in a class do influence the life of the class
itself. A classroom with more distinguished ethnics or strata, like in an international or multicultural class requires special handling since some problems deals with ethics, norm, and behavior may rise among them. This situation, consequently, risks for a misunderstanding, lack of acceptance,
and prejudice which are potential to bring clashes and problems.
13
(1) unmediated interethnic contact, (2) occurring under condition of equal status between members of the various group participating in a given setting, and (3) where the setting officially sanctions interethnic cooperation (p.2)
Every country faces its own problems deal with this diversity. It means that problems in multicultural problems vary as the time goes. As the problems variation and redundancy increases, the application of
cooperative learning itself is gradually improved and developed.
Recent innovation in applied cooperative learning has attempted to accomplish those three needs. For example, the work of David Johnson and
Roger Johnson (1979; 1998) at the University of Minnesota has explored how cooperative classroom environments might lead to better learning by and more positive regard toward students with special needs who were
included in regular classrooms. c. Experiential Learning
Johnson and Johnson (1994: 7), preeminent cooperative learning theorist, explained that experiential learning is based upon three
assumptions: that students learn best when they are personally involved in the learning experience, that knowledge has to be discovered by students themselves if it is to mean anything to them or make a difference in their
Johnson and other theorists and researchers are interested in how
individuals learn from experience. They believe experience contribute much for what people learn. Johnson and Johnson illustrated,
Most people learn to ride a bicycle by riding one, and they learn about being a sister or brother by being one. Conversely, even though everyone can read books about marriage and child rearing, those who have married raised children know that living these experiences is never the same as described in the books. Experience provides insights, understandings, and techniques that are difficult to describe to anyone who has not had similar experiences.
People can learn from listening to a record or reading a book.
Nevertheless, they will never feel or experience what they listen to or read as they are unless they ‘try on it’ and experience the real fact.
3. Characteristics of Cooperative Learning
As previously introduced, cooperative learning is preferable to be used when a desire to obtain a learner progress through cooperative work is in
priority. Arends (2004: 356) wrote that this model, based upon it, has the following characteristics:
1. Students work in teams to master learning goals.
2. Teams are made up of high-, average-, and low-achieving students.
15
While Arends characterized more on the learning perspective, Johnson
and Johnson (1986) postulated five teacher roles in structuring cooperative learning strategies as follows:
1. Teachers must determine the objectives for the lesson.
2. They must distribute students in learning groups before the class is started.
3. Teachers must explain the task and goal structure to the students. 4. Teachers must monitor groups during cooperative learning and
intervene to assist students when they need assistance to improve interpersonal and group skills.
5. Teachers must evaluate the achievement of students and provide
the evaluation to them.
In other side, Yan Zhang (2010) compared the characteristics of cooperative learning with those of traditional language teaching as follows:
Aspects Traditional language teaching Cooperative language learning
Independence None or negative Positive
Learner roles Passive receiver and performer Active participator, autonomous learners Teacher roles The center of the classroom,
reinforcement and support. collaborative skills. Materials Complete set of materials for
each student. Interaction Some talking among students,
mainly teacher-student
Take a major part in evaluating own progress and the quality of own efforts toward learning. Be
Superior-inferior or equal Cooperating and equal
Above are the characteristics of coopertive learning in the perspective
17
B. English Language Learning
1. English as a First Language, ESL, and EFL
English is known as an international language. Of the 4,000 to 5,000 living languages in the world, English is by far the most widely used (Broughton, 2003: 1). Thus, than other languages, English is easer to be accessed (to be listened, read, written, and spoken).
Regarding its users, English language is classified into three kinds, those are, English as a First Language, English as a second language (ESL),
and English as a foreign language (EFL). English as a First Language is owned by those whose English is the mother tongue, as in the USA or Australia. ESL is used by those whose English is the language of commercial, administrative and educational institutions, as in Ghana or Singapore
(Broughton, 2003: 4). Both English as a First Language and ESL develops in the homeland of the users.
In other sides, EFL is English language used in non-English speaking country; as the rest of English as mother and or second language which is
taught in schools, often widely, but it does not play an essential role in national or social life (Broughton: 6, 2003). Based on the research done by Horvatić (2009: 261), English holds a dominant position as the first foreign
language before Germany, and is in the third rank as the second foreign language after Germany and Italian.
EFL learning is the English learning process run now in non-English
speaking countries. EFL is usually be part of the state school curriculum which also sometime be supplemented by extra lessons paid for privately.
In Indonesia, for instance, even many informal English institutions
such as ILP (International Language Program), LBPP LIA (Lembaga Bahasa dan Pendidikan Profesional LIA), and EF (English First) are successfully established as the society demands on English learning are, slow but sure, increasing. There must be reasons why EFL learners, whose English does not
belong to as daily language, learn English regularly. In addition, some progressive high schools, labeled as SBI (Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional) or RSBI (Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional) encourage using English as medium of instruction in class.
English is learned for various purposes. Typically, EFL is studied either to pass exams as a necessary part of one's education, or for career
progression while working for an organization or business with an international focus. Also, people are possibly going to live or go abroad, need an extra qualification, are asked by their company to learn a new language, have work contacts abroad, or just enjoy the language (James, 2007; 13).
3. Characteristics of EFL
19
national or social life. In Spain, Brazil and Japan, for example, Spanish,
Portuguese and Japanese are the normal medium of communication and instruction: the average citizen does not need English or any other foreign language to live his daily life or even for social or professional advancement.
Based on his statement, EFL learning maintains to transfer English contents for academic purposes like language skills and competences better than for other purposes (e.g., business, politics, economics, and so on). In the context of EFL learning, theorists are fonder of discussing the characteristics
of EFL teacher than those of the language itself.
Through a survey, Bell in Lee (2010: 26) identified characteristics of effective FL teacher were on the types of knowledge and behaviors that
language teachers need to possess and display. Among these were enthusiasm for the target language and culture, competence in the target language, extensive knowledge about language, and use of group work to encourage a
greater degree of learner involvement.
Thus, the characteristics of EFL Learning are: (1) the learning content is focused on comprehending language skills and competence, (2) EFL requires teacher to have extensive knowledge about the target language and its
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
According to Yoseph and Yoseph (1979) in Sukardi (2005) research is art and science to look for the answer from a problem. Writer, in this study, is going to research about cooperative learning with its application in English as
a foreign language learning; looking for the answer of its concept through a library research.
A library research limits its works on library collections only, and does
not need the help of any field researches (Zed, 2004). He added that library collections can be in the form of written texts (books, journals, leaflets, magazines, for instance) and un-written evidences such as recordings,
artifacts, and the others which support for data research.
Then, this research uses qualitative approach. Qualitative research presents facts in narration with words” (McMillan and Schumacher, 1993:14). For more details, Moleong (2009: 6) explained that qualitative research is a
research to comprehend phenomena of what happens on the research subject holistically and by description in words and language forms, in a certain natural context and use several scientific methods.
21
For designing this study, using the collaboration of library research
with a qualitative approach is suit since all the data are obtained from library and are presented in narration in words, not in statistics.
B. Data and Data Source
Data refer to the rough materials the process researchers collect from the world they are studying (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982:73). Data are needed by writer to complete the research problems. Furthermore, Bogdan and Biklen
(1982: 73) said that data are both the evidence and the clues. In this study, the data are evidence and clues about how cooperative learning is committed to apply in English as foreign language learning.
Data source is the subject of study from where the data can be obtained. It is classified into primary source and secondary source.
1. Primary sources
Primary sources constitute firsthand information, such as original documents and reports by actual participants or direct observers (Gay, 1992: 209).
Since writer works on a library research, and not a field research,
the primary sources used are scientific literatures (books, journals, leaflets, and the kinds) and not firsthand or direct reporters. Those are:
Although this book does not fully reveal cooperative learning,
complete discussion about cooperative learning (overview of cooperative learning, theoretical and empirical supports, planning and conducting cooperative learning lessons, managing the learning
environment, assessment and evaluation, also reflection from classroom and portfolio and field experience activities) are completely revealed from page 352 up to 387).
Thus, writer uses this book as primary sources. His book contributes to
compose literature review (Chapter II) and data analysis (Chapter IV) concerning on its collaboration with EFL theory.
b. “Teaching English as a Foreign Language” by Broughton, Geoffrey, and Christopher (2003).
This book is fully discussed the teaching of EFL in 248 pages long. It mainly reviews English in the world today, three kinds of English
learning (i.e., English as a First Language, ESL, and EFL), language skills in EFL, and EFL for children and adult. However, writer only uses for supporting thesis’ focus on English as a First Language, ESL, and EFL (in literature review, Chapter II) and for conducting data
23
Secondary sources constitute secondhand information, such as
reference books (encyclopedias, for example) or reports by relatives of actual participants or observers (Gay, 1992: 209).
The secondary sources used are:
a. “When Does Cooperative Learning Increase Student Achievement? (Bulletin)” by Robert E Slavin (1983).
Although through the title of this book which concerns on students’ achievement, the bulletin, of which content actually is pages of one of
his published book, also reviews theorists with their ideas of cooperative learning and its methods. During the process of composing this thesis, these parts do help writer for analyzing data.
b. “Cooperative Language Learning” by Mary Lou McCloskey (2005). From her writing, writer obtains many cooperative activities which compatible with four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and
writing) in which become one of the focuses of this thesis. This book also reviews effectiveness and principles of cooperative learning. Thus, writer decides on using her writing, specially for analyzing data in Chapter IV.
C. Method of Collecting Data and Research Instrument
The method of collecting data is the way used by the researcher to collect the data. The way to collect the data in this research is documentation. According to Iskandar (2009: 219) documentation is reviewing toward the
literatures which relate to the focus of research problem.
The instrument of this study is the writer himself, as said by Sugiyono (2005: 222) that in qualitative research the instrument or research tool is the researcher himself.
D. Data Analysis
According to Bogdan and Biklen (1982:145):
Data analysis is the process systematically searching and arranging the interview, transcripts, field notes, and other materials that you accumulate to increase your own understanding of them and to enable you to present what you havediscovered to others.
In this study, the writer does the process of data searching and
arranging from books, journals, articles and other materials the writer gets. Writer then organizes and breaks it into manageable units, so that can be found which ones are related and unrelated with the research.
It is necessary to arrange the result of the analysis data into an
25
Writer reads the materials about cooperative learning, English as a
foreign language learning and several other materials related to the title. The goal of this stage is to know which materials are appropriate with the data.
2. Selection step
The writer selects, from the identified materials, the data which have contribution to the topic or focus of this study. Selecting is a process of shortening the important materials that deal with the problem of the
study.
3. Reviewing step
The writer reviewed the materials to get detail information from
the materials. Writer needs to be careful to do this important step since the process disposes whether the data or information is basically needed, important, and appropriate to capture or not.
4. Summarizing step
26
DATA ANALYSIS
A. Cooperative Learning for English as a Foreign Language Learning 1. Overview of CL for EFL Learning
An English teacher, in order to deliver materials, needs to use an approach. Approach, by definition, refers to theories about the nature of language and language learning that serves as the source of practices and
principles in language teaching. An approach describes how language is used and how its constituent parts interlock, in other words it offers a model of language competence. An approach describes how people acquire their
knowledge of the language and make statements about the conditions which will promote successful language learning (Harmer, 2001: 78).
Approaches in English as a foreign language learning vary and are
flexible to apply in a classroom throughout teachers’ innovation being created. Two English teachers in one region or even one school, for example, may use different approaches in teaching; say that Teacher A uses collaborative approach while Teacher B decides on cooperative approach.
Teacher A perhaps considers that his or her class practically needs a collaborative learning, and so does Teacher B who tends to use cooperative
27
learning. However, they may change or switch at sometime when an
innovation is necessarily needed to elaborate.
The changes reflect on the orientations of foreign language study and unsatisfactory result of the teaching. There are at least two reasons concerning
the change of approaches. In one hand, this is to fulfill the practical demands of language study and on the other hands, it is also advocated by the theoretical findings of the study.
In the context of foreign language study, cooperative learning is
previously most discussed in ESL. Many literatures reveal the application and the benefits of cooperative learning methods such as STAD (Student Teams Achievement Divisions) and Jigsaw, to resolve English learning problems in
ESL classroom (Arends, 2004: 361). Recently, an outstanding specialist of cooperative learning for ESL, Kagan Spencer (1993) develops and finds new methods such as roundrobin, roundtable, and so forth (discussed later).
Findings in the situation of EFL classroom show that students face such difficulties during the English learning. The difficulties are mainly a consequence of the degree to which their native language differs from English. A native speaker of Chinese, for example, may face many more
mother tongue (also called first language) setting out to learn any other
language.
The difficulties vary not only in the form of language production errors, but also changes of students’ behavior. Language production errors involve
pasties of four language skills, and still relate to two language competences, that is, grammar and vocabularies.
In listening skill, for example, it seems very hard to learners to catch, to recognize and immediately to get the meaning of every single word or
vocabularies uttered in direct conversation and recording. In speaking skill, students may be ashamed to start speaking in English in public as most of their pronunciation are incorrect or their vocabularies disconnect each other.
A problem of triggering students’ reading desire and habit probably also faced by a reading teacher; moreover, to the very complex skill such as writing.
As a consequence, those difficulties bring upon behavioral and social
problems. One of them is that slow English learners risk for thinking negatively. Bad feeling and negative self-justification are then eager to rise. A case of being afraid, awkward of English becomes a big problem to them. Those feelings, furthermore, are internalized and dangerously reflected in
29
2. Strengths and Weaknesses of Cooperative Learning
Cooperative approach, modeled as cooperative learning, is seen as one worthy alternative to be used in EFL Learning since as said by Johnson & Johnson (1991), Slavin (1995), and Kagan (1999), compared with competitive
and individualistic efforts, it has positive effects on a wider range of outcomes.
The outcomes obtained from the practice of cooperative learning are explained as follows:
a. To create effective classroom climate among diversity
Although most reasons of teachers in using cooperative learning is now to improve students’ achievement, in the very beginning of its use,
the model was conducted as a solution of classrom problem deal with students’ diversity. Cooperative learning methods have been found to have strong and consistent positive effects on such outcomes as race relation,s,
attitudes toward accademically handicapped classmates, self-esteem, and predisposition to cooperate in other settings (Slavin, 1983: 431).
According to Arends (2004: 360), regular classroom teachers now had children with phisycal, emotional, and mental abilities in the
Johnson’s research in Arends (2004: 360) has shown that not only
can cooperative learning influence tolerance and wider acceptance of students with special needs, but it also can promote better relationships among students of varying races and ethnicities.
EFL learners in many countries do face a racial and ethnical gaps. An American movie Freedom Writer (2010), for instance, illustrated an English classroom with heterogenous racial learners faced problem deal with diversity which sue for a solutive methods of teaching. The problems
were finally covered an idea of the teacher who set up class with intensive direct meeting, discussion, and sharing among students.
Cultural and linguistic diversity in the student population has also
profound implications for education. The learning climate of the classroom is affected by the nature of the interactions among students. In a culturally diverse classroom, students reflect a variety of attitudes toward
and expectations of one another's abilities and styles of behavior (Salem, 2009: 4). That cultural and linguitic diversity can possibly rise among natives in one coutry with multiple country as Indonesia.
b. To build learners’ behavior and ethics as a social benefit
31
The study showed that cooperative learning generated more
cooperative behavior, verbal and nonverbal, than did whole-class teaching. Students from both cooperative learning classroom displayed less competitive behavior and more cross-ethic cooperation than those
who come from whole-class teaching classroom.
As learning time in classroom is limited, teacher has to divide effectively the portion of teacher presentation and students’ task are managed. Salem (2009: 4) argued that reading and writing answers to
questions can be done at home, thereby providing more time in the classroom for interactive, cooperative structures in which students are learning from each other. Thus, all students can receive maximum
practice in language and interpersonal skills necessary for participation in higher education or the job market.
c. To improve learners’ academic achievement
Cooperative language learning is gaining broad acceptance in a multitude of language learning classrooms, principally because of its contributions to improve productivity and achievement and providing more opportunities for communication (Zhang, 2009: 2).
grammatically in group work than they do in teacher-fronted lessons.
while working in-group or team, students can also learn from and teach to members in group through sharing and discussing. Learners proceed and achieve ideas and language inputs (vocabularies, grammar, sentence
sructure, and so forth) from members’ presentation.
Yager, and Johnson & Johnson in Alhaidari (2006: 21) stated that cooperative learning succeeds because it allows children to explain material to each other, to listen to each other’s explanations, and to arrive
at joint understandings of what has been shared. More proficient students tutor less proficient students and, as a result, one of the most important purposes of cooperative learning is to improve students’ learning in the
classroom. As they achieve better proficiency in English, their academic scores will also improve.
Those outcomes or benefits are the streghths that stimulate teachers to
try on cooperative learning. Since teachers feel satisfied with the results of its application, cooperative learning is continously used and become so popular among academicians.
Having a wide range of benefits does not mean that the model has no
33
Advance-, average-, and slow learners are soon seen. Knowing who is or are
competent in group, some students will feel depend on the person(s). This phenomenon can cause a negative effects and end on a skill stagnancy. To prevent with, teacher has to monitor every group activities. Though the model
offers more student-centered pattern, teacher must still play his role as a monitor and controller.
In some cases, under-controlled cooperative group activities may annoy rooms next to the class. Some activities probably bring a lot of fun and
hypnotize students for having crazy joys with shouting or producing louder sounds.
B. Methods of Cooperative Learning
According to Slavin (1983: 431) methods of cooperative learning historically come with two primary components: a cooperative incentive structure
(or a reward structure by Arends definition) and a cooperative task structure. Cooperative incentive structure is what most theorists mean when they refer to cooperation. Slavin continued that the critical feature of a cooperative incentive structure is that two or more individuals are interdependence for a reward they
will share if they are successful. He illustrated,
While cooperative task structures are situations in which two or more individuals are allowed, encouraged, or required to work together on some tasks, coordinating their efforts to complete the task. Students work cooperative tasks,
but the task themselves are distinct each other. In one task, for instance, one student may works to collect and select discussion materials, one another lead discussion, the rests are probably a notaries, front-teacher presenter, and so on. Slavin explained:
For example, contributors to an edited volume are under a cooperative incentive structure (they all benefit if the book does well even if they never meet or talk with one another (i.e., they are not under a cooperative task structure).
In the last decade, a new component is now introduced by Arends (2004:
355) namely goal structures which has been revealed in Chapter II. As to remind, goal structure is the amount of interdependences (individualistic, competitive, and cooperative) required to students while working together.
Those three components bear some methods which accommodate teaching learning process based on teachers and students need. Three most popular and mostly used methods until now are Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Jigsaw, and Group Investigation (GI). As to know, a method is the
35
Methods include various procedures and techniques as part of their standard fare
(Harmer, 2001).
a. Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD)
STAD was developed by Robert E Slavin and his colleagues and the
Johns Hopkins University and is perhaps the simplest and most straightforward of the cooperative learning methods (Arends, 2004: 361).
Slavin (1983: 432) said that, in STAD, the teacher presents a lesson, and then students study worksheets in four member teams that are
heterogeneous on student ability, sex, and ethnicity. Arends added that high, average, and low achievers division should be also included as the representatives in each group member.
Following this, Slavin continued that students take individual quizzes, and team scores are computed based on the degree to which each student improved over his or her own record. These quizzes are scored and each
individual is given an “improvement score” which contributes to up-grade team scores.
This method is proper to be used in every level of EFL class since it has no complicated complexity. By STAD, teacher can see the progress of the
b. Jigsaw
Jigsaw was developed and tested by Elliot Aronson and his colleagues (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997 in Arends, 2004). In Jigsaw, students are heterogeneously grouped into five-to-six member team. Materials are given in
the text form in which every student is responsible for a portion of the material. For instance, if one group is going to study cooperative learning, one student is probably responsible for studying the history of cooperative learning, one another learns STAD, the rests perhaps study Jigsaw, ID, and
the strengths and the weaknesses of cooperative learning.
Teams in Jigsaw consist of home team and expert team. Home teams are five or six heterogeneous members, while expert team has one member
from each of the home teams; members from expert team meet to study and help each other, then return to their home teams and teach others what they have learned. This way is very beneficial to apply in EFL class since students
do repeat listen and share ideas. c. Group Investigation (GI)
Many of key features of the GI method were designed originally by Herbert Thelen, but recently it has been extended and refined by Sharan and
37
together but also help plan both topics for study and the investigative
procedure used.
This method is supposed to be more student-centered because students hold and run almost all preparation and process of the learning. In team group,
students are free to make team based on friendship or interesting topic.
Sharan (1984) and his colleagues explained that students circulate the process of topic selection, cooperative planning, implementation, analysis and synthesis, presentation of final product, and evaluation. As students play
important roles, it is necessary for teacher to think whether his or her class is already ready to use GI or not; moreover in EFL learning whose students often feel ‘strange’ with English. This method is likely appropriate in an
advanced EFL classroom.
The comparisons of the three methods are explained as follows:
Aspects STAD Jigsaw Group Investigation Cognitive Social goals Group work and
Lesson topic selection
Usually teacher Usually teacher Teacher and or students Primary task Students may use
worksheets and
Assessment Weekly tests Varies- can be weekly tests designed to influence student interaction pattern. Later he launched Numbered
Heads Together method (1998) to involve students in the review of materials covered in a lesson and to check their understanding of a lesson’s content (Arends, 2004: 365).
Those three methods are flexibly alternatives in delivering cooperative
39
C. Cooperative Activities in EFL Classroom
English language learning in foreign country usually focuses on comprehending four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) supported the two language competence, that is, vocabulary and grammar. Thus,
students are prepared with intensive vocabulary and grammar activities in earlier school (kindergarten, elementary, and middle school for some country) before having more serious and scientific study in four language skills.
Since English in foreign language is mostly taught by each language skill
division, writer presents the discussion part by part. a. Cooperative learning for listening
Teaching listening is undoubtedly challenging for teacher and, in vise
versa, boring for students. Here, an innovation to decorate more effective listening activities is absolutely important.
Recent publications in the area of listening comprehension have
featured new ways of teaching this skill. As Nunan (2002) notes, these new techniques focus more on training learners to utilize effective strategies for listening to spoken messages. These strategies are best learned in an environment of cooperative learning, which enables students to work jointly
An important advantage of the cooperative listening approach is the
favorable learning atmosphere that ensues. By having the learners gather in groups or pairs to work out the spoken messages together the bond between them strengthens. Cooperative learning gives them the opportunity to share
their listening strategies and learn new ones from their classmates, leading to an environment conducive to learning.
2. The teacher tells the learners that they are to listen to the recorded speech passage, make note of whatever they can get from it, and try their best to answer the questions. The teacher tells the students to use whatever strategies they can accomplish the task and to remember those strategies. The speech passage is then played.
3. At the conclusion of the listening session, the teacher has the learners share with their partners or group members any information they got from the recorded passage, including the answers to the questions. The teacher also instructs the students to tell each other what strategies they used to understand the spoken passage.
4. Each pair or group reports the results of their cooperation. The report should contain (1) the ideas they successfully got from hearing the passage and (2) the strategies they used to accomplish the listening task. The teacher may write down these strategies on the board.
41
in such a way that less able learners can learn as much as possible from the more proficient and effective strategy users.
Effective cooperative listening activity can also be practiced without recording. As all students have a group, teacher can set out to divide students
who have better English conversation in each group. Indirectly, students in group do listen as if it is real native’s. Having foreigner come to class some time is also useful.
b. Cooperative learning for speaking
As the goal of cooperative learning is to activate classroom, one primary medium used is speaking through sharing, discussing, presenting and questioning. EFL learners commonly have problems deal with speaking, for
example, afraid of having pronunciation error, vocabulary accuracy, or even just speechlessness to begin to speak. Since the meeting in cooperative group happens so frequent, chances to practice to speak widely opens. If students
take time effectively, their English speaking ability will progress. c. Cooperative learning for reading
In cooperative learning, change in reading comprehension requires more time because it needs a lot of reading practices (Stevens and Pipich,
2002 in Alhaidari, 2006: 57). Alhaidari noted:
comprehension between treatment group and comparison group. … short duration of the study may explain why no significant differences in reading comprehension were found.
Reading is classified into extensive and intensive reading. An extensive or supplementary reading, in the view of Palmer (1964), is
considered as being reading rapidly. The readers read books after books. Its attention is paid to the meaning of the text itself not the language is purposed for pleasure and information. In the cooperative learning setting of the reading classroom, students help each other to decode words and to recognize words
accurately and rapidly (Alhaidari; 2006: 25). Thus, they will use little of their working memory to do basic cognitive tasks and most of their working memory capacity to comprehend the task.
In other hands, in intensive reading which requires learners to take a text, study it line by line, and refer at very moment to the dictionary about the grammar of the text itself the process tend to be more passive and closed.
Except needing much time, it is more appropriate to do in a more privacy and silence since it requires readers a focus, full attention, and logic.
Cooperative activities however cannot fully accommodate those three aspects since times are privileged for intergroup activities. Thus, even a
43
d. Cooperative learning for writing
In English learning classroom, the teacher aims at developing four skills of his or her learners’ ability to listen, to speak, to read and to write. The ability to write occupies the last place in this order, but it does not mean that it
is least important. “Reading makes a full man, conference a ready man and writing an exact man,” says Bacon. Writing trains ears and eyes and fixes vocabulary, spelling and patterns in our mind.
Like speaking, writing is also an art, a creative art in which the
acquired skills in language and innate interests are made manifest. While it may be argued that learners may not be required to write much, and the skill is mainly for examination purpose. Writing, nevertheless, helps to learn and
practice new words and structures, and since writing is done slowly and carefully, it helps to focus students’ attention on what they are learning (Doff, 1988: 148).
For EFL students, writing is a big deal, moreover to those who have difficulties in writing even in their own first language. So, the difficulty level of cooperative writing activities requires relevancy to the level of the students. e. Cooperative Activities Compatible With Language Skills
Cooperative activities applied in EFL classroom are presented in the following (Lou, 2005: 4):
Children sitting next to each other in the classroom can conveniently
talk to “the person sitting next to your elbow.” These brief interactions provide multiple opportunities to practice language check comprehension and provide time for processing new information.
2) Think - Pair - Share (category: speaking and listening)
Think - Pair - Share was introduced by Frank Lyman in 1985 (Arends, 2004: 365). The activity runs in three steps: thinking, pairing, and sharing. Step I (thinking): teacher poses a question or an issue related to the lesson
that day and gives students a minute to think about the answer. Step II (pairing): next, the teacher asks students to pair off and discuss what they have been thinking about four or five minutes. Step III (Sharing): in the
final step, teacher asks students to share theirs with the entire class. 3) Stand and Deliver (category: speaking and listening)
This interactional routine is the same as Think – Pair – Share except
that students stand while pairing up with Buddies. The brief opportunity to stand allows students some freedom of movement after sitting for long periods and provides more opportunities for Buddy pairing.
4) Numbered Heads together (category: speaking and writing)
45
etc. Have students in groups of about four numbers off from one to four.
(If groups have 5, two students take turns as one number; if groups have 3, one student has two numbers).
The teacher (or a student, after students have learned the strategy well)
asks a question about the reading and gives a time limit. Students take a few minutes to “put their heads together” to find and agree on an answer. (This may include looking up the page citation in the text.) Teacher calls a number to designate which student will answer for the team. Students with
that number give their groups’ answers (verbally, on paper, or on the board). Teacher gives feedback as appropriate: teams may receive points for correct answers, creative answers, correct spelling, etc).
5) Round Robin and Roundtable (category: speaking, writing)
This activity is useful for brainstorming, writing, and reviewing concepts and vocabulary learned. Oral version: teacher divides the
students into groups of 3 or 4 then writes the topic on the board (e.g. “Religions of the World”). The first student mentioned a religion. The next student mentioned another religion but he/she cannot repeat something already said. The students continue to add responses until the
asked not to repeat an answer already stated by another group. Teacher
charts each group’s answer s on the board or chart paper.
In Roundtable (the written version), students pass around a sheet of paper and each students adds his or her contributions. Alternatively,
teacher places papers with questions on desks and has groups of students rotate from station to station answering the questions or prompts. Teacher creates a class list and hangs it up in front of class.
6) Peer Tutoring (category: speaking)
Research has demonstrated that peer tutoring is an effective way to promote language learning (Labbo & Teale, 1990; Samway, Whang & Pippitt, 1995). Peers help one another by providing comprehensible input
and purpose for conversations. Teacher identifies students who need help in specific academic areas and those with strengths to be peer tutors. Teacher gives the tutors training in how to ask questions to support
thinking; how to break learning tasks into smaller, more manageable sections; how to determine when first language support is helpful; and how to support vocabulary development. Teacher matches the students, considering such factors as gender, home language, and personality. When
