ABSTRACT

The present study was an attempt to investigate the comparative effect of cooperative and competitive learning on EFL learners’ achievement of speech acts.  As appropriate application of speech acts is of paramount importance in the second language development, the present experimental study was designed to see which method best helps the learners enhance their abilities in speech acts of apology and greeting. Based on the results of the proficiency test of PET, 55 female EFL learners at intermediate level whose scores fell within one standard deviation below and above the mean were selected and divided into two groups for the purpose of the study. Then a piloted researcher-made discourse completion test (DCT) comprised of 20 items was administered as the pretest. Following 10 weeks of treatment via employing cooperative and competitive methods, the posttest was administered. The outcome of the pre and post-test data analyses clarified that the participants in the cooperative group significantly outperformed those in the competitive group demonstrating that employing cooperative learning as a combination of classroom techniques could promote the second language speech act knowledge of the learners. Findings of the present study could be employed by second language teachers, materials developers, and ELT practitioners to help the EFL learners move towards cooperative learning.

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: Background and purpose……………………………………………………………………………… 1

1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

1.2 Statement of problem…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

1.3 Statement of Research………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………… 11

1.5 Definition of the Key Terms……………………………………………………………………………………… 11

1.6 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12

1.7 Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………………………………. 13

CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature………………………………………………………………. 15

2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

2.2. Speech Acts……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

2.3. Core Assumptions and Statements…………………………………………………………………………….. 18

2.4. Scope and Application…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19

2.5. The Performatives……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20

2.5.1. Explicit and Implicit Performatives…………………………………………………………………………. 22

2.6. Felicity Conditions………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

2.7. The Locutionary, Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Acts………………………………………………. 28

2.7.1. Locutionary Acts………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

2.7.2. Illocutionary Acts…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31

2.7.3. Perlocutionary Acts………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33

2.8. Cooperative Learning………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34

2.8.1. Social Interdependence Perspective………………………………………………………………………… 37

2.8.2. Cognitive Development Perspectives………………………………………………………………………. 38

2.8.3. Behavioral Social Perspectives……………………………………………………………………………….. 38

2.8.3.1. Positive Interdependence……………………………………………………………………………………. 39

2.8.3.2. Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility…………………………………………………. 40

2.8.3.3. Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction……………………………………………………………………… 41

2.8.3.4. Teamwork Skills………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42

2.8.3.5. Group Processing ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42

2.8.4. Structuring Cooperative Learning…………………………………………………………………………… 45

2.8.5. Interactions in Groups…………………………………………………………………………………………… 47

2.8.6. Students Perceptions of Cooperative Learning…………………………………………………………. 50

2.9. Competitive Learning………………………………………………………………………………………………. 52

CHAPTER III: Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………. 57

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

3.2. Participants…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

3.3. Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 59

3.3.1 Preliminary English Test (PET)……………………………………………………………………………….. 59

3.3.2 Discourse Completion Test……………………………………………………………………………………… 60

3.3.2.1 Reliability and validity of the instrument……………………………………………………………….. 63

3.4. Materials………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63

3.5. Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63

3.5.1. Pretest ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63

3.5.2. Treatment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 64

3.5.3. Posttest……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 66

3.6. Design……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 67

3.7. Statistical Analyses………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67

CHAPTER IV: Results and Discussions………………………………………………………………………….. 68

4.1 Pilot study of Preliminary English Test (PET)……………………………………………………………… 69

4.2. Subject-Selection Statistics………………………………………………………………………………………. 70

4.3 Pilot study of MCDCT …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 70

4.4. Proficiency Test (PET)…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 71

4.5. Pretest of Speech acts………………………………………………………………………………………………. 73

 

4.6 Post test of speech acts……………………………………………………………………………………………… 73

4.7 Testing Assumptions………………………………………………………………………………………………… 74

4.8. Empirical Validity…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 76

 

 

 

4.9. Reliability Indices……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 77

4.10 Reliability of the Writing Tasks in the PET test………………………………………………………….. 77

4.11. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 79

CHAPTER V: Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………… 83

5.1 Restatement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………………………. 84

5.2 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 86

5.3 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………………………………………………… 87

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………………………………………………. 88

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 91

APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 105

APPENDIXI B…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 128

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of PET pilot study…………………………………………………………….. 89

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of subject selection……………………………………………………………. 70

Table 4.3 descriptive statistics of pilot study of MCDCT pre/post test ………………………………… 70

Table 4.4 Descriptive statistics of PET by groups………………………………………………………………. 71

Table 4.5 Independent samples t-test of PET scores…………………………………………………………… 72

Table 4.6 Descriptive statistics of speech acts posttest by groups………………………………………… 73

Table 4.7 normality tests…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 74

Table 4.8 Independent samples t-test of Posttest scores……………………………………………………… 75

Table 4.9 Pearson Correlation PET with Pretest and Posttest of Speech Acts……………………….. 76

Table 4.10 K-R21 Reliability…………………………………………………………………………………………… 77

Table 4.11Inter-Rater Reliability of the Writing Pretest …………………………………………………….. 78

Table 4.12 Intra-Rater Reliability of the Writing Pretest…………………………………………………….. 78

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Introduction

It is generally recognized that the goal of language teaching is to develop learner’s ability to communicate appropriately in a given target language and culture. This means that it is not enough for teaching practices to exclusively focus on the features of the target language linguistic system. Otherwise, inappropriate use of language can lead to pragmatic failure and those speakers who do not use pragmatically appropriate language run the risk of appearing uncooperative at very least or more seriously, rude or uncultured (Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgam, & Reynols, 1991).

Pragmatic ability in a second or foreign language is part of a nonnative speaker’s (NNS) communicative competence and therefore has to be located in a model of communicative ability (Savignon, 1991). In Bachman’s model (1990, p. 87ff), ‘language competence’ is subdivided into two components, ‘organizational competence’ and ‘pragmatic competence’. Organizational competence comprises knowledge of linguistic units and the rules of joining them together at the levels of sentence (‘grammatical competence’) and discourse (‘textual competence’). Pragmatic competence subdivides into ‘illocutionary competence’ and ‘sociolinguistic competence’. ‘Illocutionary competence’ can be glossed as ‘knowledge of communicative action and how to carry it out’. The term ‘communicative action’ is often more accurate than the more familiar term ‘speech act’ because communicative action is neutral between the spoken and written mode, and the term acknowledges the fact that communicative action can also be implemented by silence or non-verbally. ‘Sociolinguistic competence’ comprises the ability to use language appropriately according to context. It thus includes the ability to select communicative acts and appropriate strategies to implement them depending on the current status of the ‘conversational contract’ (Fraser, 1990).

Obviously, in EFL settings, one of the most dominant reasons is the learners’ transfer of speech act strategies from their native language (Ellis, 1994).

In recent years, with the unremitting development of Speech Act Theory, it has gradually emerged as an important topic and has been considered as a basic theory in pragmatics. A speech act as an action performed by means of language is an important element of communicative competence and the Speech Act Theory not only conveys the linguistic rules people share to create the acts, but also leads language learners to use this language tactfully or appropriately. It is believed that to learn a language is indeed to learn how to communicate in that language. However, evidence shows that many learners of English fail to achieve the tactful or appropriate use of English in their daily communication with native speakers. Thereby, researchers suggest that applying Speech Act Theory in language teaching has become increasingly imperative (Green, 2010).

One of instructional techniques the language teachers can use to increase learner’s achievement of speech acts is cooperative learning (Wright, 2010). Cooperative learning is an instructional technique that enables students to work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Ellis, 2008). Now cooperative learning is applied in almost all school content 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 by many scholars (Kessler, 1992, as cited in Brown, 2007).

Ochs and Schieffelin (2011) argue that a central tenet of second language development research is that learners’ participation in communicative practices are promoted but not totally determined by course books, teachers, or even the built environment. A very crucial factor to consider in the process of second language development, especially when it comes to the effective communication, is the presence of socially and culturally informed persons, peers, and the like. Within a cooperative atmosphere and based on the perspective which mainly stresses cooperation, not competition, learning will be promoted. This, of course could find enough supports in the constructivism literature (Jaramillo, 1996; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Mitchell & Myles, 2004; Van Lier, 2004; Vygotsky, 1986; Young, 1993), and is technically named scaffolding.

“Within the body of cooperative learning, scaffolding plays a crucial role. Particularly in the early stages of learning, an instructor might invite student participation in the task at hand.  “This practice engages the student in learning and provides her/ him with ownership of the learning experience” (Hogan and Pressley, 1997, p. 76). “For example, a teacher might write the decimal point on the chalkboard and then ask a student to identify the next step in converting a fraction to a decimal.  The student might be invited to participate verbally or she might be asked to come to the chalkboard and contribute her ideas or strategies in writing.  Rather than asking a student for direct participation, an instructor might scaffold learning by asking students to contribute clues or ideas” (Hogan and Pressley, 1997, p. 91).

According to Van Lire (2004), there are many benefits of cooperative learning, and it should have its place in the classroom for several reasons. Humans are social beings that learn extremely well through interaction. While using methods of cooperative learning, students will develop a sense of community and commitment. This method of learning also supports positive peer teaching and learning which is beneficial as well.

Cooperative learning can also be focused on from the perspective of motivation: Motivational perspectives on cooperative learning focus primarily on the reward or goal structures under which students operate (Slavin, 1995). From this perspective, cooperative incentive structures create a situation in which the only way group members can attain their own personal goals is 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 to succeed and, perhaps even more importantly, to encourage their group-mates to exert maximum efforts. In other words, rewarding groups based on group performance (or the sum of individual performances) creates an interpersonal reward structure, in which group members will give or withhold social reinforces (e.g., praise, encouragement) in response to group-mates’ task-related efforts (Slavin,1983).

Cooperative learning can create a situational perspective for the second language learners named “the social cohesion perspective” (Cohen, 1994), which is an emphasis on teambuilding activities in preparation for cooperative learning and processing or group self-evaluation during and after group activities.

It is generally asserted that cooperative learning is a highly appropriate option for all students because it emphasizes active interaction among individuals of diverse abilities and background (Yule, 1996) and demonstrates more positive student outcomes in academic achievement, social behavior and effective development.

One of instructional techniques language teachers can use to increase learner’s achievement of speech acts is competitive learning, and according to Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2000), competitive learning is that kind of learning in which the students have got to work against each other for the purpose on achieving a good grade. So one student should achieve the goal and another one is bound to fail. Thus the competitive learning can be interpersonal of inter-group. Competitive learning is of great value if the students want to view the material they have learned.

Competitive learning exists when one student goal is achieved but all other students fail to reach that goal (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). Competitive learning can be interpersonal (between individuals), or intergroup (between groups), where a group setting is appropriate. This strategy has been described as the most appropriate when students need to review learned materials (Griffiths & Podirsky, 2002).  However, there have been many criticisms of this type of learning, including promoting high anxiety levels, self-doubt, selfishness, and aggression. It may also promote cheating and interfere with learners’ capacity to problem-solveing (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). Competitive interaction strategy could be used in the studies where students work in subgroups. This way Members of each subgroup work strictly on his/her own, strive to be the best in the subgroup for price or reward.

Literature evidence concerning the relative effectiveness of and practical preferences of pundits among these teaching techniques have been varied and mixed. In a study carried out by Dowell (1975, cited in Pneuman, 2009) on the effectiveness of a competitive and cooperative on the comprehension of a cognitive task, he stated that the students in the cooperative learning environment performed better than they did in a competitive environment. Alebiosu (1998) was of the view that students exposed to cooperative learning strategies performed significantly better in all the skills than their counterparts exposed to competitive or individualistic learning strategies. Johnson and Johnson (1991) contended that achievement outcomes were actually more accepted in competitive settings for high self-concept children than in the cooperative settings. Esan (1999, as cited in Pneuman, 2009) was of the view that individualistic setting showed a positive attitude towards mathematics than both cooperative and competitive setting. Okebukola and Ogunniyi (1984) presented that the cooperative arrangement was better for promoting achievement while the competitive arrangement was better for practical skills. Ojo and Egbon (2005) were of the view that the cooperative learning environment was found to be more