They Can Teach Me”: The Role of Individual Accountability

“I Can Teach Them; They Can Teach Me”: The Role of Individual Accountability

in Cooperative Learning in Indonesian Secondary School EFL Classrooms

by

Puji Astuti

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Supervised by

Professor Jayne Lammers

Warner School of Education

University of Rochester

Rochester, New York

2016

ii

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my late father, Bapak Wasilun, who was always proud of me

and believed that I could reach for the stars and to Kapti Kasprabowo and Teguh

Kasprabowo for their unconditional love and support.

iii

Biographical Sketch

Puji Astuti was born in Banyumas, Jawa Tengah (Central Java), Indonesia. She

attended Semarang State University, Central Java, from 1996 to 2001 and graduated with

a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Teacher Education in 2001. She attended Indonesia

University of Education, West Java, from 2003 to 2007 and graduated with a Master of

Arts degree in English Teacher Education in 2007. Since 2008, she has been an English

teacher educator, which is her dream job, at Semarang State University. In October 2011,

she received a Fulbright-DIKTI (the Directorate General of Higher Education of the

Republic of Indonesia) scholarship for doctoral study in the United States of America. In

the fall of 2012, she came to the Warner School of Education at the University of

Rochester to start her Doctor of Philosophy program in Education, with a concentration

in Teaching, Curriculum, and Change. Her research interest has always been in

cooperative learning (CL) in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL), and she

pursued study in this area with individual accountability in CL as her focus, under the

direction of Dr. Jayne Lammers.

iv

Acknowledgements

God has truly blessed me with meaningful learning and life experiences in the

United States of America. I thank Him for giving me the strength to work hard and learn

each day, and for pouring his love on my family and me. I would like to express my

appreciation to Fulbright-DIKTI for the scholarship without which I would not have

come to the Warner School of Education at the University of Rochester, New York, for a

Doctor of Philosophy program.

I would like to express my grateful appreciation to my academic advisor, Dr.

Jayne Lammers. Her guidance, support, and encouragement have been very important to

me on this journey. I will always value her dedication to my doctoral study and I hope

that one day I will be as dedicated to my students as she is to hers. I also would like to

thank Dr. Kevin Meuwissen and Dr. Leslie Barratt for their support throughout my

dissertation research. My gratitude goes as well to all professors at the Warner school

who have shown me the teaching that enhanced learning and valued students’ voices and

effort.

I am sincerely thankful to all my research participants, especially the teacher

participants and the four focal students. This dissertation project would not have been

completed without their generosity, precious time, and effort. Finally, my appreciation

goes beyond words to my dearest husband, Teguh Kasprabowo, and my lovely daughter,

Kapti Dahayu Kasprabowo. They have always given me endless love and support

throughout this journey. They are, indeed, my sources of solace and happiness.

v

Abstract

Cooperative learning (CL) has been used in the teaching of English as a second and as a

foreign language (ESL/EFL) to promote both cognitive and non-cognitive gains.

However, little is understood about how CL enhances ESL/EFL learning. An

investigation on this phenomenon was carried out in Indonesian secondary school

classrooms, focusing on the enactment of one CL principle: individual accountability.

Qualitative case study, involving two EFL teachers’ classrooms, emphasizing the

teachers and four focal students, was employed to explore the role of this CL principle in

enhancing the EFL learning. Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and Interaction

Hypothesis were utilized as theoretical frameworks. CHAT was used to make sense of

individual accountability in CL as an object-oriented activity in an activity system.

Interaction Hypothesis was employed to see the contribution of this activity in enhancing

the EFL learning. Data were gathered through multiple data collection strategies. The

study identified seven roles of individual accountability in CL that helped enhance the

EFL learning as evidenced by the availability of comprehensible input, interaction,

negotiation for meaning, and comprehensible output for the secondary school EFL

learners. By performing their individual accountability in CL, the EFL learners: 1) gained

learning experience as mandated by the curriculum, 2) presented the previously thought

about, discussed, and learned information to peers, 3) had more opportunities to use the

target language, 4) had more opportunities to interact with peers, 5) gave and received

vocabulary help, 6) had access to pronunciation, and 7) gained confidence to speak in the

target language. The study also found that due to a few missed steps in the use of some

vi

selected CL structures, the EFL learners: 1) did not always present their share of work, 2)

presented their work without preparation, and 3) had peer preference. These findings

suggest the need for improving teachers’ understanding of CL, including mastering and

following the procedures in selected CL structures, and thus this study builds an

understanding of the importance of support from the social environment for achieving an

effective CL implementation. This study also proposes implications for practice, policy,

research, and directions for future research.

vii

Contributors and Funding Sources

This work was supervised by a dissertation committee consisting of Professors Jayne

Lammers (advisor) and Kevin Meuwissen of the University of Rochester, New York, and

Leslie Barratt of Rachabhat Roi-Et University, Thailand. All work for the dissertation

was completed independently by the student.

viii

Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Biographical Sketch iii

Acknowledgements iv

Abstract v

Contributors and Funding Sources vii

List of Tables xv

List of Figures xvi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Background and Context 1

Problem Statement 3

Purpose Statement and Research Question 5

Rationale for the Study 6

Significance of the Study 8

Researcher Positionality 10

Organization of the Dissertation 12

Chapter 2: Literature Review 13

Cooperative Learning 13

Principles 14

Approaches 17

Benefits 21

Cooperative Learning in ESL/EFL Instruction 24

ix

Existing Studies 26

CL for teaching language skills and language components 26

Factors influencing practicing teachers’ use of CL 27

CL for promoting non-linguistic and non-curricular gains 30

Research gap 32

Conclusion 34

Chapter 3: Theoretical Frameworks 36

CHAT 36

Brief History 37

Components of Activity Systems and their Interconnectedness 38

Activity in an activity system 40

CHAT in the Present Study 41

Interaction Hypothesis 44

Input 45

Interaction 46

Output 48

Interaction Hypothesis in the Present Study 50

Conclusion 51

Chapter 4: Methodology 52

Qualitative Research Design 52

Qualitative Case Study 54

Setting and Sites 55

x

Research Participants 56

Sampling Strategies 57

Data Collection Strategies 61

Participant Observations 61

In-depth Interviewing 64

Documents Analysis 68

Data Sources 68

Data Management 69

Analytic Framework 72

Coding the Data 73

Writing Analytic Memos 74

Generating Themes 76

Researcher Role 78

Reciprocity 79

Ethical Considerations 80

Trustworthiness of the Study 80

Credibility 80

Transferability 82

Dependability 83

Confirmability 84

Triangulation 84

Exit Strategy 86

xi

Chapter 5: The Socio-cultural and Socio-historical Contexts

of the Two Activity Systems 88

Activity System One: Cooperative Learning in the Middle School

EFL Classrooms 88

Middle School Teacher 89

Middle School Students 91

Middle School EFL Classroom Community 93

Middle School Curriculum and CL 94

Individual Accountability in the Activity System (Middle School) 100

Activity System Two: Cooperative Learning in the High School

EFL Classroom 103

High School Teacher 104

High School Students 105

High School EFL Classroom Community 106

High School Curriculum and CL 107

Individual Accountability in the Activity System (High School) 110

The Similarities of the Two Activity Systems 112

The Differences of the Two Activity Systems 114

Conclusion 117

Chapter 6: The Role of Individual Accountability in Cooperative Learning

in Indonesian Secondary School EFL Classrooms 120

The Seven Identified Roles of Individual Accountability in CL 121

xii

Role #1: Gain Learning Experience as Mandated by the Curriculum 122

Role #2: Present the Previously Thought about, Discussed,

and Learned Information to Peers 133

Role #3: Have More Opportunities to Use the Target Language 140

Role #4: Have More Opportunities to Interact with Peers 154

Role #5: Give and Receive Vocabulary Help 161

Role #6: Have Access to Pronunciation from Peers’ Performance 170

Role #7: Gain Confidence to Speak in English 176

Summary 185

Understanding the Identified Roles from an Interaction Hypothesis Lens 186

Comprehensible Input 187

Comprehensible Output 189

Interaction 191

Negotiation for Meaning 193

Conclusion 194

Chapter 7: The Tensions in the Enactment of Individual Accountability in CL

in the EFL Classrooms 197

Conditions in the Rules Component 199

The Missed Steps 204

Individual Accountability in Home Groups 205

Peer Interaction 213

The Systemic Tensions in the CL Implementation 216

xiii

Not Presenting Share of Work 216

Performing without Preparation 220

Having Peer Preference 223

Conclusion 229

Chapter 8 Discussion and Conclusions 232

Key Findings 232

Chain of Activities 235

Effective Implementation 236

Discussion 239

How CL Works through its Individual Accountability 239

How Individual Accountability in CL Enhances EFL Learning 240

How to Achieve Effective Implementation of CL through

Enactment of Individual Accountability 245

Summary 251

Implications 252

Implications for Practice 252

Implications for Policy 256

Implications for Research 258

Directions for Future Research 261

Limitations 262

Conclusions 267

References 270

xiv

Appendix A 291

Appendix B 294

Appendix C 297

Appendix D 301

Appendix E 305

Appendix F 309

Appendix G 313

Appendix H 315

Appendix I 316

Appendix J 319

Appendix K 323

Appendix L 325

xv

List of Tables

Table Title Page

Table 4.1 Amount of Data Collected 69

Table 4.2 Data Collection Matrix 71

Table 5.1 Kagan’s CL Principles and Whispering Game 97

Table 5.2 Lessons, CL Structures, Tasks, and Levels of

Individual Accountability in the Middle School Classrooms 101

Table 5.3 Lessons, CL Structures, Tasks, and Levels of

Individual Accountability in the High School Classroom 111

xvi

List of Figures

Figure Title Page

Figure 3.1 Activity systems, adapted from Engeström (1987), in

Yamagata-Lynch (2007, p. 465) 38

Figure 6.1 The relation between the subjects and the rules

in the activity systems 123

Figure 6.2 The relation between the subjects and the division of

labor in the activity systems 134

Figure 6.3 The relation between the subjects and the object/outcome


Figure 6.4 Representation of the group of middle school students

working on a grammar exercise through conventional

group work 146

Figure 6.5 The relation between the subjects and the community


Figure 6.6 The relation between the subjects and the tools


1

Chapter 1: Introduction

This dissertation research, broadly speaking, is concerned with the use of

cooperative learning (CL) in English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms and how it

benefited EFL learners. More specifically, I investigated the implementation of CL for

enhancing learning in EFL classrooms in Indonesian secondary education1. Further, it

explored the role of individual accountability, a CL principle manifested in an activity, in

developing learners’ English competence. This study shows that individual accountability

in CL plays an important role in EFL learning as it requires individual learners to use the

target language publicly to share what they had learned, which benefits not only

themselves but also their peers.

Background and Context

A study conducted by English First demonstrated that on its adults’ English

proficiency level, Indonesia was ranked at 27th and categorized as one of the low English

proficiency countries among 54 non-English speaking countries (Anderson, 2012). The

1 Compulsory education in Indonesia initially comprised Sekolah Dasar (elementary

schools) and Sekolah Menengah Pertama (middle schools). Starting June 2015, it

included Sekolah Menengah Atas (high schools) (Sumitra, 2015). With regard to

management, the Ministry of Education and Culture places elementary, middle, and high

schools under the supervision of Directorate General of Primary and Secondary

Education (Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education, 2016). More

specifically, elementary and middle schools are under the supervision of Directorate of

Primary Education and high schools under the supervision of Directorate General of

Secondary Education. Notwithstanding, the term secondary education in this research

refers to middle and high schools, which means “the second stage traditionally found in

formal education, beginning about age 11 to 13 and ending usually at age 15 to 18”

(Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014).

2

study also revealed that countries with poor English-language skills had lower levels of

trade, innovation, and income. In discussing EFL teaching in Indonesia, Marcellino

(2008) notes, “English language teaching has then undergone more than four changes in

its curriculum [Oral Approach, Communicative Approach, Meaning-based Approach,

and Competency-based Curriculum] since the country’s independence [1945] and

brought no significant impact upon the learning outcomes” (p. 57).

With the positioning of English as a foreign language, which means that English

is not used for daily communication, English classrooms are expected to be the place for

learners to get exposure to the language and opportunities for using it with their peers. In

reality, such classes hardly exist because most Indonesian EFL teachers tend to faithfully

follow textbooks and student work sheets; they give few opportunities for students to

interact with their peers and use the target language (Alwasilah, 2012; Lie, 2007;

Musthafa, 2009). Typical activities in EFL classrooms in Indonesia are described as

follows: “The activities, usually teacher-centered, include repetition and substitution

drills, which are essentially used to activate phrases or sentences that learners have

understood” (Mattarima & Hamdan, 2011, p. 295).

Literature shows that opportunities for language learners to use the target

language through interaction with their peers are supportive of their second language

acquisition and development (Kagan, 1995; Long & Porter, 1985; McGroarty, 1989;

Swain, 2005). As indicated in all of the implemented curriculums from 1984 to 2013

[Communicative Approach, Meaning-based Approach, Competency-based Curriculum,

and Genre-based Approach], EFL instruction in Indonesia also has highlighted the

3

importance of peer interaction in the learning process. Yet, teacher-dominated learning

remains prevalent. This, according to Alwasilah (2012), is due to Indonesian EFL

teachers’ weakness in teaching methods. An emphasis on rote learning indicates that

teachers do not have a strong enough teaching repertoire (Alwasilah, 2013).

Understanding the utilization of language teaching methods that promote peer interaction

and the use of target language in EFL classrooms has become the impetus of this

dissertation research. CL is a mandated learning activity in the Indonesian education

system (National Education Standard Board, 2007/2013b) and it stresses peer interaction

(Johnson & Johnson, 1985/2009; Kagan, 1989). Therefore, this study focused on CL.

In light of the definitions of CL proposed by Johnson and Johnson (1999) and

Olsen and Kagan (1992) (discussed in detail in Chapter 2), this study defines CL as a

group learning activity in which individual students’s contribution to the learning is

realized through their performance or presentation, which is beneficial not only for their

own learning but also for their peers’ learning and the group’s goals. Embedded in this

definition is the principle of individual accountability in CL: an activity that individual

students do in front of their peers and is required to complete a learning task. The

following is the discussion on why this study investigated this CL principle.

Problem Statement

In CL, students work in groups and are responsible for their own learning and the

learning of their group members (Kagan & Kagan, 2009). This responsibility might not

be available in conventional group work where students simply sit and work together on a

given task. Literature demonstrates that CL facilitates second language acquisition and

4

thus benefits language learners (Kagan, 1995; McGroarty, 1989). The use of CL was

shown to have a positive effect on English as a Second Language (ESL) and EFL—

hereafter referred to as ESL/EFL— students’ achievement in mastery of language skills

and components (Bejarano, 1987; Ghaith, 2003; Liang, 2002; Sachs, Candlin, & Rose,

2003). However, there is little research that depicts how CL promotes ESL/EFL learning.

As in a broader educational context, it remains unclear why and under what conditions

CL increases students’ academic achievement (Slavin, 1996). Hence, answers to these

questions are worthy of further exploration.

CL scholars highlight that when CL principles (e.g., positive interdependence,

individual accountability, equal participation, simultaneous interaction) are enacted,

cooperation among students takes place, and effective implementation will likely be

achieved (Chen, 2011; Olsen & Kagan, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1999, Slavin, 1999).

However, little scholarly time and effort have been spent to investigate CL principles,

particularly in the ESL/EFL field. This dissertation research attempted to address this gap

in literature by exploring one CL principle, individual accountability, with the intention of

understanding how it enhances EFL learning.

Kagan and Kagan (2009) posit that individual accountability in CL takes place

when individual students make a public performance, i.e. performing or sharing what

they have learned or mastered in front of their group members. This activity may be not

present in conventional group work, and its absence, I argue, can disadvantage language

learners because it is an opportunity for them to practice using the target language with

their peers. When such opportunity is not available, the attainment of communicative

5

competence as the goal of language learning might be hampered (Long, 1996; Long &

Porter, 1985).

Communicative competence is “[t]he ability of language learners to interact with

other speakers, to make meaning” (Savignon, 1991, p. 264). More specifically, it is “[t]he

learner’s ability to take part in spontaneous and meaningful communication in different

contexts, with different people, on different topics, for different purposes” (Celce‐Murcia,

Dörnyei, & Thurrell, 1997, p. 149). Hymes’s (1972) notion of communicative

competence includes both knowledge and the ability to use language in a way that is

socially acceptable in a given context. While the logic of the link between language

learners’ opportunity for using the target language and their goal of achieving

communicative competence through CL might have been clear, the ESL/EFL field needs

research that explores and documents how learners’ use of the target language in CL and

the goal of language learning are at play in the learning process (Bejarano, 1987; Ghaith,

2003). This area of research is important to generate classroom implications that will in

turn promote the use of CL in the field (Ghaith, 2004).

Purpose Statement and Research Question

The purpose of this dissertation research was to explore the role of individual

accountability in CL in enhancing EFL learning in Indonesian secondary school

classrooms. Researching this area is important on three accounts. First, attention to the

role of individual accountability in CL in Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms

may generate a better understanding of how CL works and thus promote the use of CL in

these contexts. This study excludes elementary education because, at this level of

6

education, English is not a mandatory subject. Second, the discussion can provide EFL

teacher candidates, practicing teachers, and teacher educators with information on the

enactment of individual accountability in CL to promote EFL learners’ communicative

competence. This information may also be useful for educational policy makers when

designing the Process Standard that guides the teaching and learning processes of

secondary education. Third, research on individual accountability in CL can build a

foundation for future studies on other CL principles, which are needed to develop our

understanding of how to ensure effective CL implementation. This research sought to

address the following question: What is the role of individual accountability in CL

implementation in Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms?

Rationale for the Study

Seminal works on the use of CL in ESL/EFL learning contexts suggest that CL

facilitates second language acquisition and development (Kagan, 1995; McGroarty,

1989). CL transforms three variables of second language acquisition (input, output, and

context) in the direction of facilitating language acquisition in ESL classrooms (Kagan,

1995). Krashen (2003) posits, “Language acquisition is a subconscious process; while it

is happening, we are not aware that it is happening,” whereas language learning is “a

conscious process; when we are learning, we know we are learning” (p. 1). In light of this

difference between language acquisition and language learning, it can be said that the use

of CL can accommodate second language acquisition in the context of formal English

learning. CL benefits ESL learners in three different aspects: linguistic, curricular, and

social (McGroarty, 1989). Specifically, for each aspect, there are two main benefits: 1)

7

increased frequency and variety of second language practice through different types of

interaction; (2) possibility for development or use of the first language in ways that

support cognitive development and increased second language skills; (3) opportunities to

integrate language with content instruction; (4) inclusion of a greater variety of curricular

materials to stimulate language use as well as concept learning; (5) freedom for language

teachers to master new professional skills, particularly those emphasizing

communication; and (6) opportunities for students to act as resources for each other and,

thus, assume a more active role in learning (p. 127). These benefits suggest that CL

promotes ESL/EFL learning. Moreover, research literature also has shown that CL had a

positive effect on students’ achievement in ESL/EFL learning (Alghamdi, 2014;

Alghamdi & Gillies, 2013; Bejarano, 1987; Ghaith, 2003; Sachs et al., 2003; Shabaan,

2006).

CL rarely happens in ESL/EFL classrooms (DelliCarpini, 2009). Lack of

teacher’s personal efficacy is among the factors that contribute to the low occurrence of

CL in both teacher candidates’ and practicing teachers’ ESL/EFL classrooms

(DelliCarpini, 2009). Teacher’s personal efficacy is “[t]he teacher’s belief in his or her

capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a

specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy,

1998, p. 233). One of the ways to enhance English teachers’ personal efficacy in

implementing CL is the availability of materials and sources, specifically on effective CL

implementation (Ghaith, 2004). Most of the existing research on the use of CL in

ESL/EFL classrooms at secondary education involves quantitative studies, which

8

examine the effect of CL on ESL/EFL learners’ achievement. They usually do not

document how CL works, which may be helpful for teachers to know and therefore guide

their classroom practice. This calls for research employing qualitative methodologies that

explore the processes of CL implementation in real world ESL/EFL classrooms to

provide a better understanding of how CL works and benefits EFL learners as well as to

generate practical implications for implementation of CL. Therefore, this study employed

qualitative methodology.

Significance of the Study

This study explored the role of individual accountability in CL implementation in

enhancing EFL learning in Indonesian secondary school classrooms. It contributes to the

scholarly and professional sources of CL implementation that EFL teacher candidates and

practicing teachers can use as reference for their research and practice, and for building

their personal efficacy, specifically in implementing CL. Teacher educators may find this

research informative because they work with teacher candidates as well as cooperating

teachers, and one of the factors that causes a lack of CL in ESL/EFL classrooms is that

teacher candidates found no support from their cooperating teachers when they tried to

implement CL strategies (DelliCarpini, 2009). Not knowing what constitutes CL and not

practicing it could be two reasons why cooperating teachers are not able to provide

support to teacher candidates in their attempt to implement CL. The two reasons, to some

degree, have to do with their teacher educators. In discussing the teaching of CL in ESL

teacher education programs, Shaw (1992) posits, “the greater the congruence between

9

what is said and done, the more greatly enhanced is the effectiveness of the program; that

CL must be demonstrated and experienced as well as explained” (p. 175).

This study also informs policy makers, specifically those who design the Process

Standard of Indonesian Primary and Secondary Education (National Education Standard

Board, 2013b). The current Standard (stipulated by the Decree of Minister of Education

and Culture Number 65 Year 2013) suggests the inclusion of CL as one of the teaching

methods that teachers should use. However, it does not elaborate the what, the why, and

the how of CL. In other words, the Process Standard needs to provide information that

Indonesian teachers can use as guidelines on how to implement CL.

Law No. 20/2003 on the National Education System (The President of the

Republic of Indonesia, 2003) mandates that the learning processes should make students

active in developing their potential. CL requires students to actively interact with their

peers, and its individual accountability requires individual students to participate and

contribute to the learning process. Given this underlying notion, CL is a teaching method

that is in line with the learning process mandated by the law. In addition, while change in

curriculum may be inevitable, CL may continuously have a place in classrooms. This is

because CL is not a new content to teach; rather it is a way to teach that values

interaction, which can be part of any lesson (Kagan, 2003). This study is then significant

to provide a better understanding of how CL can help enact active learning mandated by

the law, which can be beneficial despite changes in curriculum contents that may come in

the future.

10

Researcher Positionality

My formal EFL learning started in middle school in my home country, Indonesia.

For me it was an interesting subject, although teacher-centered learning was prevalent.

The same learning mode continued to my high school period and my undergraduate

program where I took EFL teacher education as my major. In my teacher education

courses, I was barely given opportunities to use the target language and to articulate my

thoughts and ideas, let alone do practice teaching. As a result, upon completion of the

program, I was not confident about my English and my knowledge and skills of teaching

the language.

I was a part-time EFL teacher in a private language institution when I enrolled in

a Master’s program in EFL teacher education. My learning experience during this period

of education transformed the way I taught my students. A professor introduced me to CL.

From him I learned the why (the pedagogical perspectives) and the how (the instructional

strategies/structures/techniques) of this teaching method. After this, I no longer taught the

way I was taught, I implemented CL and found that my students were more enthusiastic

in their learning and achieved higher proficiency. Then, I began to believe, and still do,

that since people are social beings, they need to interact with other people while learning.

After completing my Master’s program, I worked as a teacher educator at a state

university in Semarang, Jawa Tengah (Central Java), Indonesia. With my belief in CL, I

embraced CL as one of my methods for teaching student teachers. It is nice that I am not

a lone practitioner of CL in the program. For the past five years, CL has been one of the

11

methods discussed and practiced in our teaching methodology as well as curriculum and

materials development courses.

I believe that one of the criteria of an ideal teacher educator is that he/she has the

experience of teaching at schools. In retrospect, I am not ideal because I never taught at

schools, let alone implemented CL at schools. I want to be a better teacher educator

whose voice is legitimate when talking about CL implementation in EFL classrooms and

whose CL practices are research-based. Through my research, I hope to contribute to

discussions on how to implement CL effectively in EFL classrooms and how to better

equip EFL teacher candidates with CL and assist practicing teachers in their CL

implementation. Hence, in the study, I worked together with practicing teachers who

were CL practitioners in order to improve our understanding of how CL works for

enhancing EFL learning because as Ron (2004) posits, “knowledge is built through social

construction of the world” (p. vi). To avoid a power imbalance in my study, considering

my profession as a teacher educator, I chose CL practitioners who, though graduates from

my teacher education program, I never taught. Together with these CL practitioners, I

gained a better understanding of the role of individual accountability in CL in enhancing

EFL learning. I will share the results with the community of EFL teachers in Indonesia

through publication, presentations, and workshops with hopes that these teachers will

better facilitate their EFL students’ learning by enacting individual accountability in their

CL implementation. By doing so, their students will have increased opportunities to

interact with their peers and use the target language. These are the opportunities that

come with individual accountability in CL.

12

Organization of the Dissertation

In this chapter, I have outlined the background and the context of my study,

problem statement, purpose statement, research question, rationale for the study,

significance of the study, and my positionality as a researcher. In Chapter 2, I review the

literature on CL: definitions, principles, approaches, benefits, position and benefits of CL

in ESL/EFL teaching, and research on CL in these contexts, and individual accountability

in CL. Chapter 3 discusses two frameworks, Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)

and Interaction Hypothesis, which provide the theoretical lens of my study. In Chapter 4, I

present the methodology, including the research design, setting and site, research

participants, research strategies, data sources, data management, analytic framework,

researcher role, ethical consideration, trustworthiness of the study, triangulation, and exit

strategies. Chapter 5 describes the cases: 1) individual accountability in CL in Indonesian

middle school EFL classrooms, and 2) individual accountability in CL in Indonesian high

school EFL classroom. This description sets the stage for the presentation of the study’s

findings, offered in Chapter 6 and 7. Specifically, in Chapter 6, I present the seven

identified roles of individual accountability in CL across sites. Chapter 7 discusses the

tensions in the enactment of individual accountability of CL in the EFL classrooms. In

Chapter 8, I point out the key findings and discuss them in relation to existing literature,

articulate the implications, and present my conclusions, including what I learned from the

study, plans for future research and for helping practicing teachers in their CL

implementation.

13

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter reviews existing literature related to CL, including the use of this

teaching method in ESL/EFL learning contexts and individual accountability in CL, as

the basis of this dissertation research. Secondary school EFL classrooms were the sites of

this research; hence, the studies reviewed here are mostly those carried out in similar

contexts, i.e. ESL/EFL learning in secondary education. This chapter is divided into two

sections. In the first section, I establish the territory by presenting the definitions of CL,

its principles including individual accountability, approaches to CL, and benefits of CL

across contexts. In the second section, I discuss the use of CL in ESL/EFL instruction

including research in this field and identify gaps in the existing literature.

Cooperative Learning

CL is not the same as conventional group work where students simply sit and

work together in groups. Among the CL definitions available in the literature, I chose two

because they serve as the basis of this study as they contain the idea of individual

accountability. One of the two definitions, from Johnson and Johnson (1999), reads as

follows:

Students work together to accomplish shared goals. Students seek outcomes that

are beneficial to all. Students discuss material with each other, help one another

understand it, and encourage each other to work hard. Individual performance is

checked regularly to ensure that all students are contributing and learning. (p. 68)

The other definition is from Olsen and Kagan (1992), who defined CL as

…group learning activity organized so that learning is dependent on the socially

structured exchange of information between learners in groups and in which each

learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is motivated to increase

the learning of others. (p. 8)

14

Inherent in the above definitions is the notion of individual students’

responsibility for their own learning and for the learning of others in their CL group,

which is the underlying idea of individual accountability—the focus of my study.

Students’ individual accountability may not be present in other forms of group work,

such as one in which students are placed in groups, given some interesting materials or

problems to solve, and allowed to discover information skills, or one in which students

work together to produce a single product or solution (Slavin, 1989). In such groups,

individual students may not be held accountable for their participation, their own

learning, and for the learning of others. Based on the two definitions of CL above, in this

study, CL is defined as a group learning activity in which individual students contribute

to the learning through performance or presentation, which is beneficial not only for their

own learning but also for their peers’ learning. The following section discusses CL

principles, including individual accountability.

Principles

Different CL thinkers have their own list of CL principles. Olsen and Kagan

(1992) put forward five elements: positive interdependence, team formation,

accountability, social skills, and structuring and structure. Slavin (1995) proposed six

principles of CL: group goals, individual accountability, equal opportunities for success,

team competition, task specialization, and adaptation to individual needs. Johnson and

Johnson (1999) offered five elements: positive interdependence, individual

accountability, face-to-face interaction, social skills, and group processing. Kagan (1989)

recommended four principles, including positive interdependence, individual

15

accountability, equal participation, and simultaneous interaction. One element or

principle (for consistency, the term principle will be used henceforward) present in all of

these proposals is individual accountability. In other words, individual accountability is a

key principle of CL, which is why it became the focus of this study.

Although individual accountability is a point of intersection of experts’ proposals

of CL principles, their explanation of this principle is not similar. Johnson and Johnson

(1999) described individual accountability as follows:

Individual accountability exists when the performance of each individual student

is assessed and the results are given back to the group and the individual. The

purpose of cooperative learning is to make each member a stronger individual and

that students learn together so that they can subsequently perform higher as

individuals. To ensure that each member is strengthened, students are held

individually accountable to do their share of the work. (p. 71)

A point akin to this idea of assessment of students’ individual accountability was

articulated by Olsen and Kagan (1992):

Students may be made individually accountable by assigning each student a grade

on his or her own portion of the team project or by the rule that the group may not

go on to the next activity until all team members finish the task. A primary way to

ensure accountability is through testing. (p. 13)

Along the same lines, Slavin’s (1983) explanation of individual accountability

included the idea of measurement of individual students’ contribution to their group:

The best learning efforts of every member of the group must be necessary for the

group to succeed, and the performance of each group member must be clearly

visible and quantifiable to the other group members. (p. 441)

Quite differently as they exclude the element of assessment or measurement in

individual accountability, Kagan and Kagan (2009) described individual accountability as

an activity in which individual students’ performance is done without help, witnessed by

16

other students, and required to complete a given task. While the element of assessment or

testing is not found in all articulations of individual accountability, the notion of one’s

responsibility for his or her own learning and the learning of others is to some degree

found across descriptions. It is this underlying idea of CL that my study aligned

with.Literature shows that CL has a positive effect on ESL/EFL learners’ academic

achievement; however, it is not clear why CL affects achievement and under what

conditions CL has this effect (Slavin, 1996). Literature has also suggested that to

implement CL effectively, the principles of CL should be followed (Chen, 2011; Olsen &

Kagan, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1999, Slavin, 1999). However, there is little research

conducted to investigate how CL principles are at play. This dissertation research

addresses these gaps in the literature by providing an understanding of how CL enhances

learning in EFL classrooms through the enactment of individual accountability as one of

CL’s principles. This study set aside the element of assessment or testing because, as

previously noted, existing research has already shown the effect of CL in increasing

learners’ achievement. Hence, based on Kagan and Kagan’s (2009) definition of

individual accountability, in this study individual accountability was defined as an

activity (presentation or performance) that individual students do in front of their CL

group members which is required to complete a learning task. I argue that in order to

achieve an effective implementation of CL, i.e. the use of CL that enhances learning,

individual accountability as a key CL principle should be enacted.

As indicated earlier, little research has been conducted to investigate CL

principles, including that of individual accountability. The existing studies on individual

17

accountability in CL, which were not from the field of ESL/EFL teaching, are discussed

as follows. In their study on the prevalence of CL, how it took shape in classrooms, and

the correspondence between classroom and research models of CL, Antil, Jenkins, and

Wayne (1998) found that the majority of the participants (i.e., elementary school

teachers) were using a form of CL that differed from those described by researcher-

developers. For example, they did not structure individual accountability in their practice.

These teachers, as the researchers suggest, judged researcher-developers’ CL models as

too complicated and arduous. A study by Lopata, Miller, and Miller (2003) revealed that

exemplar teachers of elementary and middle schools who indicated participation in staff

development for CL reported higher relative use of individual accountability in their daily

teaching practices. Studies such as the two described here are scarce in the literature of

ESL/EFL instruction. My study fills this gap by looking at the enactment of individual

accountability of CL in EFL classrooms and identifying its roles in enhancing EFL

learning. Individual accountability is one of the CL principles used as the basis for the

development of Kagan’s (1989) Structural Approach to CL. This and other approaches to

CL are described in the following section.

Approaches

Various experts developed different CL instructional strategies and framed them

in their approach to CL. I will discuss the variety of CL approaches available in the

literature, including whether or not individual accountability is incorporated in each of

these approaches, and why Kagan’s (1989) Structural Approach was highlighted in this

study. Johnson and Johnson (1987) named their approach to CL as Learning Together.

18

The idea of this approach is that students work in heterogeneous groups, consisting of

four or five students, and they work on the assignment sheets provided. Whenever a

group finishes a sheet, the teacher gives praise and rewards based on the quality of their

work. While Johnson and Johnson include individual accountability as one of the

conditions under which CL is productive, this particular CL principle is not a built-in

feature of their Learning Together approach. Rather, teachers need to put effort to include

individual accountability and the other CL principles when using Learning Together in

their lessons (Kagan, 2001).

Group Investigation is an approach to CL that was developed by Sharan and

Sharan (1990). They claimed that this approach “harnesses students’ interest and gives

them even more control over their learning than other cooperative learning methods do”

(p. 17). The procedure of their approach is as follows: (1) teacher identifies the topic to

be investigated and organizes students into research groups; (2) students plan the

investigation in their groups; (3) students carry out the investigation; (4) students prepare

a final report; (5) students present the final report; and (6) both students and teacher

evaluate learning (p. 17-20). Sharan and Sharan (1990) asserted, “The final result of the

group’s work reflects each member’s contribution, but it is intellectually richer than work

done individually by the same students” (p. 17). Notwithstanding this assertion and the

steps in the procedure of Group Investigation outlined above, students’ individual

accountability appears not to be a built-in feature of this approach to CL. Similar to the

aforementioned approaches, Cohen’s (1999) approach to CL, named Complex

19

Instruction, proposes a series of steps for organizing lessons that utilizes cooperation

among students in their groups:

Students must discuss complex content material, design and prepare their group

product, report to the class, and teach others what they have learned—all within a

very short time period. They must depend on one another to get the job done.

Students learn that they have the duty to assist those who ask for help. While the

tasks are interdependent, students are also held accountable individually. They

must complete an individual report about their work in the group. (p. 83)

Sharan underlines individual accountability despite the interdependent nature of the tasks.

However, as in the approaches to CL previously described, individual accountability does

not seem to be a built-in feature of Complex Instruction. Instead, students demonstrate

their accountability through a report about their work in the groups.

Slavin (1995) described his approach to CL, Student Team Learning, as one that

“…emphasize[s] the use of team goals and team success, which can be achieved only if

all members of the team learn the objectives being taught. Students’ tasks are not to do

[original emphasis] something as a team but to learn something as a team” (p. 3). He

develops four CL instructional strategies under this approach, namely: Student Teams-

Achievement Divisions (STAD), Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT), Team Assisted

Individualization (TAI), and Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC).

Each strategy requires the students to work together to master material initially presented

by the teacher. For example, in STAD, Slavin (1990) organized the lesson as follows:

The teacher presents a lesson and then students work within their teams to make

sure that all team members have mastered the lesson. Finally, all students take

individual quizzes on the materials. At which time they may not help one another.

(p. 3)

20

Similar to other approaches to CL previously outlined, Slavin’s (1995) approach to CL

also requires teachers to plan their lesson by following the proposed procedure. As in the

CL approaches described above, though individual accountability is one of Slavin’s

(1995) proposed CL principles, it does not appear to be a built-in feature in Student Team

Learning.

Kagan (1989) proposed the Structural Approach to CL that emphasizes the use of

CL instructional strategies, or what he called structures. Olsen and Kagan (1992)

described structures as “[c]ontent-free ways of organizing distinct sequences of

classroom behaviors, including specified type of interactions among students at each

step” (p. 17). Kagan developed CL structures such as Think-Pair-Share, RoundRobin,

RallyRobin, Numbered Heads Together, Three-Step Interview, etc. While other

approaches require teachers to design CL lessons, (i.e. they ask teachers to plan

cooperative learning lessons), Kagan’s (1989) structures can be part of any lesson. Kagan

and High (2002) highlighted, “[t]he structures can be inserted at any point in any lesson

to create greater engagement and learning for all students” (p. 12). In addition, whenever

the structures are implemented, the four principles of CL that Kagan (1989) proposed—

positive interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation, and simultaneous

interaction (usually put in an acronym: PIES)—are, to some degree, observable or can be

identified. Taking this notion of observable principles into consideration, in my study, I

involved teachers whose CL repertoire and practice included Kagan’s (1989) structures

so that I could observe the enactment of individual accountability and explore its roles in

promoting EFL learning.

21

Benefits

CL has been found beneficial across educational contexts, regardless of age of

learners and content-area subjects (Slavin, 1995). The following are the benefits of CL

endorsed by the existing studies across educational contexts (not exclusively from the

field of ESL/EFL instruction). CL promotes the attainment of both cognitive and non-

cognitive gains, including promoting students’ academic achievement and developing

students’ self-esteem (Coelho, 2009; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Kagan & Kagan, 2009,

Slavin, 1990), increasing students’ liking of school and class (Kagan & Kagan, 2009;

Slavin, 1990) as well as of their peers (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1990),

increasing cross-race relations (Kagan & Kagan, 2009; Slavin, 1980), developing

students’ social skills (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Kagan & Kagan, 2009; Slavin, 1990),

and promoting psychological health (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Because of CL’s

advantages, especially when this teaching method was compared to various control

methods, Slavin (1996) argues that CL is “[o]ne of the greatest success stories in the

history of educational innovation” (p. 43). Along this line, Johnson (1997) claimed that

CL is one of the best-researched approaches in education, and CL remains at the forefront

of research-based instruction (Kagan & Kagan, 2009).

CL advantages listed above suggest that CL enhances learning. As discussed in

Chapter 1, Indonesians’ low English proficiency level suggests the need for improving

the teaching of the language, and CL was a mandated teaching method in the country.

The purpose of this study was to explore the role of individual accountability in CL in

enhancing EFL learning. Hence, in the following I will extend my review of how CL

22

promotes students’ academic achievement with particular attention to what the literature

suggests about the role of individual accountability in enhancing learning.

Slavin (1996) argued that CL classrooms increase student achievement because of

group goals and individual accountability. He explains, “[i]f students value doing well as

a group, and the group can succeed only by ensuring that all group members have learned

the material, then group members will be motivated to teach each other” (p. 54). In

Coelho’s (2009) view, the peer assistance and peer approval that CL creates make

students feel that they have more control of their own learning, display more on-task

behavior, show improved attention, like their classmates, their class, their school, their

subject, and their teacher better, and become more cooperative and altruistic. Coelho

(2009) argued that these positive attitudes result in academic achievement. All of these

accounts suggest that students’ active interaction in their groups leads to increased

learning, which was supported by a number of studies on language learning in second and

foreign language contexts (Gómez Lobatón, 2010; Mackey, 1999; Posada, 2006; Sato &

Lyster, 2012, Webb, 1982). My study also looked at EFL learners’ interaction with their

peers in preparation for their individual accountability performances and how this

interaction enhanced their EFL learning.

According to Johnson and Johnson (2009), CL promotes students’ academic

achievement because of “[p]rocess gain (i.e., more high-level reasoning, more frequent

generation of new ideas and solutions), greater transfer of what is learned within one

situation to another (i.e., group to individual transfer), and more time on task” (p. 72).

Kagan and Kagan (2009) offered a different explanation. They stated that the tutoring

23

process between high and low achievers benefits both parties and results in higher

academic achievement. In language classrooms, which were the setting of this study,

students with higher proficiency level used the target language for thinking aloud and

explaining about the language to their lower proficiency peers (Kagan & Kagan, 2009).

The two authors explained that when the high-proficient learners’ gives explanation in

the target language to their low-proficient peers, they are advancing their cognitive and

language development. As for low-proficient students, they get tutorial from high

proficient students with a language that is comprehensible while at the same time the high

proficient students are evaluating their own proficiency (Kagan & Kagan, 2009).

Of all explanations of how CL promotes achievement discussed above, my study

focused on individual accountability. As one of CL principles (Johnson & Johnson, 1999;

Kagan & Kagan, 2009, Olsen & Kagan, 1992; Slavin, 1995), individual accountability is

an important element in CL student-student interaction to ensure cooperation and

promote effective implementation (Chen, 2011; Olsen & Kagan, 1992; Johnson &

Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1999). Based on his review of research on the achievement effects

of CL, Slavin (1983, 1996) argued that individual accountability is essential to the

instructional effectiveness of CL methods. Yet, Slavin (1995) underlined, “[t]here is still

a great deal of confusion and disagreement about why [original emphasis] cooperative

learning methods affect achievement and, even more importantly, under what conditions

cooperative learning has these effects” (pp. 43-44). Through my dissertation research, I

aimed to provide an understanding of how individual accountability in CL enhances EFL

learning in Indonesian secondary school classrooms.

24

Cooperative Learning in ESL/EFL Instruction

In the context of language instruction, CL is under the umbrella of the

Communicative Approach to language teaching, which has been adopted by EFL

instruction in Indonesia since 1980s (Lie, 2007). This approach advocates that teachers

engage students in learning activities where they learn how to communicate by

communicating (Larsen-Freeman, 2012). Richard (2002) elaborated some principles of

this approach. The following are three of them: (1) the goal of language learning is

communicative competence; (2) learners learn a language through using it to

communicate; and (3) authentic and meaningful communication should be the goal of

classroom activities. He argued that CL is a teaching method that helps ESL/EFL

teachers implement these principles, specifically in teaching speaking. Through

interaction in CL, students attempt real communication. In doing so, they develop

communication strategies and engage in negotiation of meaning that are considered

essential in developing their speaking skills (Richard, 2002).

CL scholars (Kagan, 1995; McGroarty, 1989) argued that CL facilitates second

language acquisition and thus benefits learners of ESL/EFL. Kagan (1995) noted that CL

and ESL classrooms make a natural marriage because CL transforms three variables of

second language acquisition (input, output, and context) into the direction of facilitating

language acquisition. In Kagan’s view (1995), because of its peer interaction patterns, CL

provides higher quantity of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985) that learners receive,

fosters comprehensible output (Swain, 1985), and provides a learning context that is

feedback-rich.

25

McGroarty (1989) argued that CL benefits language learners in three different

aspects: linguistic, curricular, and social. In line with Kagan’s (1995) argument,

McGroarty (1989) explained that linguistic gains are feasible in CL because of the

availability of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985) and comprehensible output (Swain,

1985). Concerning curricular gains, McGroarty (1989) mentioned increased frequency

and type of practice in CL as one of the factors that makes it possible. Kagan’s (1986)

argument lends support to McGroarty’s (1989) assertion that CL gives social gains to

students; CL develops students’ prosocial skills when they are involved in seeking and

offering peer assistance and learning to maximize group as well as individual strengths

(p. 232-241).

Although CL has a position in ESL/EFL teaching and is beneficial for ESL/EFL

learners, its occurrence in ESL/EFL classrooms in most educational contexts is low

(Alwasilah, 2012; DelliCarpini, 2009; Lie, 2007; Musthafa, 2009). This is partly because

there is little research that explores the process of CL implementation that generates

classroom implications. Most of the existing research on the use of CL in ESL/EFL

classrooms in secondary education, presented in the next section, investigated whether

CL had a positive effect on students’ achievement. My research addresses this gap in the

literature by depicting the processes of CL implementation in Indonesian secondary

school classrooms with the purpose of exploring the role of individual accountability in

enhancing EFL learning.

26

Existing Studies

Studies on the use of CL in the teaching of ESL/EFL in secondary education can

be grouped into three themes: (1) CL for teaching language skills and components, (2)

factors influencing practicing teachers’ use of CL, and (3) CL for promoting non-

linguistic and non-curricular gains. I end this section by discussing the research gap.

CL for teaching language skills and language components. Research literature

on the use of CL in ESL/EFL instruction in secondary education demonstrates that

teachers utilized CL for teaching language skills, including listening (Bejarano, 1987),

speaking (Liang, 2002; Sachs et al., 2003), reading (Bejarano, 1987; Ghaith, 2003), and

writing (Syafini & Rizan, 2009). Concerning the use of CL for teaching speaking (Liang,

2002; Sachs et al., 2003), one of the purposes of these studies was to examine whether

CL could elevate secondary school EFL learners’ proficiency in speaking because they

were usually taught in classrooms where teachers dominated the talk. As discussed in the

previous section, CL centers on peer interaction, and thus it provides in-class speaking

practices needed by language learners. Literature on foreign language instruction

suggests that, for learners, speaking was the most anxiety-provoking activity (Laughrin-

Sacco, 1992; Price, 1991; Young, 1990). A study conducted by Suwantarathip and

Wichadee (2010) found that the use of CL decreased language anxiety of a group of EFL

learners in a university in Bangkok. My study adds to this literature because speaking

was a language skill focused on in my teacher participants’ instruction, and the study

found that individual accountability in CL helped the EFL learners gain confidence in

speaking in English.

27

CL was also used for teaching language components, including grammar

(Bejarano, 1987; Hijazi & Al-Natour, 2012), vocabulary (Bejarano, 1987), and

pronunciation (Chen, 2011). Most of these studies employed quasi-experimental design

for investigating whether a specific instructional strategy of CL gave a positive effect on

students’mastery of the language components. A meta-analysis that examined the

effectiveness of a group of instructional approaches (i.e. cooperative, collaborative, and

peer tutoring) at improving literacy outcomes for English language learners (ELLs) found

that peer mediated-learning promotes word-level gains for the ELLs (Cole, 2014). My

qualitative case study offers a different perspective from this line of research because it

depicts the processes of how EFL learners gained English vocabulary through individual

accountability activities in CL.

Some of the aforementioned studies did not show that the use of CL increased

ESL/EFL learners’ achievement. Factors contributing to this finding include short period

of investigation and CL intervention (Ghaith, 2003), the need to train students on how CL

works (Chen, 2011), time and curriculum constraints (Sachs et al., 2003), and the need to

connect the how (CL instructional strategies) to accommodate the what (teaching content)

(Bejarano, 1987). My study found evidence for how some of these factors influenced the

enactment of individual accountability in CL.

Factors influencing practicing teachers’ use of CL. The next line of research

on the use of CL for teaching ESL/EFL in secondary education explores factors that

influenced practicing teachers’ use of CL. The existing research indicates that CL was

practiced more by teachers with positive attitudes towards CL than those who do not have

28

these attitudes, and by teachers who believed in an interpretive model more than by

teachers who believed in a transmission model of instruction (Cohen & Tellez, 1994;

Ghaith, 2004). According to Young and Lee (1984), in the context of second language

instruction, the transmission model of instruction is similar to the grammatical accuracy

approach that emphasizes grammar exercises, while the interpretation model of

instruction is congruent with the fluency approach that promotes negotiation of meaning

and active interaction among learners. These studies have provided a foundation for

researchers like myself, whose studies involved teachers that had positive attitudes

towards CL and who believed in the interpretation model of instruction as research

participants.

On the relationship between CL and teaching efficacy, Ghaith and Yaghi (1997)

found that middle and high school Lebanese teachers with a high sense of personal

teaching efficacy considered CL (specifically STAD) as congruent with their present

practices, less difficult to implement, and very important. Similarly, one of the factors

that contributed to the low occurrence of CL in ESL classrooms was teacher candidates’

and practicing teachers’ lack of self-efficacy (DelliCarpini, 2009). For enhancing

teachers’ personal efficacy, external factors such as materials, resources, and staff

development programs were important (Ghaith, 2004). Teachers involved in my study

were teachers whose teaching experience was more than five years, which means that

they have likely formed and strengthened their efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997;

Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). My research provided implications for

practice that can be resources for practicing teachers in their CL implementation. The

29

availability of practical implications from qualitative studies on CL, such as this study,

may increase practicing teachers’ self-efficacy, specifically in implementing CL.

In terms of the attitude of stakeholders toward CL, Ghaith’s (2004) study showed

that if the school principal, school administrators, other teachers, etc. had positive

attitudes towards CL (particularly STAD), it was likely that teachers would implement it.

Ghaith (2004) also found that external factors such as the availability of funding,

curriculum materials, supplies and equipment, staff development programs, less emphasis

on standardized assessment, and smaller classes influenced teachers’ use of CL. Since the

curriculums implemented in my research sites advocated the use of CL, my study

expands on Gaith’s (2004) research by portraying how the implementation of CL went

hand in hand with the curriculums.

Beyond the contexts of ESL/EFL teaching and secondary education, Antil et al.

(1998) examined the prevalence of self-reported CL use among elementary school

teachers. These researchers found that few teachers were using CL in a structured form,

which showed an incongruity between practitioner-reported application and a structured

model of CL. This study suggested that teachers recognized the importance of CL but

failed to implement it according to preset models. Another study examined exemplar

teachers’ self-reported relative use of CL among exemplar teachers (Lopata, et al., 2003).

The study indicated that exemplar teachers’ overall actual use of CL fell significantly

below the level at which they would prefer to be practicing CL. There was also a

discrepancy between actual and preferred use on each of the four elements of CL defined

by (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, & Roy, 1984): positive interdependence, individual

30

accountability, face-to-face interaction, and group process. The study conducted by

Lopata et al. (2003) also noticed factors that can affect teacher selection of instructional

strategies: increased pressure to meet academic standards using individualized tests, class

size, student behavior, problems, and number of students. As discussed earlier in this

chapter, in my study, the teacher participants were EFL teachers whose CL repertoire and

practice included the Structural Approach to CL. Hence, my qualitative research extends

the studies discussed here, which employed survey as the main data collection strategy,

by portraying how the EFL teachers actually used the preset instructional strategies of CL

in their classrooms.

Studies previously outlined were carried out through quantitative methods, and

they showed that internal and external factors affected the degree to which CL was

implemented by the teachers. Most of the researchers stress that depictions of CL

implementation in naturalistic settings warrant more research. My study fills this gap by

exploring CL implementation in EFL classrooms and paying attention to their social

environment such as the status of English and the curriculum implemented in the research

sites. In light of the studies reviewed above, my study involved teachers who: 1) had

positive attitudes towards CL, 2) believed in the interpretive model of language

instruction, 3) had formed and strengthened their efficacy beliefs, and 4) used a

structured form of CL in their instruction.

CL for promoting non-linguistic and non-curricular gains. Research literature

on the use of CL in ESL/EFL secondary education also shows that CL was used for

promoting non-linguistic and non-curricular gains, such as improving students’ academic

31

self-esteem and decreasing feelings of school alienation (Ghaith, 2003), and developing

motivation towards learning EFL (Liang, 2002). Ghaith’s (2003) quasi-experimental

study, however, did not yield any statistically significant differences between Lebanese

high school EFL learners learning in Learning Together (Johnson & Johnson, 1987) and

their counterparts learning in regular whole-class instruction, when looking at the

dependent variables of academic self-esteem and feelings of alienation from school.

Ghaith (2003) concluded that significant gains in academic self-esteem and school

psychosocial adjustment were unlikely to be achieved in the course of short experiment

and cooperative interventions.

Liang’s (2002) mixed-methods study investigated the effects of five CL

instructional strategies in enhancing middle school students’ motivation towards learning

EFL. Data in her study were gathered through a motivational questionnaire and

interviews with the students. Unlike Ghaith’s (2003) study, Liang’s (2002) study

corroborated the literature that suggests that CL promotes non-linguistic and non-

curricular gains for language learners. Her study demonstrated that students in the

experimental group gained significantly in terms of motivational change towards learning

English, and there was no such significant difference identified in the control group.

As presented earlier in this chapter, literature suggests that CL promotes the

development of caring and committed relationships for every student (Johnson &

Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1990). Based on a review of over 180 studies on the relative

impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experiences on interpersonal

attraction, Johnson and Johnson (1999) argue that CL “promotes the development of

32

caring and committed relationships for every student” (p. 72). Similarly, Slavin (1990)

noted that liking of classmates was one of the advantages of CL. Studies in this area,

however, are rarely conducted in ESL/EFL learning contexts. While my study was

dedicated to exploring the role of individual accountability in CL in enhancing EFL

learning, it also revealed the conditions that need to be met for building students’ liking

of classmates through CL.

Research Gap

The review of research outlined above shows that most studies on CL in ESL/EFL

instruction were conducted to show: 1) CL has positive effects on learners’ achievement,

2) there were factors that influenced practicing teachers’ use of CL, and 3) there were

non-linguistic and non-curricular gains of CL. Little research has been conducted for

generating an understanding of the processes of CL implementation in ESL/EFL

classrooms in secondary education. Studies in this area are needed to generate practical

implications to promote the use of CL for teaching ESL/EFL in this education level. In

other words, how CL works in ESL/EFL classrooms warrants research.

In my study, effective CL implementation was defined as CL application that

enhances learning, specifically for developing students’ communicative competence in

English (Kagan, 1995; McGroarty, 1989). CL principles are the defining elements in CL

peer interaction patterns to ensure cooperation and promote effective implementation

(Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Olsen & Kagan, 1992). Along a similar line, Chen (2011)

argues that CL principles should be present for successful implementation of CL in ESL

classrooms (p. 30). Hence, in order to ensure an effective implementation, both students

33

and teachers should know CL principles and enact them. When students know what to

expect when learning in a CL setting, it is likely that they would perform better and

achieve more. However, as indicated by this literature review, research on CL principles

is scarce. The paucity of studies on CL principles that generate implications for practice

may have affected teachers’ understanding of and their CL implementation. Teachers’

lack of familiarity with CL can also be attributed to inattention to CL in teacher education

programs (see Cohen, 2004). My study found that due to their understanding of CL, in

some of their uses of CL structures, the teacher participants missed a few steps resulting

in the absence of students’ individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction.

The lack of research on effective CL implementation, specifically on the

enactment of CL principles, to some degree contributes to the scarcity of professional

sources on this issue. Research indicates that external factors, such as lack of resources,

are one of the causes of teachers’ low personal efficacy (Ghaith, 2004). Teachers’ lack of

personal efficacy can lead to low occurrence of CL in ESL/EFL classrooms, both in the

case of student teachers and practicing teachers (DelliCarpini, 2009; Ghaith & Yaghi,

1997). Thus, how CL principles are enacted in ESL/EFL classrooms warrants research.

This dissertation research specifically looked at one CL principle, i.e. individual

accountability, and explored its role in enhancing EFL learning to develop EFL learners’

communicative competence.

34

Conclusion

This literature review has indicated that much attention has been dedicated for

investigating the effects of CL on ESL/EFL students’ achievement. While most studies

have shown that CL increased ESL/EFL students’ achievement, it is not clear why CL

affects achievement and under what conditions CL has this effect (Slavin, 1996).

Concerning this issue, Chen (2011), Johnson and Johnson (1999), Olsen and Kagan

(1992), as well as Slavin (1996) assert that the benefits of CL, which include increasing

student achievement, are attainable when CL principles are enacted. Research has also

shown that one of the factors that contribute to the failure of CL in promoting students’

achievement is the lack of students’ training on how CL works (Chen, 2011). Thus, how

CL principles are enacted and play a role in enhancing ESL/EFL learning warrant

research.

The underlying concept in CL is individual students’ responsibility for their own

learning and the learning of others. This is why CL experts (Johnson & Johnson, 1999;

Kagan & Kagan, 2009; Olsen & Kagan, 1992, Slavin, 1983) include this concept,

articulated as individual accountability, in their proposal of CL principles. Individual

accountability is a point of intersection of these experts’ proposal of CL principles. This

principle may be absent in the use of conventional group work, which may lessen

learners’ opportunities to use the target language and thus hampers the attainment of

language learning goal, i.e. the development of communicative competence. Yet, little

attention has been dedicated to explore how individual accountability is enacted and how

it plays a role in enhancing learning. This literature review has shown how my study was

35

located relative to the existing literature and how it would address the gaps in the

literature by revealing the role of individual accountability in CL in enhancing EFL

learning.

36

Chapter 3: Theoretical Frameworks

Human interaction is not rocket science. It’s far more complicated than that.

(Ravitch & Riggan, 2012, p. 83)

To frame my thinking in the study about “complicated” activities in CL, I used

two theories: CHAT (Engeström, 2000; Leont’ev, 1978; Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy,

1999; Yamagata-Lynch, 2003, Yamagata-Lynch, 2007, Yamagata-Lynch, 2010) and

Long’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis. Each theory afforded a unique contribution in

looking at the phenomenon under study: the role of individual accountability in CL in

Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms. CHAT provided a socio-cultural, socio-

historical lens (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999) and Interaction Hypothesis lent a

second language acquisition framework. Specifically, CHAT helped explain how

individual accountability as an activity in CL serves as a medium of conscious learning

within social contexts such as in secondary school EFL classrooms, and Interaction

Hypothesis helped to understand how individual accountability in CL promotes second

language acquisition and development. In this chapter, I examine CHAT and Interaction

Hypothesis for analyzing the role of individual accountability in CL in enhancing EFL

learning in Indonesian secondary schools, including how they were defined, how they

were useful in this study, and how they worked together for understanding the

phenomenon under study.

CHAT

In my study, the unit of analysis, or “the level of inquiry on which the study will

focus” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 69), was individual accountability, i.e. an activity

carried out in the implementation of CL in Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms.

37

I chose CHAT as one of my theoretical frameworks because, as scholars underline, its

unit of analysis is human activity (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999; Yamagata-Lynch,

2003; Yamagata-Lynch, 2007; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010).

Brief History

CHAT was developed from Vygotsky’s (1978) basic structure of mediated action

that consists of subject, mediating artifact/tool, and object (Yamagata-Lynch, 2003) in

which he did not treat the organism and the environment as mutually exclusive entities

(Yamagata-Lynch, 2007). Instead, Vygotsky (1978) viewed the organism and the

environment as parts of a complex system that co-created consciousness through human

participation in activities (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). Yamagata-Lynch (2007) explains that

Vygotsky’s (1978) basic structure of mediated action was developed into CHAT by

Leont’ev (1978) and other post-Vygotskyan theorists by adding the socio-historical

aspects of mediation not addressed by Vygotsky (1978): rules, community, and division

of labor. Then, Engeström (1987) developed the theory by constructing the activity

systems model (Figure 3.1), which “allows researchers to map complex human

interactions that take place in collective settings” (Yamagata-Lynch, 2007, p. 456).

Yamagata-Lynch (2007) points out that activity system analysis provides “a starting point

for researchers to trace critical contextual elements that affect the object and outcome of

an activity” (p. 481). In my study, the activity systems analyzed were the implementation

of CL in Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms, and individual accountability is

one of the activities in these systems.

38

Figure 3.1. Activity systems, adapted from Engeström (1987), in Yamagata-Lynch

(2007, p. 456).

Components of Activity Systems and their Interconnectedness

The seven components of activity systems within CHAT, as elaborated by

Engeström (1993, p. 67) and Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999, p. 63), are as follows:

(1) subject is the individual or subgroup who are engaged in the activity and whose

agency is chosen as the point of view in the analysis; (2) the object is the physical or

mental product that is sought, acted on by the subject, represents the intention that

motivates the activity, and is transformed into (3) outcomes, with the help of (4) physical

and symbolic, external and internal tools (mediating instruments and signs); (5)

community comprises multiple individuals and/or subgroups who share the same general

object; (6) rules inherently guide (at least to some degree) the actions or activities

acceptable by the community, so the signs, symbols, tools, models, and methods that the

community uses will mediate the process; and (7) the division of labor prescribes the task

specialization by individual members of groups within the community or organization,

39

and refers to both the horizontal division of tasks between the members of the community

and to the vertical division of power and status. These components and their relationship

are useful in analyzing activity as a unit of analysis, as Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy

(1999) highlight, “[a]ctivity cannot be understood or analyzed outside the context in

which it occurs” (p. 62).

The social environment or activity setting (rules, community, and division of

labor) provides the context in which the object-oriented activity and goal-directed actions

(subject, tools, and object) take place (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). Yamagata-Lynch (2010)

underlines that Leont’ev (1974) provided a clear distinction between object-oriented

activity and goal-directed actions. According to Leont’ev (1974), goal-directed actions

are much more temporary in nature and may be a step that subjects take in the process of

participating in an object-oriented activity, and goal-directed actions often are

individually focused and have less of a collective consequence to the community-based

object-oriented activity and may be a means for individuals or groups of individuals to

participate in the object-oriented activity (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). Leont’ev identified

object-oriented activity as the unit of analysis that activity theorists are interested in

examining (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). Based on these concepts, individual accountability

in CL was an object-directed activity because it had collective consequences to the EFL

community that attempted to achieve communicative competence in English. For

example, an EFL learner’s performance of individual accountability can provide their

peers with new vocabulary in the target language. Goal-directed actions within individual

accountability in CL may include individual students’ actions of using dictionary to help

40

them with new vocabulary in English or taking notes during the lessons. Although the

focus of this study was on individual accountability in CL as an object-directed activity,

goal-directed actions were also taken into consideration. For example, these goal-directed

actions were used to depict how individual students as the performers of individual

accountability in CL used the available tools in their learning environment.

Activity in an activity system. The main aspect that distinguishes one activity

from another is the difference of their objects; it is exactly the object of an activity that

gives it a determined direction (Leont’ev, 1978). Yamagata-Lynch (2007) explains that

the object is the reason individuals and groups of individuals choose to participate in an

activity (Kaptelinin, 2005), and it is what holds the elements involved in an activity

together (Hyysalo, 2005). As discussed earlier, in this study, the object of individual

accountability in CL was the attainment of the lesson objectives, which was directed to

achieving communicative competence in English (outcome).

Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999) underline that an activity in activity system

requires conscious effort and becomes more automatic with practice and internalization.

They go on to explain that CHAT posits that conscious learning is not a precursor to

activity (performance); instead, conscious learning emerges from activity (performance),

and the focus of this theory is the interaction of human activity and consciousness within

its relevant environment context. Thus, the process of individual accountability in CL

implementation, which was revealed through my study as a chain of activities, can

promote conscious learning that helps students achieve the object (lesson objectives).

41

CHAT in the Present Study

As stated earlier, the use of CHAT’s concept of activity systems and its

components in this study was to explain a phenomenon, i.e., individual accountability, an

activity carried out in CL implementation as activity systems. The following paragraphs

illustrate individual accountability in CL using the components to get a sense of how this

framework was used in this study.

The subject of individual accountability in CL activity systems was individual

EFL students. As they were processing their individual accountability, they gained

knowledge of the target language, used the language, and attained knowledge of how to

perform individual accountability as well as how CL works in general sense. CL

implementation as the activity system, specifically the use of CL structure selected by the

teachers, promoted individual students’ agency in completing their individual

accountability steps through which students “make meaning of and in the target

language” (McCafferty, Jacobs, & DaSilva Iddings, 2006, p. 23). In short, individual

learners’ processes of making meaning of and in the target language, as a form of

conscious learning, were accommodated by the required individual accountability

performance set by the CL structures used in the lesson.

The object was the attainment of the objectives of the lessons set by the teacher,

which was directed toward the achievement of the expected outcome: the improvement of

students’ “communicative competence” (Celce‐Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell, 1997;

Hymes, 1972; Savignon, 1991). More specifically, communicative competence is “[t]he

learner’s ability to take part in spontaneous and meaningful communication in different

42

contexts, with different people, on different topics, for different purposes” (Celce‐Murcia,

et all., 1997, p. 149). In the context of my study, the development of EFL learners’

communicative competence encompassed the teaching of the four language skills:

listening, speaking, reading, and writing, with speaking as the focus because for the EFL

learners it was the most challenging language skill.

In addition to the description of the tools in activity systems by Engeström (1993)

and Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999) presented earlier— physical and symbolic,

external and internal tools— the mediating tools may include artifacts, social others, and

prior knowledge that contribute to the subject’s mediated action experiences within the

activity (Yamagata-Lynch, 2007). Hence, the tools that mediated students’ individual

accountability in CL included: the students’ first language, English as the target language,

knowledge of CL, procedure of CL structures, task assigned by the teacher, and other

learners as well as the teacher, as examples. The community where individual

accountability performance was carried out consisted of the EFL learners as they shared

the same social meaning, such as learning EFL through CL. Although they were not the

doers of individual accountability, the teachers were important figures in the community.

They were the individuals who planned, managed, and evaluated the implementation of

CL and the lesson in general.

The rules guiding the process of individual accountability in CL in the community

of the EFL learners included: individual accountability should be performed in public

(witnessed by other learners), they take turns in doing individual accountability

performance, they should use English in their individual accountability performance, etc.

43

The first two rules were from the procedure of CL structures and the third was due to the

fact that English is the language being learned. As for the division of labor, it depended

on the CL structures employed by the teachers and the nature of the given task. For

example, Numbered Heads Together used across sites required the EFL learners to

present their answer to the whole class. In the middle school classroom, the students

shared their answers to some comprehension questions on a text they read (speaking was

the day’s target language skill), while in the high school classrooms the students wrote

down their answers to complete a piece of news read by their teacher (listening was the

day’s target language skill). Students who are used to learning in CL settings, such as the

student participants in the middle schools, know that they are expected to be responsible

for their own learning and for the learning of their group members. The CL structures

selected by the teacher participants helped their students take these responsibilities. In

short, the components of CL as an activity system as viewed through the CHAT lens

helped me explore individual accountability in CL in the following ways: described how

individual accountability works, depicted activities within individual accountability,

identified and explained factors that shape the role of individual accountability in CL in

EFL classrooms, made sense of how individual accountability enhances EFL students’

learning, and identified and explained factors that constrain the enactment of individual

accountability.

Individual accountability was one of the activities in CL implementation in the

EFL classrooms as activity systems. I used the components of activity systems to

understand this particular activity and its contributions in the EFL learning. The

44

components helped me see the socio-cultural and socio-historical contexts of individual

accountability in CL as an activity and as a medium of conscious learning in the EFL

instruction. These contexts also shaped the roles of individual accountability in the EFL

classrooms. To help explain the roles of individual accountability in CL in enhancing

EFL learning, Interaction Hypothesis was employed.

Interaction Hypothesis

Interaction is pertinent in CL including in one of its activities, individual

accountability, because it requires students to communicate with their group members in

order to complete their work. Long’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis was appropriate for

the present study’s theoretical framework as it places interaction as significant in

promoting the development of second language proficiency. This development has been

the goal of English instruction in most Asia Pacific countries, including The Association

of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Nunan, 2003; Richards, 2002).

Interaction Hypothesis explains the processes involved when learners encounter

input, interact, receive feedback, and produce output (Gass & Mackey, 2007). It

incorporates some aspects of the Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) together with the

Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985). This section discusses elements of Interaction

Hypothesis: input, interaction, and output. Embedded in the discussion of each element is

Long’s (1996) notion of negotiation for meaning that is feedback-rich and how each

element connects to CL in second language learning and acquisition.

45

Input

Input is an essential aspect for second language learning (Gass & Mackey, 2007;

Kagan, 1995). Krashen’s (1985) proposal of Input Hypothesis states that input that helps

humans acquire language is input which “contains structures at our next ‘stage’—

structures that are a bit beyond our current level of competence” (p. 2), or what he called

comprehensible input. Relating input and interaction in language learning, Krashen

(1985) states that two-way interaction contains more negotiation for meaning, which is

defined by Long (1996) as follows:

The process in which, in an effort to communicate, learners and competent

speakers provide and interpret signals of their own and their interlocutor’s

perceived comprehension, thus provoking adjustments to linguistic form,

conversational structure, message content, or all three, until an acceptable level of

understanding is achieved. (p. 418)

The adjustments made by both learners and their more competent peers during their

interaction are to achieve acceptable level of understanding, and thus provide learners

with comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985). Along this line, Seliger (1977) argues that

classroom input can certainly be made more comprehensible by active participation.

These arguments suggest the use of teaching methods that maximize peer interaction in

order to provide language learners with opportunities for negotiation of meaning, which

in turn provide them with comprehensible input essential for their language acquisition

and learning.

Connecting Krashen’s (1985) Input Hypothesis to CL, Kagan (1995) argues that

students working in cooperative groups naturally adjust their input to make it

comprehensible because they need to make themselves understood. Kagan (1995) goes

46

on to explain that a far higher proportion of comprehensible input is available in a small

group setting because the speaker has the opportunity for adjusting speech to the level

appropriate to the listener through negotiation for meaning, and such opportunity is rarely

available in whole-class instruction. Kagan (1995) asserts that input in a cooperative

setting is made comprehensible because it is often linked to specific, concrete behaviors

or manipulatives.

Interaction

The next element of Interaction Hypothesis is the notion of interaction itself. Gass

and Mackey (2007) define interaction as the conversation that learners participate in. In

their discussion on group work and second language acquisition, Long and Porter (1985)

state that interaction in group work increases opportunities for language practice and

improves the quality of student talk. Along this line, Gass and Mackey (2007) emphasize

that learners benefit from interaction during their language learning because they receive

feedback, specifically the linguistic and communicative success or failure of their

production. They recommend that learners must be put in a position of being able to

negotiate the new input to ensure that the language heard is modified to exactly the level

of comprehensibility they can manage.

Long’s (1996) account for how negotiation for meaning in interaction brings

about learning reads as follows:

Environmental contributions to acquisition are mediated by selective attention and

the learner’s developing L2 [second language] processing capacity, and that these

resources are brought together most usefully, although not exclusively, during

negotiation for meaning. (p. 414)

47

Long (1996) explains that during the process of negotiation for meaning, language

learners’ attentional resources (selective attention) are directed to problematic aspects of

knowledge or production. They may notice the gap; what they say differs from what

more competent speakers say. They may also be aware that they have a hole in their

interlanguage [i.e. conversation between non-native speakers (Long & Porter, 1985)];

they cannot express what they want to express. They then modify their output to make it

more comprehensible so they sound like competent speakers. Language learners may also

direct their attention to something new, such as new vocabulary or sentence structure.

Long (1996) asserts that negotiation for meaning facilitates acquisition because it

connects input, internal learner capacities (particularly selective attention), and output in

productive ways.

There are four strategies for negotiation for meaning that language learners can

use during their interaction with peers: confirmation checks, clarification requests,

comprehension checks, and recasts (Long, 1996). Gass and Mackey (2007) note that

confirmation checks are expressions that are designed to elect confirmation that an

utterance has been correctly heard or understood, for example, “is this what you mean?”

(p. 181). Clarification requests are expressions designed to elicit clarification of the

interlocutor’s preceding utterances, for example, “what did you say?” (p. 181).

Comprehension checks are expressions that are used to verify that an interlocutor has

understood, for example, “did you understand?” (p. 181). Recasts are done by rephrasing

an incorrect utterance using a correct form while maintaining the original meaning.

48

Through these negotiation strategies, language learners implicitly get feedback on the use

of the target language that helps develop their proficiency.

In Kagan’s (1989) Structural Approach to CL, interaction is ensured through the

use of CL structures that guide how students are to interact with their peers. These

structures are developed based on four principles: positive interdependence, individual

accountability, equal participation, and simultaneous interaction, which are to a greater

extent observable when the structures are implemented. Because interaction is ensured in

CL groups within this approach, students are likely to use the target language and

negotiate for meaning with their peers, which can promote their proficiency.

Output

Output or production is another element of Interaction Hypothesis. Gass and

Mackey (2007) underline that language learners may also use output to test their

hypotheses about the nature of the target language. Similarly, Pica (2009) states,

“[l]earners’ own production can serve as a resource for evidence as well as mechanism

for important learning processes” (p. 482). Language output or production also promotes

authenticity or routinization of language use and automatic production of the target

language (Gass & Mackey, 2007; Swain, 1985). When students refine communication

through natural talk during their interaction with peers, they are producing

comprehensible output (Swain, 1985). Swain (1985) posits, “[t]he act of producing

language (speaking and writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the

process of second language learning” (p. 471).

49

Swain (1985) proposes three functions of output: (1) noticing/triggering—while

attempting to produce the target language (vocally or silently [sub vocally]), learners may

notice that they do not know how to say (or write) precisely the meaning they wish to

convey, (2) hypothesis testing function—output may sometimes, from the learner’s

perspective, be a “trial run” reflecting their hypothesis of how to say (write) their intent,

and (3) metalinguistic (reflective function)—using language to reflect on language

produced by others or the self (pp. 471-483). While language production forces learners

to move from comprehension (semantic use of language) to syntactic use of language,

Swain asserts that language use is an aspect lacking in language classrooms. This

phenomenon has to do with how the target language is taught.

Kagan (1995) states, “[i]f speech is not representative of the way a speaker will

use the language in everyday settings, it will add little to the speaker's actual

communicative competence” (p. 3), and argues the output that students produce in CL is

functional and communicative. The CL structures that Kagan (1989) developed require

students to interact with their peers to accomplish a given task. In the interaction process,

students and their peers are likely to negotiate for meaning. Their negotiation for meaning

reflects their effort to help each other in completing their tasks. Especially when Long’s

(1996) strategies for negotiation for meaning are utilized, language learners modify their

output to make it comprehensible, and this helps language acquisition and learning to

take place.

In sum, Long’s (1996) construct of negotiation for meaning binds the three

elements of his Interaction Hypothesis: input, interaction, and output. Through interaction

50

that promotes negotiation for meaning, language learners get comprehensible input and

are helped to be able to produce comprehensible output. Interaction Hypothesis can be

used to explain the role of individual accountability in CL in EFL learning by using its

elements (i.e. comprehensible input, interaction, and comprehensible output) and the

concept of negotiation for meaning, which glues these elements. On the notion of

negotiation for meaning in student-student interaction, Foster and Ohta (2005) sum it up

nicely, “Interactional processes including negotiation for meaning and various kinds of

peer assistance and repair are among the many ways learners gain access to the language

being learned” (p. 426).

Interaction Hypothesis in the Present Study

The three elements and negotiation for meaning of Interaction Hypothesis were

available in the process of individual accountability in CL in the EFL classrooms, and

can be used to explain the role of individual accountability in enhancing EFL learning.

When individual students were preparing for their individual accountability performance,

they interacted with their peers and negotiated for meaning. When performing their

individual accountability, students did it in front of their peers; they produced

comprehensible output and made comprehensible input available for their peers through

negotiation for meaning. After an initial performance of individual accountability,

negotiation for meaning took place again when the performers answered questions or

responded to their peers’ comments about what had been shared or presented. This

process helped make comprehensible input and output available.

51

Conclusion

CL is a complex activity, including its individual accountability, which was

explored through this study to understand its roles in enhancing EFL learning in

Indonesian secondary school classrooms. CHAT was utilized because this theory focuses

on human activity in the real world. Additionally, Interaction Hypothesis was used to

explain the contribution of individual accountability in CL to EFL learning. In

combination, CHAT and Interaction Hypothesis provided a unified framework for

understanding how individual accountability in CL facilitated and fostered the attainment

of the goal of EFL learning, i.e. the development of communicative competence.

Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of mediated action (subject, tools, and object—the foundation

of CHAT) helped explain how interaction in CL (specifically in individual accountability

processes) helped EFL learners develop their communicative competence through the use

of the target language with their peers. Interaction Hypothesis was used to explain how

this development of communicative competence was possible, specifically through the

theory’s elements: comprehensible input, interaction, negotiation for meaning, and

comprehensible output. The other components of CHAT (rules, community, division of

labor) that make up the setting, context, or social environment of individual

accountability in CL helped contextualize the roles it played in enhancing EFL learning.

Thus, they were useful lenses for looking at the data and helped generate a rich

understanding of how individual accountability in CL developed learners’ English

competence. CHAT and Interaction Hypothesis supported my interpretive stance as they

provided an understanding of interaction and its social context as an arena of learning.

52

Chapter 4: Methodology

This chapter describes the methodology of this study, which addressed the

following question: What is the role of individual accountability in cooperative learning

in Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms? This question “direct[ted] the looking

and the thinking” (Stake, 1995) and gave guidance for how to conduct the study

(Maxwell, 2005). I divide this chapter into several sections. I begin with the research

design, which discusses why qualitative methodology and a qualitative case study are

warranted. Next, I describe the setting and sites, research participants, and data collection

strategies. Then, I detail the data sources, data management, and analytic framework. The

researcher role, ethical considerations, trustworthiness of the study, and triangulation are

described prior to exit strategy.

Qualitative Research Design

To address my research question, I used qualitative methodology, more

specifically qualitative case study. According to Merriam (2009), qualitative research is

carried out for “…understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how

people make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world” (p. 13). The

phenomenon under study was individual accountability in CL in EFL classrooms. My

study portrayed the participants’ emic perspective, i.e. their views of the phenomenon

under study (Marshall & Rossman, 2011) in their natural setting: EFL classrooms.

Qualitative methodology is also in line with my beliefs: that people are fundamentally

social beings, that “[k]nowledge is built through social construction of the world” (Ron,

53

2004, p.vi), and that “[r]eality is co-constructed between the researcher and the

researched and shaped by individual experiences” (Creswell, 2012, p. 38).

My study met the characteristics of qualitative research, specifically ones

proposed by Creswell (2012). First, it took place in a natural setting, i.e. EFL classrooms

in Indonesian secondary schools, to “gather up close information by talking directly to

people and seeing them behave and act within their context” (p. 45). Second, I was the

key instrument in my study by analyzing documents, doing participant observations, and

interviewing participants. Third, I gathered multiple forms of data (documents,

participant observation field notes, and interview transcriptions) and analyzed them.

Fourth, I used complex reasoning skills (the inductive-deductive process) throughout the

process of my research. Fifth, I kept a focus on learning the meaning that my participants

held about the phenomenon under study, not the meaning that I, or writers from literature,

brought to the study. Sixth, my research process was emergent; I learned about the

phenomenon from my participants and engaged in the best practices to obtain that

information. Seventh, reflexivity, (presented in Chapter 1, Research Positionality

section), I conveyed my positionality, how it affected my research, and what strategy I

used to address the potential problems. Eighth, holistic account, I tried to develop a

complex picture of individual accountability in CL by reporting multiple perspectives

(from teachers and students), identifying the many factors involved in CL implementation

(i.e., through the use of CHAT’s activity system components), and generally sketching

the larger pictures that emerged (major themes generated from data analysis).

54

Qualitative Case Study

Creswell (2012) states that case studies explore an issue using the case as a

specific illustration. Qualitative case study was a suitable design for my study because I

explored an issue, i.e. the complexity of the process of CL implementation in EFL

classrooms in Indonesian secondary education. As for the case, I took one activity in CL,

individual accountability. Yin (2009) argues that case study provides contextual and

meaningful understanding of real life. My study did so by depicting real-life occurrences

in EFL classrooms in which the students learned through CL.

Since my study took place in two sites, i.e. middle and high school EFL

classrooms, I had two cases: (1) individual accountability in CL implementation in

middle school EFL classrooms (two classrooms were involved for reasons explained later

in this chapter) and (2) individual accountability in CL implementation in a high school

EFL classroom. Hence, it is called a multi-case study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Stake

(2005) provides a rationale for doing a multi-case study: “We cannot understand a given

case without knowing about other cases” (p. 444). Even though the two cases took place

at different sites, they were similar. Because of this similarity, and due to time and

funding constraints discussed in the following section, I did the fieldwork in these two

sites simultaneously. For example, I carried out a participant observation in the middle

school one day and at the high school the next. Yet, each case study was a concentrated

inquiry into a single case (Stake, 2005). In terms of reporting findings, following Yin’s

(2009, p.143) recommendation, in this dissertation, I present multiple narratives, one per

55

case, written as separate sections (Chapter 5) followed by cross-case analysis and results

chapters (Chapter 5, 6 and 7).

Setting and Sites

The setting of my study was in my professional field, EFL instruction. The

position of EFL in Indonesia means that the language is not a medium of instruction at

schools and not used as a medium of communication outside classrooms (Soepriyatna,

2012). Regarding sites, as discussed in the previous section, my study took place in EFL

classrooms at secondary schools in Indonesia. Historically, English has never been a

compulsory subject at elementary education in the country, nor is English included in the

current curriculum for elementary education. Thus, secondary school classrooms were

appropriate sites for this study. The schools involved in this study are described in more

detail in Chapter 5.

I was on a scholarship, and my funding agency did not allow me to stay outside

the U.S. for more than 30 days. Thus, due to these funding and time constraints, my study

was carried out only in one middle school and one high school in my home town,

Semarang, Central Java province, Indonesia. Semarang is the capital city of the province

where universities that have teacher education programs are located and these programs

offer professional development programs for teachers. I assumed that there were more

CL practitioners in this city than in any other places in the province. Hence, this district

was an appropriate setting for the study.

I initially planned to observe one EFL classroom in the middle school and one

EFL classroom in the high school, eight observations in each. However, during the actual

56

data collection month, I got sick and was hospitalized for four days. Because of this

unexpected circumstance, I missed two observation schedules in the middle school

classroom, which was a classroom of eighth graders. There were also other unanticipated

and unexpected circumstances that made me miss some other scheduled participant

observations: 1) there was a national holiday, 2) one day the high school teacher did not

come to school because her daughter got sick, 3) the school district decided to change the

date of the ninth graders’ school-level examination, 4) one day the high school did not

hold any classes in preparation for an examination for the twelfth graders. The teacher

participant of the middle school proposed her other classroom of eight graders in

replacement for the missed participation observations. After consulting with my advisor

about these circumstances, I completed five participant observations in the middle school

(two in one class and three in the other) and five in the high school—10 participant

observations in total.

Research Participants

An epistemological belief suitable for my study was constructivism where “reality

is co-constructed between the researcher and the researched and shaped by individual

experiences” (Creswell, 2012, p. 38). Therefore, I involved and worked together with my

teacher and student participants in the process of gaining an understanding of the role of

individual accountability in CL implementation in enhancing EFL learning. Below I

describe the strategies used to involve participants in my study, and the participants

themselves will be described in greater detail in Chapter 5’s descriptions of the cases.

57

Sampling Strategies

As indicated earlier, due to funding and time constraints, I involved only two

teachers: one from middle school and one from high school. To promote maximum

variation, i.e. maximizing the diversity or heterogeneity relevant to the research question

(Cohen & Crabtree, 2006), I looked for two teachers from two different types of schools:

private and public schools. The existence of private schools is a reality in Indonesia that

should not be neglected due to my position as a government employee. Moreover, my

observations showed that graduates of public teacher education programs teach both at

private and public schools. The case was the same for the graduates of private teacher

education programs. Despite the fact that most elite private schools built their “special”

image to attract parents, there was at least one aspect that united public and private

schools in Indonesia. It was a requirement for both types of schools to follow a regulation

from the Ministry of Education and Culture: the Process Standard of Primary and

Secondary Education (National Education Standard Board, 2007/2013b). This Standard

provided guidelines for how the teaching and learning processes should take place.

Another aspect I took into consideration in achieving maximum variation in my

sampling was grade level. Since the final year at both middle and high school was mostly

dedicated to preparing students for national examination, my study did not involve any

final-grade teachers. My study sought to involve a middle school teacher who taught

either seventh or eighth graders, and a high school teacher who taught either tenth or

eleventh graders. With regard to the concept of maximum variation (Cohen & Crabtree,

2006), my teacher participants’ gender was not relevant to my research question; thus

58

gender was not a factor in the sampling. However, to meet the purpose of my dissertation

research, I set some characteristics or criteria that I used in finding my teacher

participants, including:

(1) EFL teacher at middle and high school (public or private) in Semarang city,

Jawa Tengah, Indonesia.

(2) Not a graduate of EFL teacher education program who I taught. In discussing

qualitative researchers’ identity and etiquette, Charmaz (2014) warns, “[h]ow

your research participants identify you influences what they will tell you” (p.

29). With this caution in mind, I did not involve practicing teachers who were

previously my students. If they were, I was afraid there would be a “power

imbalance” (p. 30). A power imbalance might make my teacher participants,

for example, feel less free to articulate their thoughts regarding their CL

practice as they wanted to show me that they are good graduates of the

program.

(3) Not in their early years of teaching. At this stage, teachers are forming their

efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997), and these beliefs are strengthened at a later

stage (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). Tschannen-Moran,

Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy (1998) define teacher efficacy as “the teacher’s belief

in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to

successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (p.

233). Moreover, Leslie Barratt stated that it takes second nature for teachers to

be able to use CL in their instruction (personal communication, March 26,

59

2014), suggesting that teachers with more years of teaching experience are

likely to find learning about CL and using it in their teaching easier than

novice teachers do.

(4) CL Practitioners, specifically those whose CL repertoire and practice involved

Kagan’s (1989) Structural Approach to CL. I have discussed my rationale for

choosing this approach in Chapter 2.

I employed purposeful sampling because, as listed above, I had criteria or

characteristics of EFL teachers and wanted to try to locate individuals who had those

characteristics (Johnson & Christensen, 2012). Convenience sampling was also used.

Specifically, I communicated with the head of my teacher education program because she

often leads CL workshops for practicing teachers, involving both graduates and non-

graduates. I gave her a brief description of my dissertation research plan, told her the

characteristics of practicing teachers that I would involve as research participants, and

asked her to help me find teachers with these characteristics. She agreed and found two

teachers: one was from a private school and the other was from a public school, and one

taught eighth graders and the other one taught tenth graders. Both agreed to participate in

my study. Afterwards, I communicated with the school district and the principals of the

two schools and gained their permission. The information letter approved by University

of Rochester’s Research Subjects Review Board (RSRB) (Appendix A) was given to the

two teachers when I met them in person. After reading the letter, the two teachers said

that they would continue with the study.

60

To gain a better understanding of the processes of CL implantation and how to

implement this teaching method effectively, I included students because they were those

who experienced learning in the CL setting. Moreover, the unit of analysis of my study

was individual accountability in CL implementation in which students were the doers.

Their voices should then be heard. For selecting students, I used convenience sampling.

Specifically, the students of my teacher participants, specifically in the classroom that

they chose for my participant observations, became the potential student participants of

my study.

Since I observed how they learned in the CL setting, I secured assent (Appendix

B) from all of the students in my teacher participants’ observed classrooms, as well as

their parent/guardian permission (Appendix C). The assent and permission forms were

provided in two languages: English and Indonesian, and presented in the first meeting

with the students. They were asked to return the assent form and parent/guardian

permission form in the next meeting. There were 29 students from the middle school and

21 students from the high school who gave the forms back. Once the students completed

the consent process, the participant observations were started. A similar procedure was

followed for recruiting student participants in the additional group of eighth graders (27

students) in the middle school setting.

Convenience sampling strategy was utilized for recruiting students for the in-

depth interviews. Specifically, I asked my teacher participants who among their students

were focal (“telling,” Wallestad, 2010, p. xxii) and willing to participate in my study.

Due to my funding and time constraints, I involved only two focal students from each of

61

the teacher participants’ observed classrooms: one female and one male. There were then

four focal students interviewed.

Data Collection Strategies

Charmaz (2014) states, “[t]he research question should drive the method(s) of

collecting data” (p. 79). My research sought answers about the role of individual

accountability in CL in Indonesian secondary EFL classrooms. A definition of the word

role that suited my study, which is adapted from by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary

(2015), reads “A part that someone or something has in a particular activity or situation”

(Role section). From the literature, it is understood that individual accountability is one of

the defining elements or principles of CL; what is not clear is the role that individual

accountability plays that makes CL enhance EFL learning. In order to explore the role of

individual accountability in CL implementation, I employed participant observations, in-

depth interviewing, and document analysis (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). I also intended

to use these three strategies to provide a rich description of each case study.

Participant Observations

Marshall and Rossman (2011) state, “[i]mmersion in the setting permits the

researcher to hear, see, and begin to experience reality as the participants do” (p. 140).

Through participant observations (conducted between March and April, 2015), I heard,

saw, and began to experience the reality of CL in EFL classrooms at Indonesian

secondary schools. In discussing participant observation in qualitative research, Stake

(2010) notes that it is “[w]here the researcher joins in the activity as a participant, not just

to get close to the others but to try to get something of the experience they have down on

62

paper” (p. 94). To gather data that later helped me understand the phenomenon under

study, I did “[s]ystematic noting and recording of events, behaviors, and artifacts

(objects)” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 139). Using field notes (see Appendix D for a

sample), I recorded “[d]etailed, nonjudgmental (as much as possible), concrete

descriptions of what has been observed” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 139).

In my participant observations, I took notes on how individual students prepared

for their individual accountability performances, how they performed them, and how,

between and/or after these performances, they interacted with their peers. Technically

speaking, I was not able to simultaneously observe all individual accountability

performers in a class. Even if a video camera was utilized, it would not have been able to

capture the processes that were underway in each group in the observed classrooms. The

movement of video recorder from one group to another might also make students act

unnaturally in their interaction with their peers, reluctant to use English as the target

language (as they may be afraid of making mistakes), and thus disrupt the lesson in

general. Therefore, I used field notes during my participant observations; I did not utilize

a video camera as it might impact the EFL learners’ CL activities, including their

performance of individual accountability. To see how my student participants processed

their individual accountability, in my participant observations (especially after the first

ones), I approached and sat with a group or two, stayed there, and took notes. In the

observed lessons, the student participants did not always sit in the same CL groups. This

made me unable to manage covering the entire classes for the participant observations. I

usually sat with a group or two that comprised male and female students, who did not stop

63

their conversation and activities in completing the task assigned although I was near them.

I would bring a chair (available in the classrooms) with me and sit with students in this

group(s).

I also took notes on actions that my teacher participants took in facilitating

individual accountability in their classroom. Hence, keeping in mind the notion of “thick

description” essential in qualitative case study reports (Stake, 1995), despite my sickness

as well as the unanticipated and unexpected circumstances described earlier, I kept in

mind the need to gather enough data in my 10 observations to provide readers thick

description of what students and teachers did in the enactment of individual accountability

in CL, and thus help my readers decide whether my findings are transferable to their

settings.

Informed by the literature, I had an understanding of the underlying idea of

individual accountability in CL and how it works. Even so, I did not have predetermined

categories or a strict observational checklist, especially given that the purpose of my study

was to explore the role that individual accountability in CL plays in EFL classrooms,

which was a little-understood phenomenon. Merriam (1998) suggests that the most

important factor in determining what a researcher should observe is the researcher's

purpose for conducting the study in the first place. Additionally, Merriam (1998) asserts,

"Where to begin looking depends on the research question, but where to focus or stop

action cannot be determined ahead of time" (p. 97). Thus, “through a more open-ended

entry”, I was able to “discover the recurring patterns of behavior and relationships”

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 139). The purpose of each of my participant observations

64

was for this discovery in order to answer my research question. Yet, the field notes and

analytic memos that I wrote after each observation—detailed in the Analytic Framework

section—informed me on specific details I should focus on for subsequent observations

during the study’s timeframe (see Data Management section for the field notes process).

During my field work, I kept in mind what Bogdan and Biklen (2007) stated about

the presence of a researcher in research sites; I was aware that I could never eliminate all

of my own effects on my research participants or obtain a perfect correspondence between

what I wished to study—the “natural setting”—and what I would actually study—“a

setting in which I present” (p. 39). I could, however, understand my effects on the

participants though an intimate knowledge of the sites gained through the participant

observations, and could use this understanding to generate additional insights into the

nature of social life, i.e. EFL learning at middle and high schools (Bogdan & Biklen,

2007). For example, I initially thought it was because of my presence in their classrooms

that the EFL learners in the two schools did not use English as much as I thought they

would when they were interacting with their group members. Through my conversations

with their teachers and the focal students, I learned that it was not the case. Chapter 5 will

discuss this issue in detail.

In-depth Interviewing

I used both informal, conversational interviews and the interview guide or topical

approach (Patton, 2002, in Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 144) as they aligned with my

constructivist approach. For informal or conversational interviews, I considered any

conversation with my research participants—not scheduled interviews—as a data

65

collecting moment as long as it provided insights about the phenomenon under study.

Kamberelis and Dimitriadis (2005) lend support for this particular plan: “Ongoing dialog

between researchers and research participants is a primary requirement of knowledge

production and understanding” (p. 36). After the two teachers sent me an email that said

they were interested in participating in this study, I sent them preliminary questions

(20150203, 20150212) that covered some demographic information of their schools and

the prospective student participants, curriculum implemented in their schools, and CL

structures that they usually used in their classrooms. As for the formal interviews, or

those with protocols, I used “a few general topics to help uncover the participants’ views”

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 144) such as: 1) Tell me what you think about how CL

worked in your class this week, 2) Tell me about your students’ participation in their CL

group this week, and 3) Tell me about your students’ interaction with their CL group

members this week (see Appendix E for the full teacher interview protocol). I also used

topics or questions generated from my participant observations’ field notes and analytic

memos and other topics brought up by my research participants, as long as they were

relevant to my research question. Thus, I employed a semi-structured interview process; I

had an “interview guide” that I prepared ahead of time; however, I followed topical

trajectories in the conversation that strayed from the guide when I felt this was

appropriate (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). I started the interviews in mid March 2015 and

completed the last interview (i.e., a follow-up one) in September 2015.

I kept in mind what Marshall and Rossman (2011) note about the interview guide

or topical approach: “The participant’s perspective on the phenomenon of interest should

66

unfold as the participant views it (the emic perspective), not as the researcher views it (the

etic perspective)” (p. 144). Hence, during this interview, I put “emphasis on

understanding the research participant’s perspective, meanings, and experience”

(Charmaz, 2014, p. 56).

The two teacher participants were interviewed because they represented different

cases. Since their students were the performers of individual accountability in CL—the

unit of analysis in this study— interviewing them was also necessary. Interviewing

students allowed me to put their practices in context and provided access to understanding

their action (Seidman, 2012, p. 10). In total, four focal students were interviewed: two

female students and two male students. As with teacher participants, for interviewing the

focal students, I employed semi-structured interviews (see Appendix F for the student

interview protocol). Each interview was scheduled at a time convenient for my

participants and conducted in a vacant room in their school. All interview spaces were

protected from interruptions and private enough to ensure confidentiality and a

comfortable experience for the participants.

As my teacher participants were the central figure in lesson planning and the CL

implementation, I interviewed them first and then their students. For example, I

interviewed the teacher on Monday and her students on Tuesday. Each teacher participant

interview took approximately half an hour to an hour. There were eight teacher participant

interviews in total or four rounds of interviews. The first and second rounds were

conducted in person (in Semarang, Central Java) and the other rounds were through phone

calls from Rochester, New York. Each interview revealed how my teacher participants

67

made sense of their CL practice with specific attention to their students’ individual

accountability and how it helped the students learn. The interviews conducted from

Rochester, New York, also covered clarifying information from the previous interviews.

As for student participant interviews, I completed three interviews for each focal

student, which took approximately half an hour to 45 minutes. There were 11 interviews

in total (in one of the interviews, two focal students from the high school were

interviewed together due to their time constraints) or three rounds of interviews. The first

round of interviews was carried out in person (in Semarang, Central Java) and the other

rounds were through phone calls from Rochester, New York.

With each participant’s consent, I audiotaped the interviews. English is our foreign

language; therefore, the interviews were conducted in Indonesian language (our official

and national language) to allow us to express ourselves clearly. Because of the time

constraint, I did not transcribe each interview right away. Instead, I listened to it and

wrote an entry in my research journal to inform myself for the subsequent data collection

activities. As for the interviews conducted from New York, which were also conducted in

Indonesian, I immediately transcribed them. Once all interviews were transcribed, I did

the coding and analysis of the transcriptions, now in English. Doing so helped the next

stages of my research, such as in memo writing and writing up the dissertation. However,

“qualitative research generates words—the primary symbol system through which

meaning is conveyed and constructed” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 167). Therefore, in

my final narratives, I included quotes from the participants presented in Indonesian with

direct English translations.

68

Document Analysis

As a part of my data collection, I gathered documents that helped me understand

the role of individual accountability in CL, including: the EFL curriculum for the first

two grades of middle and high school (Content Standards), syllabi that guided the

teachers in planning the observed lessons, lesson plans for the observed days, and

Decrees of the Ministry of Education and Culture that supported or accompanied the

curriculums. Understanding the role of individual accountability as an activity in CL

necessitated an understanding of the lesson objective(s) and the goal(s) of the curriculum,

which could be traced by analyzing the aforementioned documents. Whether or not the

research participants in my study went to the direction of achieving the stated objective or

goals was corroborated through participant observations and/or interviews. Document

analysis was done throughout this study.

Data Sources

My data sources included field notes, interview transcriptions, analytic memos,

research journal entries, as well as written, scanned, and electronic documents that

included curriculum-related documents, lesson-related documents, and school rules.

Having multiple data sources helped me reach data source triangulation; it is “[a]n effort

to see if what we are observing and reporting carries the same meaning when found under

different circumstances” (Stake, 1995, p. 112). They also helped me to find multiple

perspectives for understanding the phenomenon under study (Stake, 2010). Table 4.1

shows the amount of data collected:

69

Table 4.1

Amount of Data Collected

Data Sources Amount of Data

Participant Observations 10 field notes, totalling approximately 70 pages

Memo was written for each participant

observation

Research journal entries on participant

observations

Interviews 8 teacher participant interviews

5 high school student interviews (1 of them

involved the two focal students at once)

6 middle school student interviews

Interview durations ranged from 30 minutes to

1 hour.

Totalling approximately 110 pages of interview

transcription.

Memo was written for each interview (1 to 2

pages per interview, totaling approximately 38

pages of memos)

Research journal entries on interviews

Documents Analysis Content Standards for the observed grade levels

Decrees of the Minister of Education and

Culture on Process Standard for the 2006 and

2013 curriculums

Syllabus of the observed lessons

Lesson plans of the observed lessons

Written tasks prepared and given by the two

teachers during the observed lessons

Middle school teacher participant’s report of

classroom action research

Teacher’s guide for English subject for the

eighth graders

Memos for each document

Research journal entries on document analysis

Data Management

My data collection, management, and analysis went hand in hand. Right after a

piece of data was gathered, I recorded it according to the date and time, the place, and the

70

person from whom it was gathered, to make it easily retrievable and manageable

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011). I wrote up my participant observation field notes following

advice by Emerson, Fret, and Shaw (2011), “[w]riting fieldnotes immediately after

leaving the setting produces fresher, more detailed recollections that harness the

ethnographer’s involvement with and excitement about the day’s events” (p. 49). More

specifically, after each observation, based on the notes I wrote during a participant

observation, I completed the day’s field note, using the RSRB approved protocol/form for

participant observations. I then read the field note and the corresponding lesson plan.

Next, usually within the same day, I wrote an analytic memo about the observation, which

later helped me in “identifying more inclusive, overarching, and abstract domains”

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 218). The memos showed me what to look for in my

future data collection. Hence, for each participant observation, I had a set of notes, a field

note, and an analytic memo. Similarly, for each interview, I listened to it and wrote notes

that helped me find the focus for the next data collection activities. Each interview was

then transcribed in Indonesian. Next, I wrote an analytic memo about what I learned from

each interview. Hence, for each interview, the data set included the audio recording, the

set of notes, a transcript, and an analytic memo.

I stored all of my data sources (field notes, transcriptions, scanned and electronic

version of relevant documents shared by the participants) as well as analytic memos and

digital audio recordings of interviews on my password-protected personal computer. They

were also backed up electronically via Dropbox. As for paper or print-out documents,

they were identified using a corresponding naming convention on the document itself and

71

were held in my locked personal cabinet at home before being transported back to the

U.S. A similar management system was taken for paper or print-out documents once they

arrived in the U.S. All data are ready for an audit at any time. As shown in Table 4.2, I

connected each data source to my research question, including the purpose and how I

gathered them.

Table 4.2

Data Collection Matrix

What do I need to

know?

Purpose Data Collection

Strategies

Associated Data

Sources

What is the role of

individual

accountability in

CL according to

research

participants?

To understand

research

participants’

understanding of

the role of

individual

accountability in

CL

In-depth

interviewing

Audio

recordings,

Transcriptions,

Notes, Memos

How do teacher

participants

facilitate

individual

accountability in

CL in their

classrooms?

What are student

participants’

individual

accountability

activities?

To document how

individual

accountability in

CL was enacted in

the EFL

classrooms

To see

participants’ tacit

understanding of

individual

accountability in

CL

To see theory-in-

use

To see

Participant

observations

Notes,

Participant

observation

field notes,

Memos

72

participants’ point

of views not

revealed through

interviews

What are the goals

of EFL instruction

in Indonesian

secondary school

education?

What are the

objectives of the

observed lessons?

What are the

teaching

methods/learning

experiences

mandated by the

curriculums?

To understand the

goals of EFL

instruction in

Indonesian

secondary school

education

To understand the

lesson objectives

of each observed

lesson

To see the position

of CL in the

curriculums

To understand the

role of individual

accountability in

CL in relation to

the lesson

objectives and the

curriculum goals

Documents

analysis

Curriculum,

instructional,

Relevant

documents,

Memos

Analytic Framework

For guiding the data collection and analysis, constructivist grounded theory was

used; it “[p]laces priority on the studied phenomenon and sees both data and analysis as

created from shared experiences and relationships with participants and other sources of

data” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 239). As discussed earlier, my unit of analysis, or “the level of

inquiry on which the study will focus” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 69), was

individual accountability— an activity carried out in CL implementation. Marshall and

Rossman (2011) note that an exploratory study, like this study, is carried out “[to] build

73

rich descriptions of complex circumstances that are unexplored in the literature” (p. 68)

or “[to] investigate little-understood phenomena” (p. 69). My literature review

demonstrates that while individual accountability is a defining element of CL, it is

unexplored and little understood in the research. Yet, the notion of sensitizing concepts,

“concepts as points of departure for studying the empirical world while retaining the

openness for exploring it” gave me “ideas to pursue and questions to raise” about my

topic (Charmaz, 2014, pp. 30-31). As discussed in the previous chapter, two theories in

my theoretical frameworks, CHAT (Engeström, 2000; Leont’ev, 1978; Jonassen &

Rohrer-Murphy, 1999; Yamagata-Lynch, 2003, Yamagata-Lynch, 2007, Yamagata-

Lynch, 2010) and Long’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis, provided concepts, ideas, and

questions that I brought when collecting data and analyzing them. They also served as

starting points to access and analyze my research participants’ meaning making. I kept in

mind, however, that these sensitizing concepts were my tentative tools because theories

were constructed from the data themselves (Charmaz, 2014).

Coding the Data

With the sensitizing concepts and unit of analysis in mind, I coded my data the

way Charmaz (2014) suggests, i.e. “categorizing segments of data with a short name that

simultaneously summarizes and accounts for each piece of data” (p. 111). I did line by

line as well as in-vivo coding, i.e. “preserve participants’ meanings of their views and

actions in the coding itself” (p. 134). To achieve that, I followed Charmaz’s direction on

choice of words and type of verb, “[w]e choose the words that constitute our codes” (p.

115) and “…[w]e gain a strong sense of action and sequence with gerunds” (p. 120) (see

74

Appendix G for sample of how data were coded). When coding, I looked for actions that

captured the processes of individual accountability in CL and its benefits for the EFL

learners (see Appendix H for a sample of codes from a participant observation’s memo

and an interview transcription that corresponded to the same observed lesson).

After having codes from line-by-line and in-vivo coding, I continued to the next

phase, focused coding. It was deciding which initial codes make the most analytic sense

to categorize data incisively and completely. Afterwards I used axial coding to relate

categories to subcategories (Charmaz, 2014). For example, I came to the realization that

some codes, including: 1) not close to classmates, 2) working with not-close peers means

having less communication, and 3) having peer preference, demonstrated that the EFL

students had peer preference when it came to working in groups. This also showed how a

code can become a category, and a category can become a theme (Appendix I). Themes

emerged from the data through the process of coding and analytic memo writing

(described in the following section). The emergence of these themes as well as the other

themes presented in Chapter 7 showcases that “…data generates the concepts we

construct” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 3). For me as the researcher, the study’s findings presented

in Chapter 7 were the least anticipated ones because, from the outset of the study, my

purpose was to explore the roles of individual accountability in CL in the studied EFL

classrooms, not to identify the tensions in the enactment of this CL principle.

Writing Analytic Memos

Analytic memos were utilized to write my thoughts throughout my research

processes. Punch (2009) states, “[m]emos can cover many things. They may be

75

substantive, theoretical, methodological or even personal” (p. 180). As discussed in the

Data Collection Strategies section, I wrote analytic memos, which were based on my

field notes, after carrying out participant observations and interviews. Taking Punch’s

recommendation into consideration, I classified my memos into four categories:

substantive, theoretical, methodological, and personal. See Appendix J for samples of

methodological, substantive, and theoretical memos.

Specifically at the data analysis stage, analytic memos were utilized to write my

thoughts about how data were coming together in categories and subcategories that I saw

as the data accumulate (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). After having some preliminary

categories develop, I began my theoretical sampling to advance my analysis. Charmaz

(2014) notes, “[t]heoretical sampling helps you check, qualify, and elaborate the

boundaries of your categories and to specify the relations among categories” (p. 205).

Analytic memos helped me record my thoughts at this stage and helped me see if my

theoretical categories were “saturated” (Charmaz, 2014), i.e. “when gathering fresh data

no longer sparks new theoretical insights, nor reveals new properties of these core

theoretical categories” (p. 213). Then, I integrated all the memos that I had by ordering

for processes (e.g., when building a major category, I decided how my memos about it

best fit together), which later helped construct my written report (Charmaz, 2014). In

short, as recommended by Saldaña (2009), I used analytic memos at the data analysis

stage to document and reflect on: my coding process and code choices, how the process

of inquiry was taking shape, and the emergent patterns, categories and subcategories,

themes, and concepts in my data—all possibly leading toward theory.

76

Generating Themes

The sensitizing concepts from the theoretical frameworks – CHAT’s concept of

activity systems, the components of activity systems, the interconnectedness of these

components, the tensions in the relationships between these components, and the

elements of Interaction Hypothesis – guided the data collection and analysis, as well as in

the arrangement of the emerged themes to be presented in upcoming chapters. CHAT’s

concept of activity systems and its components helped in the identification of information

relevant with the implementation of CL in the two schools (activity systems) and the two

cases (units of analysis) in these systems, and to structure the information. This

information helped the next stage of data analysis, i.e. identifying the role that individual

accountability played in the EFL learning. Chapter 5 describes in detail the two activity

systems and the two cases.

The interconnectedness of the components of the implementation of CL in the two

sites helped me to identify the roles of individual accountability in CL in enhancing EFL

learning, which involved complex reasoning (deductive-inductive process) (Creswell,

2011). For example, through the process of data analysis, a theme emerged (one role of

individual accountability in CL): through their individual accountability performances,

the EFL learners gained learning experience as mandated by the curriculums. Using one

of the tenets of CHAT, the interconnectedness between activity systems’ components, I

recognized that the identified theme was a reflection of the close relationship between the

subjects (EFL learners) and the rules (specifically the curriculums and the procedure of

the selected CL structures). The other themes (the other roles of individual accountability

77

in CL) were identified through a similar process (inductively) or by closely looking at the

relation between the subjects and the other components in the activity systems

(deductively). The elements of Interaction Hypothesis were used to look at how the

identified roles of individual accountability in CL enhanced the EFL learning, as well as

to guide the presentation of these roles, which was arranged following the logic of this

theory of second language acquisition. The identified roles of individual accountability in

CL and how they enhanced the EFL learning will be presented in Chapter 6.

The process of identifying the socio-cultural and the socio-historical contexts of

individual accountability in CL in the EFL classrooms and its roles in the EFL leaning

also led me to see conditions that to some degree did not favor the enactment of this CL

principle, which may have impeded the attainment of the lesson objectives. Specifically,

when identifying the contexts and the roles of individual accountability, I found that the

teachers missed a few steps in some of their use of CL structures, and this was a

condition in the rules component. The missed steps and how it affected the enactment of

individual accountability in CL across sites will be discussed in Chapter 7. As indicated

earlier, this particular chapter showcases how this study’s findings are grounded in the

data. The literature of CHAT also informed me that it was usually the conditions in the

rules component of an activity system that caused tensions in the relationships between

this component and another component, and among other components in the activity

systems (systemic tensions). This CHAT perspective, the other tenets of CHAT, and the

emerging theme (e.g. conditions in the rules component, which comprised sub-themes

including teachers’ understanding of CL and the missed steps in some of the use of the

78

selected CL structures) led me to identify three themes from the data that show the

consequences or the “contradictory situations” (Yamagata-Lynch, 2003, p. 103) created

by the situations in the rules component. These themes were: students not presenting their

share of work, students presenting their work without preparation, and students having

peer preference. In the discussion of these themes, the elements of Interaction Hypothesis

were to some extent employed to shed light on how these situations affected EFL

learning. The converse of the identified themes suggests favorable conditions that are

established when the components in the activity systems are in “harmonious” (Yamagata-

Lynch, 2003, p. 103) relationships, which necessitates teachers’ mastery of the variety of

CL structures and following the procedures of these structures. The tensions in the

enactment of individual accountability in CL in the EFL classrooms, which (again) were

grounded in the data analysis, are presented in Chapter 7.

Researcher Role

Following Stake’s (1995) advocacy of the case researcher’s role as interpreter,

through my research I sought a better understanding of individual accountability as an

activity in CL and sought to make this understanding comprehensible to others. More

specifically, I presented new interpretation and knowledge of individual accountability in

CL generated from the field of EFL teaching and learning. In doing so, I worked with my

research participants and positioned them as co-constructors of knowledge; together we

constructed a clearer reality of CL implementation with individual accountability as our

focus. To achieve this, I told my teacher participants that their being my research

participants was because they were practitioners of CL. This means that I positioned them

79

as knowledgeable participants whose practice was worth studying. My research

participants and I were involved in meaning-making activities, such as having interviews

and member checking. I also informed them that I was a teacher educator who was on

study assignment and disclosed my research purpose clearly. Because of the anticipated

intensity of data collection and ongoing analysis during the month I stayed in Indonesia, I

developed a self-care plan to maintain focus and take care of my own well-being while I

was there. This plan included doing culinary tourism with my colleagues. After getting

back from Indonesia and continuing my dissertation research activities in the U.S., I

attended educational hours held by a religious association for graduate students at the

University of Rochester as part of my self-care plan.

Reciprocity

I was in my participants’ school at least two days per week for a month for the

participant observations and interviews. I was aware that my presence to some extent

intruded into their classroom and school, and I was sensitive to this issue. Hence,

following Marshall’s and Rossman’s (2011) suggestion for qualitative researchers on

reciprocity, I was willing to help out my teacher participants when necessary (such as

distributing work sheets to her students), providing informal feedback, and being a good

listener. Upon completion of my study, to the best of my ability, I will be willing to give

back to my participants and their school, or to their school district, by disseminating my

research findings and running CL workshops, for example.

80

Ethical Considerations

To ensure confidentiality for building trusting relationships, the identity of all of

my student and teacher participants and the schools were protected by giving them

pseudonyms. I also followed all guidelines established by the University of Rochester for

the protection of human subjects and obtained all requisite RSRB approvals. After

acquiring the approvals, as discussed earlier, I obtained informed consent from the

participants. All teachers’ and students’ participation was voluntary. I protected my

research participants from harm, for example, by protecting my research data, and as

minimally as possible invaded my research participants’ privacy.

Trustworthiness of the Study

Trustworthiness, referred to as validity in quantitative research (Johnson &

Christensen, 2012), is the goodness or the soundness of qualitative research (Marshall &

Rossman, 2011). To increase the trustworthiness of my study, I followed the four

characteristics of trustworthiness proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985): credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Below, I describe how each was

addressed in my study.

Credibility

Credibility is a trustworthiness criterion that is satisfied when source respondents

(research participants) agree to honor the reconstructions of their experiences,

understanding, and knowledge of CL. This means that this study’s research participants

were involved in the process of building a complete description and interpretation of the

enactment of individual accountability in CL, using the data gathered from their

81

classrooms, interviews, and relevant documents. The facts reported should also satisfy the

consumer (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 329). The consumer is any person who might wish

to use a research paper, act on the basis of an evaluation, or formulate policy on the basis

of a policy analysis, who must be convinced that the study is worthy of confidence

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 328).

To increase the credibility of my findings, I collected adequate data in my

research sites by carrying out participant observations in each teacher participant’s

classroom for five meetings (10 observations in total), doing eight teacher participant

interviews, 11 focal student interviews, and gathering relevant documents (Table 4.1).

My analytic memos, written based on my field notes, interviews, and document analysis,

documented my interpretation of data collected. Apart from analytic memos, I had a

reflexive journal; a type of diary that I had during the research process in which I reflect

upon, for example, what was happening in terms of my own values and interests (Lincoln

& Guba, 1985). I also carried out peer debriefings, involving my committee members and

a trusted colleague (the head of teacher education program where I worked), to challenge

and test my data interpretations, and add perspectives on them. In addition, I also

involved an outsider to the study, who was an insider to Indonesian (used in the

interviews) and to Javanese and had a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Education, to

help figure out my research participants’ intentions in their language, especially for the

parts needed to support the identified themes. Another outsider to the study, who was an

insider to Indonesian (unfortunately, not to Javanese) and had a Master of Arts degree in

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) from a U.S. university, was

82

also involved to verify the translations of the quotes, including checking my consistency

of using terminologies and showing me parts of quotes that she thought had my bias.

As my research participants were co-constructors of knowledge in the study, I

asked them whether I “got it right” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 221) through member

checking via emails, Facebook messages/chats, and phone calls. Specifically, I gave them

summaries before writing up my study and asking for reactions, corrections, and further

insights (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 221). I carried out triangulation by “gathering

data from multiple sources through multiple methods, and using multiple theoretical

lenses” (p. 40), which I will describe in detail in the next section.

Finally, I ensured the credibility of my findings by using negative-case analysis,

i.e. “researchers attempt carefully and purposively to search for examples that disconfirm

their expectations and explanations about what they are studying” (Johnson &

Christensen, 2012, p. 265). Thus, I paid attention to all information that I gathered and

did not ignore data that might seem unimportant. Besides implementing CL, the two

teacher participants used conventional group work in their teaching. Data gathered from

the lessons in which conventional group work occurred was presented and analyzed to

provide my readers with the negative cases, specifically by showing them that, in this

type of group work, the activities of individual accountability and peer interaction were

not prevalent.

Transferability

As other qualitative researchers, I did not intend to generalize my research

findings. However, my conclusions can be transferable to other times, settings, situations,

83

and people through thick description of the phenomenon under study (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). Thick description will help a constructivist like myself achieve transferability by

“providing readers with good raw material for their own generalizing” because I present

“the interpretations of the people most knowledgeable about the case” (Stake, 1995, p.

102). One target audience of my research report is CL practitioners in the field of EFL

learning. Therefore, I aimed to help them make their own generalization by providing

thick description of the phenomenon under study, for example, depictions of how

individual accountability in CL accommodated the mandated learning experience in the

sites.

Triangulation also strengthened the transferability of my findings. Marshall and

Rossman (2011) advocate, “[d]esigning a study in which multiple cases, multiple

informants, or more than one-data gathering method is used can greatly strengthen the

study’s usefulness for other settings” (p. 40). I followed triangulation protocols proposed

by Denzin (1984), described in detail after this section.

Dependability

This characteristic of trustworthiness is achieved by showing that the findings are

consistent and could be repeated (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Since real-life contexts where

qualitative studies take place are ever-changing, studying the same phenomenon at

different times could mean studying two different phenomena. Thus, in this report, I

described my sites in detail to show my readers how my sites differ from or are similar to

other sites (Chapter 5) and leave it up to my readers to determine whether my findings

would be consistent and could be repeated in their own or chosen contexts. In addition, in

84

my research report, I provided thick and explicit description of my research methods so

that my readers can make informed decisions if they can believe in me, the researcher.

Confirmability

Confirmability is a degree of neutrality or the extent to which the findings of a

study are shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I achieved confirmability by keeping an audit trail, “a

transparent way to show how data were collected and managed—to account for all data

and for all design decisions made in the field so that anyone could trace the logic”

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 221). In other words, I maintained all my data sources

along with field notes, analytic memos, and other documents of research activities in an

organized manner to be available to others.

I also achieved confirmability through reflexivity; “Researcher actively engages

in critical self-reflection about his or her potential biases and predispositions” (Johnson &

Christensen, 2012, p. 265). In my introduction chapter, I discussed my personal

background in a section entitled Researcher Positionality, how it may have affected my

research, and what strategies I used to address the potential problems. Finally,

triangulation, discussed next, was my other way of achieving confirmability.

Triangulation

Triangulation is a practice needed in our search for accuracy and alternative

explanations (Stake, 1995) and a procedure to help ensure standards of trustworthiness

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Following triangulation protocols proposed by Denzin (1984),

85

in my study I used data source triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory

triangulation, and methodological triangulation.

Through data source triangulation, researchers look to see if the phenomenon or

case remains the same at other times, in other spaces, or as persons interact differently

(Stake, 1995). To achieve this type triangulation, I utilized field notes, interview

transcriptions, and documents. These data sources were gathered from two sites: middle

and high school, specifically from classrooms of grade eight and ten. Through

investigator triangulation, researchers have other researchers take a look at the same

scene of phenomenon (Stake, 1995). Theory triangulation can be achieved by choosing

co-observers, panelists, or reviewers from alternative theoretical viewpoints (Stake,

1995). With their expertise, my dissertation committee members helped me achieve the

notion of investigator and theory triangulation. They, especially my advisor, reviewed

and responded to my developing analysis over the course of the study. Regarding

methodological triangulation, as discussed earlier in this chapter, I employed participant

observations, interviews, and document analysis to collect various data sources and thus

minimize my perceptions, beliefs, and biases (Stake, 2010). In addition, I checked out the

consistency of my findings generated by different data collection strategies (Cohen &

Crabtree, 2006). Specifically, I compared if results from my three data collection

strategies were similar (Guion, Diehl, & McDonald, 2013). For example, I found that, as

reflected in the middle school teacher’s lesson plan (Lesson Plans, 20150331, 20150404),

individual accountability in Think-Pair-Share was used in the middle school classroom to

enact the communicating phases of the mandated scientific approach. This was

86

demonstrated in the actual lessons (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404). The middle

school teacher also explained in the first interview that individual accountability in

Think-Pair-Share allowed her students to gain learning experiences as mandated by the

curriculum, specifically communicating what they had learned to their peers (First

Interview, 20150406).

As advocated by Stake (2010), I also used member checking as a strategy to reach

triangulation; “The actor [research participant] is requested to examine rough drafts of

writing where the actions or words of the actor are featured, sometimes when first written

up but usually when no further data will be collected from him or her” (p. 115). Stake

(1995) suggests that although they are under study, research participants of a case study

usually provide “critical observations and interpretations, sometimes making suggestions

as to sources of data” (p. 115). I accomplished member checking in Indonesian through

email correspondence, Facebook messages/chats, and phone calls with my research

participants, considering the limited time that I had in my research sites. I told or sent

them a brief summary of my findings, such as: “I found that you/your students received

vocabulary help when you/they were doing the Pair of Think-Pair-Share. What do you

say about this?” When necessary, during member checking, I reminded them of

classroom events or individual accountability activities in a particular observed lesson or

points from a particular interview.

Exit Strategy

Marshall and Rossman (2011) note, “[b]eing respectful of people and relationships

is essential for being an ethical researcher. One does not grab the data and run” (p. 130).

87

In light of their advice, in our first days of correspondence, I shared with my research

participants, especially teacher participants, my study timeline. They knew that after

completing the participant observations and the interviews with them and the focal

students, I would leave the school. As my research participants were co-constructors of

knowledge in the study, I maintained contact with them, completed the interviews via

phone calls, and did member checking through emails, phone calls, and Facebook

messages/chats. In my capacity as a teacher educator, I will involve my teacher

participants in professional development programs that I (or my teacher education

program) will carry out in the future, and will inform my student participants if there are

activities that my student teachers hold for middle and high school students, such as an

English camp, which might be of their interest.

88

Chapter 5: The Socio-cultural and Socio-historical Contexts

of the Two Activity Systems

Description provides the skeleton frame for analysis that lead to interpretation.

(Patton, 2002, p. 503)

This chapter “provides the skeleton frame” for the presentation of the findings of

this qualitative case study by providing the description of the two activity systems: the

CL implementation in the middle school EFL classrooms and the CL implementation in

the high school EFL classroom. In the description of each activity system, I describe the

school, the teacher, the students, the EFL classroom community/communities, the

curriculum and CL, and individual accountability in CL. Keeping in mind CHAT’s

concept of activity systems, the description encompasses the components of subject,

tools, objects/outcome, rules, community, and division of labor. I then present the

similarities and differences of the two activity systems.

Activity System One: Cooperative Learning

in the Middle School EFL Classrooms

Founded in 1977, Dipta Nusa Middle School2 (or Dipta Nusa for short) was

located in Semarang City, Central Java, Indonesia. This public school had 769 students,

99 percent of them were Javanese, and 60 percent of them were female. There were three

grade levels: seventh, eighth, and ninth, with approximately 26-30 students per classroom

(Preliminary Questions, 20150212). This public school had implemented the 2013

curriculum since the launch of the curriculum in the 2013/2014 academic year; the school

2 All names (schools and people) in this document are pseudonyms.

89

was chosen by the school distric as one of the schools for the try-out for the 2013

curriculum. According to Andini, the middle school teacher participant, the school’s

ninth graders usually ranked second or third in the city for their national exam’s English

subject score (Follow-up Interview, 20160526).

Andini said that there were not any school rules that hindered her CL

implementation (Second Interview, 20150408). When I was gaining entry to this site, the

school principal stated that he was just back from a professional development program

for middle school principals on the reform of teaching and learning processes. He

stressed that he was in support of active learning such as CL.

Middle School Teacher

Andini had taught English for 13 years, nine years in a public elementary school

(i.e. teaching English as a local content subject) and four years in Dipta Nusa. She

completed her English teacher education program at one of the city’s state universities

and was “a certified educator” (Minister of National Education, 2007) (First Interview,

20150406). This certification, which followed the Decree of the Minister of National

Education on Certification for In-service Teachers (Minister of National Education,

2007), was separate from teacher education programs.

Andini had implemented CL since 2011, when she started teaching at the middle

school (Follow-up Interview, 20160526). She learned CL when she was in her teacher

education program, from CL workshops held by the program and a book publisher, and

from student teachers of a state university whom she supervised. When asked to tell

which language skill her students found as the most challenging, Andini said that it was

90

speaking (First Interview, 20150406). Collaborating with one of her student teachers,

Andini carried out a classroom action research project on the use of a CL structure named

Think-Pair-Share to motivate her students to speak in English, specifically to talk about

their routines using simple present tense. The study showed that, after the second cycle of

the research, her students’ motivation to speak in English increased (Third Interview,

20150423).

Andini mentioned five CL structures she usually used in her teaching:

RoundRobin, Talking Chip, Jigsaw, Circle the Sage, and Ask Your Neighbour

(Preliminary Questions, 20150212). All but the last one were developed by Kagan and

Kagan (2009). Of the five CL structures she mentioned, RoundRobin was the only one

used in the observed lessons. The other CL structures used were Think-Pair-Share and

Numbered Heads Together. Andini also used a CL instructional strategy that was not

developed by Kagan: Whispering Game (“Whispering Game,” May 28, 2009). See

Appendix K for the list of the procedures of CL structures used in the observed lessons.

Andini identified herself as different from her colleagues in terms of teaching

methods. She stated that her students often told her how time flew in her class and they

always wanted to know how they would learn in the next lessons. Andini attributed this

to her use of CL, which, as she perceived it, was not a practice in her colleagues’

classrooms. She described their classrooms as silent, the students individually worked on

any given exercise (mostly on grammar), and the teacher “spoon-fed” the learning

materials to them (First Interview, 20150406).

91

Andini stated that teachers played a variety of important roles in CL

implementation: 1) telling/reminding the students the procedure of the CL structure being

used, 2) managing the class time, 3) facilitating her students’ learning, and 4) providing

them feedback (Second Interview, 20150408). The participant observations data

demonstrated that Andini played these roles. When using Think-Pair-Share, Andini

reminded her students the procedure of the structure before her students started the Think

phase (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404). The students did not seem to have any

difficulty in following the procedure, and Andini confirmed that it was not the first time

for the students to learn through this CL structure (First Interview, 20150406). Andini

timed her students’ thinking, pairing, and sharing phases. She also gave feedback on her

students’ individual accountability performance, such as giving comments on grammar

(“I must not smoking or I must not smoke?”) and meanings (“You mean in the cave?”),

as well as compliments and encouragement (“Ngga pa-pa, Monita, nice try” meaning

“It’s ok, Monita, nice try”) (Field Notes, 20150331; 20150404). To some degree, Andini

played the same roles when using Whispering Game (Field Notes, 20150401) and

Numbered Heads Together (Field Notes, 20150413).

Middle School Students

Two groups of Andini’s eighth grade students participated in this research: 29

students (14 females and 15 males) in 8 H and 27 students (14 females and 13 males) in 8

G (8 H and 8 G were the labels the school gave for these two class periods). These labels,

however, do not imply distinctions among students by English proficiency, other ability

or achievement levels, gender, or other social markers. These were two out of 10 eighth

92

grade classrooms in Dipta Nusa. Andini said that since English was a foreign language

for them, generally her students had “limited English vocabulary” and were not confident

in using spoken English (Second Interview, 20150408). She characterized her students as

“a little bit shy of making mistake, afraid of making mistake” (Andini, First Interview,

20150406). Therefore, in Andini’s teaching, speaking became a focused language skill.

One student from each group was involved in the semi-structured interviews.

They were, respectively, Midya (female) and Budi (male). Neither of them had any

experience living and studying in any English-speaking country. Midya had learned

English in school since elementary school. Her father was an English instructor in a state

university in the city. Indonesian language was the primary language at her home. During

the interviews, Midya often used English words and expressions. However, she

considered speaking as the most difficult language skill to learn compared to the other

skills: listening, reading, and writing. In addition to her English learning at school, Midya

took an English course in a private institution. She had done this since she was in grade

six of elementary school. The lesson was twice a week and for one and half hours per

meeting (Follow-up Interview, 20150908).

Like Midya, Budi had learned English in school since elementary school. During

the observed lessons, Budi was active in answering Andini’s questions. Compared to the

other focal students, Budi was unique. He was the only focal student who did not see

speaking as a challenge in his English learning. He also knew that the curriculum

implemented in his school, the 2013 curriculum, required students to present what they

learned to their peers. He observed that his peers were used to this expectation. Budi was

93

preparing himself to participate in an English story-telling contest in the city (Follow-up

Interview, 20150809).

Middle School EFL Classroom Community

Midya and Budi expressed liking to work in groups in their English classroom

because they could help as well as learn from each other (First Interviews, 20150404).

However, these two students and their classmates had peer preference. They wanted to

work only with certain peers (Andini, First Interview, 20150405, Second Interview,

20150408; Budi, Second Interview, 20150530; Midya, Second Interview, 20150608;

Field Notes, 20150406). A detailed discussion on this issue will be presented in Chapter

7.

For both Budi and Midya, Indonesian was their first or mother language (First

Interview, 20150404). When they and their peers were interacting in the CL groups, the

use of Indonesian and Javanese was heard, with the former being more dominant than the

latter. English was the least used language during peer interaction in their CL groups

(Field Notes, 20150331, 20150401, 20150404, 20150406, and 20150413). When asked

about what language he and his CL peers used in their interaction, Budi said that during

the Pair phase of Think-Pair-Share, his partner and the other peers were using Indonesian

because they were not confident about their English and afraid of making mistakes when

giving feedback to their peers (First Interview, 20150404). Midya recalled that she and

her partner used both Indonesian and English to give feedback to each other during the

Pair phase (First Interview, 20150404). Andini said that her students found it difficult to

use “full English” when interacting with their CL peers and thus used Indonesian and/or

94

Javanese to clearly convey their messages and intentions (First Interview, 20150406).

There seems to be no policy documents that specifically state the recommended amount

of English used in Indonesian EFL classrooms. However, the Association of the Teaching

of English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN) recommends maximum use of

English during the teaching and learning process in English classrooms (Issy Yuliasri,

personal communication, March 16, 2016).

Middle School Curriculum and CL

The 2013 curriculum put emphasis on students’ mastery of three groups of

competencies: spiritual and social attitudes, knowledge, and skills (National Education

Standard Board, 2013a). This study did not take into account the first group of

competencies because it was not relevant to the purpose of the study. With the goal of

developing the students’ communicative competence in English, the scope of knowledge

and skills competencies for English as a subject at middle schools includes:

1) mengidentifikasi fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari teks

pendek dan sederhana; 2) berkomunikasi secara interpersonal, transaksional,

dan fungsional tentang diri sendiri, keluarga, serta orang, binatang, dan benda,

konkret dan imajinatif, yang terdekat dengan kehidupan dan kegiatan peserta

didik sehari-hari di rumah, sekolah, dan masyarakat; 3) menyusun teks lisan dan

tulis, pendek dan sederhana dengan menggunakan struktur teks secara urut dan

runtut serta unsur kebahasaan secara akurat, berterima, dan lancar.

1) identifying the social function, generic structure, and linguistic features of short

and simple texts, 2) communicating interpersonally, transactionally, and

functionally about oneself, family, people, animals, concrete and imaginary

objects, which are close to the students’ daily life and their activities at home,

school, and their community, and 3) composing spoken and written, short and

simple text, using the text’s generic structure and linguistic features, coherently

95

and cohesively, accurately, appropriately, and fluently.” (Ministry of Education

and Culture, 2014, p. 4)3

The 2013 curriculum dictated the use of “the scientific approach” to teaching to

provide the students with learner-centered, active, and group-oriented learning (National

Education Standard Board, 2013b), which indicated that CL had a place in the

curriculum. Chapter 6 will discuss in detail how individual accountability in CL was

enacted and how it helped the middle school students to gain the mandated learning

experience.

Andini developed her lesson plans following the prescribed basic competencies4.

One basic competency that she focused on in the first (in 8 H) and third observed lesson

(in 8 G) was: menangkap makna pesan singkat dan pengumuman/pemberitahuan

(‘notice’), sangat pendek dan sederhana (“getting the meanings of short messages and

short and simple announcements/notifications (notice)”) (Lesson Plans, 20150331,

20150404). The lesson’s target learning material was a type of short functional text:

notices. The learning objectives were the operationalization of the basic competency:

1) siswa dapat memahami fungsi dari teks ‘notice’ [pengetahuan yang menjadi

target], 2) siswa dapat menjelaskan makna dari teks ‘notice’ yang ada di sekitar

3 All quotes from the curriculum and instructional documents are directly translated to

English by me, “the researcher as translator” (Temple & Young, 2004, p. 168).

Indonesian is my second language (after Javanese) and as for most Indonesians, English

is a foreign language for me. In each piece of translation, to the best of my ability, no

interpretation is inserted. In my translations, I used English words that best reflect what

the documents say (remained true to the original version) and used English grammar to

make the translation intelligible. 4 According to the Decree of the Minister of Education and Culture Number 68 Year

2013, “grade level’s core competence becomes the organizing elements of basic

competency, where all basic competencies and learning processes are developed to

achieve competencies stated in core competencies” (p. 3).

96

lingkungan peserta didik dengan ucapan, intonasi dan struktur bahasa yang

benar dan mematuhinya [keterampilan yang menjadi target].

1) students are able to understand the function of notice [the target knowledge],

and 2) students are able to explain the meanings of notices in their environ with

good pronunciation, intonation, and language structure and follow the messages

of the notice [the target skills].” (Lesson Plans, 20150331, 20150404)

Think-Pair-Share was written as one of the teaching methods in these lessons (Lesson

Plans, 20150331, 20150404). In her teaching, Andini reminded the student participants of

the resources available in their classrooms. For example, in the Think phase, Andini

asked her students to use their dictionary if needed. She then asked them to ask for

feedback from their partner in the Share phase (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404).

The same basic competency was the focus of the second lesson in 8 H. In this

lesson, Andini targeted another type of short functional texts: short messages. She wrote

her lesson objectives as follows:

“1) mengaplikasikan struktur teks dalam kalimat ungkapan yang digunakan untuk

menyampaikan pesan singkat sederhana secara lisan dengan ucapan, tekanan

kata, dan intonasi yang benar [pengetahuan yang menjadi target], 2) terampil

berkomunikasi menyampaikan pesan singkat sederhana secara lisan

[keterampilan yang menjadi target]”

1) applying the text structure in the expressions to convey a simple short message

orally with good pronunciation, stress, and intonation [the target knowledge], 2)

communicating the simple spoken short message skillfully [the target skill])

(Lesson Plan, 20150401).

Andini set Think-Pair-Share as one of her instructional strategies in this lesson. In

the actual lesson, however, Think-Pair-Share did not take place. Instead, Andini used

Whispering Game. Most references on CL did not discuss Whispering Game as a CL

structure. However, after reflecting on the use of Whispering Game in the second lesson,

Andini and I came to a conclusion that this game meets Kagan’s principles of CL and

97

thus can be called a CL structure (First Interview, 20150406). The following table shows

how Whispering Game meets Kagan’s CL principles:

Table 5.1

Kagan’s CL Principles and Whispering Game

Kagan’s CL principles Whispering Game*

Positive interdependence

Critical questions**:

Positive Correlation:

Are students on the same side?

Interdependence:

Does the task require working together?

Students sitting in the same group get the same short

message.

All group members should work together, playing a

role as either the first receiver of the message,

message courier, or message writer/reporter.

Individual accountability

Critical question:

Is individual, public performance

required?

In each group, the message courier whispers the

message to the next student (i.e. a message receiver

who will be the next message courier) and makes sure

that he/she gets the message right.

The message courier’s performance of delivering the

message is done individually and public or witnessed

by another student (the next message courier).

This performance is done without help and required

for the group to complete the task.

These three components of individual accountability

(individual, public, and required performance) are

also present when the message writer (the last student

in the row/the last student who gets the message)

reports the given message to the whole class.

Equal participation

Critical question:

Is participation approximately equal?

All students listen to and deliver the message for

approximately equal time intervals.

Simultaneous interaction

Critical question:

All students are simultaneously doing the game.

98

What percent of students are overtly

interacting at once?

There is no turn taking; all groups play at the same

time.

There is a big number of students who interact with

one another at the same time, especially when they

are whispering/delivering the message. Kagan and

Kagan (2009) put it, “at any moment, one student per

pair is sharing.”

Note. *Andini’s modification of “Whispering Game” (May 28, 2009)

**The critical questions refer to positive interdependence, individual accountability,

equal participation, and simultaneous interaction (PIES) analysis (Kagan & Kagan, 2009,

p. 12.25).

As demonstrated above, all of the above critical questions of PIES were addressed when

reflecting on the process of Whispering Game in Andini’s class. In other words, the four

CL principles were present in Andini’s use of Whispering Game, and thus we considered

it a CL structure in this study.

The fourth and fifth observed lesson covered the same basic competencies:

1) memahami fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan teks naratif

berbentuk fabel, sesuai dengan konteks dan penggunaannya, 2) menangkap

makna teks naratif lisan dan tulis, berbentuk fabel pendek dan sederhana

penggunaannya.

1) comprehending the social function, the generic structure, and the linguistic

features of narrative texts in the form of a fable based on its context, 2) getting the

meanings of written and spoken narrative texts in the form of a simple and short

fable.

The lesson objectives for the two lessons were:

1) siswa mampu menerapkan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan

dari teks naratif berbentuk fabel, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya

[pengetahuan yang menjadi target], 2) siswa terampil berkomunikasi secara lisan

dan menangkap makna teks naratif lisan berbentuk fabel pendek sederhana

[keterampilan yang menjadi target].

99

1) students are able to apply the social function, the generic structure, and the

linguistic features of narrative text in the form of fable based on its context [the

target knowledge], and 2) students are able to catch the meanings of spoken

narrative text in the form of short and simple fable based on its context and

communicate it skillfully [the target skills]. (Lesson Plans, 20150406, 20150413)

Andini wrote RoundRobin and Numbered Heads Together on her list of teaching

methods for these two lessons (Lesson Plans, 20150406, 20150413). In the fourth lesson,

Andini employed RoundRobin and a conventional group work activity (Field Notes,

20150406), and she used Numbered Heads Together in the fifth and last observed lesson

(Field Notes, 20150413).

One of the reasons Andini gave when asked why she implemented CL was that it

helped her to achieve the lesson objectives (Third Interview, 20150423). She also

explained how the 2013 curriculum and CL went hand in hand:

Dalam K-13 itu memang diusahakan, diupayakan pembelajaran itu yang ‘joyful’,

‘students’ creativity’ juga muncul, guru hanya sebagai fasilitator. Murid belajar

sendiri. Makanya dengan CL saling mengisi, saling berbagi, dengan teman dalam

satu kelompoknya itu. Sejalan dengan K-13. Jadi semuanya, hampir semuanya,

ngga bisa, guru ceramah, guru memberikan materi mereka mengerjakan, tugas

individual, itu hampir tidak ada di K-13. Dengan metode 5M itu banyak sekali

yang harus dikerjakan secara berkelompok karena mereka harus bisa

menemukan sendiri, tidak hanya guru yang memberi.

In the 2013 curriculum, learning is supposed to be joyful, students’ creativity

arises, and teachers are the facilitator, students learn by themselves. This is why,

through CL, students share and help each other in their group. It is in line with the

curriculum. So, lecturing is to be nonexistent; under the 2013 curriculum teachers

do not lecture the learning materials and the students do the task individually.

With the five phases of learning, there are so many that have to be done in group

because they have to get the knowledge by themselves, not simply given by their

teacher. (Andini, Third Interview, 20150423)5

5 Here, as with quotes from curriculum and instructional documents, all quotes from the

in-depth interviewing (spoken language) are directly translated from Indonesian language

to English by me. In my translation of each interview quote, to the best of my ability, no

100

Andini viewed that CL was in accordance with the 2013 curriculum for at least

three reasons: 1) CL promotes joyful learning and students’ creativity (“In the 2013

curriculum, learning is supposed to be joyful, students’ creativity arises”), 2) in CL the

teacher is the facilitator of the students learning (“teachers are the facilitator”), and 3) in

CL the students do the learning (“they have to get the knowledge by themselves, not

simply given by their teacher”). In sum, CL had a place in the 2013 curriculum

implemented in the middle school. Andini used CL to cover basic competencies of

knowledge and skills and to meet the lesson objectives derived from them.

Individual Accountability in the Activity System (Middle School)

Individual accountability in this study is defined as a required performance done

by individual students in front of their CL peers (public) to complete a learning task.

There were two levels of individual accountability in CL performed by the student

participants in Dipta Nusa (see Table 5.2): individual accountability in pairs and

individual accountability to the whole class (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150401,

20150404, 20150406, and 20150413). These students performed their individual

accountability in pairs when they were learning through Think-Pair-Share (presenting the

assigned notice) and Whispering Game (delivering the given short message) (Field Notes,

20150331, 20150401, 20150404). As for individual accountability to the whole class, the

eighth graders performed it when they were learning through Think-Pair-Share

(presenting the assigned notice), Whispering Game (delivering the given short message),

interpretation is inserted, and I used English words that best reflect what my research

participants literally said and used English grammar to make the translation intelligible.

101

RoundRobin (mentioning one fable title), and Numbered Heads Together (answering

comprehension questions on the fable they read) (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404,

20160406, 20150413). All of these performances were carried out in spoken English as

speaking was the focused language skill in all of the observed lessons (Lesson Plans &

Field Notes, 20150331, 20150401, 20150404, 20150406, 20150413).

Table 5.2

Lessons, CL Structures, Tasks, and Levels of Individual Accountability in the Middle

School Classrooms

The lower level of individual accountability (i.e., individual accountability in

pairs) helped the middle school student participants prepare for a higher level of

Lessons CL Structures Task Levels of

Individual

Accountability

#1 (20150331)

in 8 H

#3 (20150404)

in 8 G

Think-Pair-Share Spoken: Students

presented the

assigned notice

In pairs

To the whole class

#2 (20150401)

in 8 H

Whispering Game Spoken: Students

delivered the given

short message

In pairs

To the whole class

#3 (20150406)

in 8 G

RoundRobin Spoken: Students

mentioned one

fable title

To the whole class

#5 (20150431)

in 8 G

Numbered Heads

Together

Spoken: Students

answered

comprehension

questions on the

fable they read

To the whole class

102

individual accountability (e.g. individual accountability to the whole class) (Field Notes,

20150331, 20150401, 20150404). Andini explained:

Kalau temannya yang diajak bicara itu tidak jelas [belum menangkap apa yang

disampaikan], dia6 kan akan berusaha untuk memperjelas, kemarin dengan

ditambah sedikit dengan bahasa Indonesia, ditambah dijelaskan dengan bahasa

Jawa. Berarti kan dia berusaha untuk, untuk bisa, bener-bener temannya di ‘pair’

itu memahami apa yang dia maksud, kan. Dan itu sebagai latihan untuk di ‘in

front of the class’-nya. ‘In front of the ‘class’ dia sudah merasa lebih pede

[percaya diri] lagi. Kemudian, udah dapat masukan, sudah berlatih, dia tidak

malu lagi untuk di depan kelas karena udah pernah, udah pernah. “Oh, temenku

paham kok tak bilangin seperti ini. Aku jelaskan dengan seperti ini temanku

paham.” Berarti itu untuk bekal di depan kelas.

If a student’s partner has not understood what he/she said, he/she will try to make

it clearer by also using a little bit of Indonesian language, and a little bit of

Javanese language. That means he/she tried to make his/her partner understand

what he/she is trying to say. It is also a practice before he/she performs in front of

the class. He/she will feel more confident to present in front of the class.

Moreover, he/she have already practiced, got feedback. He/she will not be shy to

perform in front of the class. “Oh, my partner understood, you know, what I said

the way I did. I explained him/her the way I did and he/she understood.” That

means the provision for performing in front of the whole class. (Second Interview,

20150408)

Reflecting on the use of Think-Pair-Share in her classroom, Andini explained that her

students practiced presenting the information they had in front of their partner, “to make

his/her partner understand”, and “got feedback” from them. She argued that the practice

(students’ performance of a lower level of individual accountability itself) and feedback

giving and receiving activities during the peer interaction following the performance

equipped the students for their performance of individual accountability to the whole

class. Individual accountability in home groups, performed in base groups of more than

6 “Dia” is an Indonesian word for singular third personal pronoun. The word can be used

to refer to either he or she depending on the context of the conversation.

103

two students, was one level of individual accountability missed in the use of RoundRobin

and Numbered Heads Together in one of Andini’s eighth grade classrooms, (Field Notes,

20150406, 20150413). These instances of individual accountability in CL in the middle

school activity system, including the missed step(s), will be analyzed further in Chapter

7.

Activity System Two: The Implementation of Cooperative Learning

in the High School EFL Classroom

Adia Bangsa High School (or Adia Bangsa for short) was founded by a religious

institution in 1979 in Semarang City, Central Java, Indonesia. It was a small private

school in terms of the number of the students: 132 students (61 female and 71 male),

grouped into three grade levels: tenth, eleventh, and twelfth. According to Putri (female),

the teacher participant, 100 percent of the students were Javanese. The number of

students per class was between 18-22 (Preliminary Questions, 20150203). The school had

religious visions and missions, which was not the case with public schools and non-

religion based private schools. Nevertheless, Putri stated that there were no school rules

that hindered her CL implementation (First Interview, 20150404).

When I was gathering the data for this study (the second semester of the

2014/2015 academic year), the 2013 curriculum was under revision after being

implemented for three semesters (from the start of the 2013/2014 academic year). Adia

Bangsa had implemented the curriculum for only one semester (i.e. in the first semester

of the 2014/3015 academic year). Following the instruction from the Minister of

104

Education and Culture (Baswedan, 2014), the school went back to the 2006 curriculum

while the 2013 curriculum was being revised (First Interview, 20150404).

High School Teacher

Putri started her teaching career in Adia Bangsa and had taught there for 10 years.

She completed an English teacher education program in a private university and was “a

certified educator” (Minister of National Education, 2007). Putri learned CL from the

Internet, from the state university’s student teachers she supervised, and when she

attended the in-service teacher certification program (Minister of National Education,

2007) in a state university (First Interview, 20150404). In 2012, after completing the

program, Putri started to implement CL in her classes (Follow-up Interview, 20150604).

Putri usually used Jigsaw, Numbered Heads Together and Think-Pair-Share in her

teaching (Preliminary Questions, 20150203). However, she did not use Think-Pair-Share

in any of the observed lessons. Numbered Heads Together, Jigsaw, and another Kagan

CL structure, One Stray, were used in the first lesson. The latter structure was used again

in the second lesson. Putri did not implement CL, but rather used conventional group

work in the last three observed lessons (Field Notes, 20150318, 20150401, 20150404,

20150408, 20150408). See Appendix K for the preset procedure of Jigsaw and One Stray.

Putri considered herself different from her colleagues in terms of teaching

methods. She believed that English teachers should make their students active and that

the class should be loud because of the students’ talk in English (First Interview,

20150404). She said that not all of her colleagues employed group work in their teaching.

She went on to explain that what her colleagues did in their classes was asking their

105

students to sit quietly, listen to them, and do the exercises. Putri argued that this practice

made the students afraid of speaking and making mistakes in their learning (Second

Interview, 20150409). Putri expected that her CL implementation would boost her

students’ confidence in using spoken English. In her view, CL could do this because of

the presentation or the sharing of information, which was an integral part of CL. She said:

“In terms of delivering the information, they [students] practice their confidence, how to

present the information” (Third Interview, 20150424).

Putri perceived the teacher’s roles in CL implementation as facilitator and

feedback provider. She explained that being a facilitator meant, “letting the students

explore the target learning materials and giving them help when necessary” (First

Interview, 20150404). Putri asked her students to use the resources available in their

classroom (books/the Internet/peers) to prepare for their individual accountability

performance in One Stray and Jigsaw. After her students finished their performances,

Putri gave them feedback (Field Notes, 20150318, 20150401).

High School Students

The high school students involved in the study were tenth graders. Adia Bangsa

had two groups of tenth graders: 10 One and 10 Two (labels given by the school). As in

Dipta Nusa, these labels do not imply distinctions among students by English proficiency,

other ability or achievement levels, gender, or other social markers. The study involved

10 One, which consisted of 21 students. Six of them were male and 15 were female. Two

of them were involved in the semi-structured interview: Joko (male) and Natya (female).

Joko and Natya had learned English in school since elementary school and did not have

106

any experience of living or studying in any English-speaking country. During the

observed lessons, both Joko and Natya were among the students who checked with their

teacher, Putri, when they needed more explanation about the learning materials and the

assigned tasks. Natya shared a long desk with another girl and sat in the front row just a

few steps from the white board. The two girls were seen taking notes from the board and

talked about them. As for Joko, he was one of the boys who would go back to other

groups and asked them to re-explain what they had shared when he needed it. When

asked which among the four language skills was the most difficult, both Joko and Natya

said that it was speaking (First Interview, 20150408).

High School EFL Classroom Community

When asked about what their thoughts were regarding working in groups in their

EFL classroom, Joko and Natya said that group work allowed them to learn from each

other and get to know each other better especially because they were tenth graders, i.e.

new students in the school (First Interview, 20150408). Nevertheless, the student

participants had peer preference when it came to choosing group members (Putri, First

Interview, 20150404; Joko, Second Interview, 20150616; Natya, Second Interview,

20150529). Chapter 7 will discuss this issue in detail.

Besides using English, the high school students used Indonesian and Javanese

during their CL interaction (Field Notes, 20150318, 20150401). The use of the two

languages was more dominant than the use of English. Both Natya and Joko explained

that since they used Javanese outside their school (i.e. Javanese as their first language),

they also used it when interacting with their classmates, including when working in

107

groups. They stated that they used the two languages to make their meanings/messages

clear (First Interview, 20150408). According to Putri, her students used the two

languages because they found it difficult to use only English in their interaction with their

peers, including in the CL interaction. She also perceived that her students’ use of the two

languages was to express their meanings clearly. She further said that if she used only

English in her teaching, her students would not understand the lesson (First Interview,

20150404).

High School Curriculum and CL

Under the 2006 curriculum, the goals of English instruction at the high school

level were:

1) mengembangkan kompetensi berkomunikasi dalam bentuk lisan dan tulis untuk

mencapai tingkat literasi ‘informational’, 2) memiliki kesadaran tentang hakikat

dan pentingnya bahasa Inggris untuk meningkatkan daya saing bangsa dalam

masyarakat global, 3) mengembangkan pemahaman peserta didik tentang

keterkaitan antara bahasa dengan budaya.

1) developing communicative competence to achieve informational literacy level,

2) having the awareness of the nature and the importance of English for the

nation’s competitiveness in the global society, 3) developing the students’

understanding of the interconnectedness between language and culture. (National

Education Standard Board, 2006, p. 126)

The scope of English instruction at the high school level includes communicative

competence (including linguistic competence, sociocultural competence, strategic

competence, and discourse competence), and the ability to understand and create various

short functional texts, monologues, as well as essays in the form of procedure,

descriptive, recount, narrative, news item, analytical exposition, hortatory (or persuasive)

exposition, spoof, explanation, discussion, review, and public speaking (National

108

Education Standard, 2006). The curriculum dictated three stages of learning to take place

in each lesson: opening, main, and closing, and prescribed the use of CL for facilitating

students’ learning at the main stage (National Education Standard Board, 2007). Chapter

6 will detail the position of CL in the 2006 curriculum.

For the first observed lesson, Putri focused on one competency standard and one

basic competency7. They were, respectively:

1) memahami makna dalam teks fungsional pendek dan monolog yang berbentuk

‘narrative’, ‘descriptive’ dan ‘news item’ sederhana dalam konteks kehidupan

sehari-hari, 2) merespon makna dalam teks monolog sederhana yang

menggunakan ragam bahasa lisan secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dalam

konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk ‘narrative’, ‘descriptive’ dan

‘news item’.

1) comprehending the meanings of short functional texts and monologues in the

form of simple narrative, descriptive, and news item in daily life, 2) responding

accurately, fluently, and appropriately to the meanings of short and simple spoken

monologues in the form of narrative, descriptive, and news item in daily life

context. (Lesson Plan, 20150318)

As for the lesson objectives, Putri wrote: “Peserta didik dapat mengidentifikasi

inti berita dan sumber berita yang didengar” (“Students should be able to identify the

gist and the source of the news they listen to”). The focused language skill for this lesson

was listening and Numbered Heads Together was written as one of the teaching methods”

7 It is stated in the Decree of the Minister of National Education Number 22, Year 2006,

“The depth of the schools’ curriculum is laid out in competencies that consists of

competency standard and basic competency” (National Education Standard Board, 2006,

p. 38). Competency standard is “…the description of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that

should be mastered after students learn a particular school subject at a certain education

level” (Sanjaya, 2008, p. 170). Basic competency is “…the minimum knowledge, skills,

and attitudes that should be achieved by students to show that they have mastered the

predetermined competency standard, hence, standard competency is the elaboration of the

competency standard” (Sanjaya, 2008, p. 171).

109

(Lesson Plan, 20150318). In the actual lesson, besides using Numbered Heads Together,

Putri also used One Stray and Jigsaw (Field Note, 20150318).

For the second observed lesson, Putri covered one competence standard and one

basic competence, and the focused language skill was reading. They were respectively:

1) memahami makna teks tulis fungsional pendek dan esei sederhana berbentuk

‘narrative’, ‘descriptive’, dan ‘news item’ dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari

dan untuk mengakses ilmu pengetahuan, dan 2) merespon makna dan langkah-

langkah retorika dalam esai sederhana secara akurat, lancar dan berterima

dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dan untuk mengakses ilmu pengetahuan

dalam teks berbentuk ‘narrative’, ‘descriptive’ dan ‘news item’.

1) comprehending the meanings of written short functional texts and simple

essays in the form of narrative, descriptive, and news item in daily life context

and accessing knowledge; 2) accurately, fluently, and appropriately responding to

the meanings and the rhetorical steps of simple essays in the form of narrative,

descriptive, and news item in daily life context and accessing knowledge.

(Lesson Plan, 20150401)

Based on these competencies, Putri set six learning objectives:

1) peserta didik dapat mengidentifikasi makna kata dalam teks yang dibaca, 2)

peserta didik dapat mengidentifikasi makna kalimat dalam teks yang dibaca, 3)

peserta didik dapat mengidentifikasi inti berita yang didengar, 4) peserta didik

dapat mengidentifikasi sumber berita yang didengar, 5) peserta didik dapat

mengidentifikasi langkah-langkah retorika dari teks, 6) peserta didik dapat

mengidentifikasi tujuan komunikasi teks yang dibaca.

1) students are able to identify the meanings of the words in the text they read, 2)

students are able to identify the meanings of the sentences in the text they read, 3)

students are able to identify the gist of the text they listen to, 4) students are able

to identify the source of the news they listen to, 5) students are able to identify the

rhetorical steps of the text, and 6) students are able to identify the communicative

objectives of the text they read. (Lesson Plan, 20150401)

Putri set Think-Pair-Share as one of the teaching methods in this lesson (Lesson

Plan, 20150401). In the actual lesson, Putri mainly reviewed the aspects of news item

(i.e., “definition, social function, generic structure, and language features”), not using

110

Think-Pair-Share as stated in her lesson plan, but using One Stray (Field Notes,

20150401).

In addition to improving her students’ speaking skills, Putri stated that she

implemented CL to motivate her students in learning English and to help achieve her

lesson objectives. For the latter purpose, Putri believed that CL could not help “in a 100

percent way,” (First Interview, 20150404). Putri explained that the 2006 curriculum

required students’ active participation in their learning and that CL, she believed, could

accommodate it (Second Interview, 20150409). Despite Putri’s stated reasons for

implementing CL, CL was not observed in her third, fourth, and fifth observed lessons.

She employed conventional group work in these lessons (Field Notes, 20150404,

20150408, 20150409).

Individual Accountability in the Activity System (High School)

There were two levels of individual accountability performed by the high school

student participants (Table 5.3): individual activity in other groups and individual

accountability to the whole class (Field Notes, 20150318, 20150401). The student

participants performed individual accountability in other groups (neighboring groups)

when they were learning through One Stray and individual accountability to the whole

class when they were learning through One Stray, Jigsaw, and Numbered Heads

Together.

111

Table 5.3

Lessons, CL Structures, Tasks, and Levels of Individual Accountability in the High

School Classroom

An initial or lower level of individual accountability (e.g. individual

accountability in other groups), as well as peer interaction that followed this level (e.g., in

One Stray), helped the high school student participants to prepare for a higher level of

individual accountability (e.g. individual accountability to the whole class). With regard

Lessons CL Structures Task Levels of

Individual

Accountability

#1 (20150318) Numbered Heads

Together

Written: Students

wrote their

answers to

complete a news

item on the white

board

To the whole class

#1 (20150318) Jigsaw Spoken: Students

presented the

assigned aspect of

a news item

To the whole class

#1 (20150318) One Stray Spoken: Students

shared their list of

news-related

vocabulary

In other groups

#2 (20150401) One Stray Spoken: Students

presented the

assigned aspect of

news item

In other groups

Written: Students

wrote the assigned

aspect of a news

item on the white

board

To the whole class

112

to the preset procedure of the CL structures used in the high school classroom, the level

of individual accountability in home groups was missing from each structure (Field

Notes, 20150318, 20150409). Chapter 6 will discuss this in detail.

The Similarities of the Two Activity Systems

Dipta Nusa and Adia Bangsa were secondary schools located in the same city and

school district. Their teachers shared a number of similarities. They each had 10 years

teaching experience, were certified teachers, and had implemented CL for more than two

years. According to teacher efficacy researchers (e.g. Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran

& Woolfolk Hoy, 2007), teachers with five years of experience (and above) have formed

and strengthened their efficacy beliefs. Other research has found that teachers with a high

sense of teaching efficacy considered CL as congruent with their practices, less difficult

to implement, and very important (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997). The two teacher participants

viewed that CL was part of their practice. They considered themselves different from

their colleagues, viewing that their colleagues taught in a traditional way. They attributed

their non-traditional classroom to their CL implementation. The two teachers were

cooperating teachers and learned CL, in part, from their student teachers.

The teachers implemented CL because it was a mandated teaching method. They

used CL structures in their teaching, either structures mentioned in their lesson plans or

those which were not, and either Kagan’s CL structures or non-Kagan CL instructional

strategies. They viewed teachers as the facilitators of students’ learning and the feedback

providers during CL implementation. There was not any rule in their schools that

hindered their CL implementation. Besides implementing CL structures in their teaching,

113

during the observed lessons the two teacher participants also used conventional group

work.

Concerning the students, the four focal students had learned English in school

from elementary school, and none of them had any experience of living in English-

speaking countries or learning English as a second language. All of them expressed the

opinion that they liked to work in groups since they could learn from others.

Nevertheless, they had peer preference. Chapter 7 will discuss this issue in greater detail.

English was a medium of instruction in the two EFL classrooms. However, the

two teachers stated that their students had difficulty in understanding their lessons when

only English was used, suggesting that they had to code-switch during their lessons. In

the two sites, the use of Indonesian and/or Javanese during CL interaction was observed.

The student participants’ use of these languages was to clearly convey what they meant

or what they intended to say. The use of Indonesian in the two classrooms was partly due

to its status as the national language, official language, and medium of instruction in

schools (Nababan, 1991). The use of Javanese was due to its status as the mother tongue

or native language of the majority of Javanese people.

The scope of English teaching in the middle and high school covered the

knowledge and skills for developing students’ communicative competence. The Content

Standard of the two curriculums included the teaching of the four language skills:

listening, speaking, reading, and writing. CL had a position in the curriculum

implemented in the two secondary schools.

114

With regard to the enactment of individual accountability in the use of CL

structures in both sites, the secondary school EFL learners’ individual accountability

performances were carried out either in spoken or written English, with the former being

more prevalent than the latter. Not all levels of individual accountability as prescribed by

the preset procedures in selected CL structures took place. Individual accountability in

home groups was a level being missed in some of the use of CL structures across sites.

The Differences of the Two Activity Systems

The differences between the two activity systems were fewer than their

similarities. The differences encompass the following aspects: 1) the teachers as CL

implementer, 2) the students as the members of their EFL classroom community, and 3)

the learning tasks carried out through individual accountability in CL. The two teacher

participants as the CL implementers were different in terms of their education

background, CL learning, and CL implementation. Andini went to a state university for

her teacher education program in which she learned about CL, while Putri took her

English education in a private university, and she did not learn CL when she was in the

program. Andini said that she also learned CL from CL workshops, while Putri did not.

Though Putri did not, Andini, collaborated with many of her student teachers in

classroom action research on CL implementation. Andini reminded her students of how

the chosen CL structures worked and timed her students’ activity during the use of the

CL structures. These activities were not observed in Putri’s CL practices. These

differences between the two teacher participants seemed to suggest that Andini, being a

state university graduate and a public school teacher, had a better understanding of CL

115

than Putri did. However, it was not the case because my analysis showed that they both

needed to deepen their understanding of CL. Chapter 7 will elaborate on this in greater

detail.

The student participants as the members of their EFL classrooms were different in

terms of their length of schooling experience at their school and their first language. The

middle school student participants involved in the study were eighth graders, meaning

that they had one year experience in their school, while the high school student

participants were tenth graders, which means that they were new in their school. The

middle school’s focal students’ first language was Indonesian, while the first language of

the focal students from the high school was Javanese. This difference was partly due to

the trend in the use of Indonesian in households, especially in big cities. Instead of

Javanese, parents use Indonesian at home to give their children a head start so that they

can excel at schools.

CL implemented in the middle and high school EFL classrooms was different

with regard to the learning tasks carried out through individual accountability

performance. CL in the high school classroom was implemented by the teacher as a

medium for the students to master the target knowledge, such as the mastery of news

item-related vocabulary and the aspects of news item. It was different in the middle

school classroom where CL was implemented as a medium for the students to display

their skills, such as presenting the assigned notice, delivering short messages, and

answering the comprehensive questions. Hence, individual accountability that the high

school students performed was mainly a medium for presenting their mastery of the

116

target knowledge (i.e. news items), while individual accountability performed by the

middle school students was a medium for these students to display their language skills,

more specifically in speaking.

The above difference between the two cases was partly due to the students’

familiarity with the target learning materials. For the high school students, it was their

first year of their high school career. Putri explained that it was the first time for them to

learn about news items, and the first two observed lessons were focused on their mastery

of the knowledge of this text genre, not for building their language skills related to the

text (Follow-up Interview, 20150604). The Content Standard for tenth graders also

demonstrates that a news item is listed as one of the text genres to be taught in the second

semester, which was the semester in which the data collection took place (National

Standard of Education Agency, 2006). It was a different case for the middle schools

students. According to Andini, her students had learned about notices and short messages

when they were in grade seven (First Interview, 20150406). The Content Standard for the

middle schools also indicated this learning materials arrangement (National Education

Standard Board, 2013a). In addition to that, the target language skill of all of Andini’s

observed lessons was speaking. Hence, she required her students to do speaking

performances as they had mastered the knowledge of the target learning materials.

117

Conclusion

In summary, bearing in mind CHAT’s components of activity systems, I have

described the two activity systems including individual accountability in CL. The

description includes portrayals of: 1) the students as the subject of individual

accountability in CL, 2) the available tools in the enactment of individual accountability

in CL (e.g. the peers and the teacher—the social others, the dictionary/ books/Internet,

the use of Indonesian and/or Javanese, and the experiences of learning through CL

structures), 3) the object of the EFL learning (i.e. the lesson objectives derived from the

competencies), and 4) the expected outcome of the EFL learning (i.e. communicative

competence).

The socio-historical context of the two cases have also been described, including

1) the competencies set by the curriculums and the mandated learning experience,

including CL (rules), 2) the EFL classrooms as communities that included the students

and their teacher (community), which shared an interest in and involvement with the

same object, and 3) the role that the students had to play (i.e. individual accountability

performance) according to the preset procedure of the CL structures used in their

classroom and the roles the teacher played in the CL implementation (division of labor).

The two activity systems were similar with regard to the relations between the

student participants as the subjects of individual accountability in CL, their object of

learning, the tools they used during their learning, and the expected outcome of their EFL

learning. The relations represent Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of learning as a mediated

action. The subjects were the secondary EFL learners in both sites who were required to

118

perform their individual accountability in CL using the target language in order to

achieve the learning objectives and attain communicative competence in English. The

students learned the target language while they were preparing for and performing their

individual accountability in front of their peers. In other words, the student participants’

conscious learning of EFL emerged from the activity (individual accountability

performance) they carried out (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). However, as this

chapter has indicated, the enactment of individual accountability in CL in both sites was a

complex endeavor, especially because of the interconnectedness of the components

involved in it. Chapter 6 will show that the differences between the two activity systems

appeared not to affect the enactment of individual accountability nor differently shape

individual accountability’s roles in the EFL learning.

There were three levels of individual accountability in CL observed in the

implementation of CL in the secondary school EFL classrooms involved in this study: 1)

individual accountability in pairs, 2) individual accountability in other groups, and 3)

individual accountability to the whole class. Referring to the preset procedure of the CL

structures used in the observed lessons, there was another level of individual

accountability: individual accountability in home groups. This particular level of

individual accountability was missed by the two teacher participants in some of their use

of CL structures, especially the structures that required students working in groups of

four students or more.

All in all, the description of the two activity systems is needed to help understand

the roles of individual accountability in CL in EFL learning presented in Chapter 6. It

119

will also be helpful to understand the tensions or contradictions among the components of

the activity systems that impeded the enactment of individual accountability in CL in

both sites, which will be presented in Chapter 7. In other words, the description of the

two cases provides the “skeleton frame” (Patton, 2002, p. 503) for the study’s data

analysis that resulted in the findings and interpretation presented in following chapters.

120

Chapter 6: The Roles of Individual Accountability in Cooperative Learning

in Indonesian Secondary School EFL Classrooms

Human actions cannot be understood unless the meaning that humans assign to

them is understood. (Marshall & Rosssman, 2011, p. 91)

This study addressed the question of the role of individual accountability in CL in

Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms, emphasizing “the meaning” of this CL

principle that the research participants “assign[ed]” to it (Marshall & Rosssman, 2011, p.

91). Individual accountability in this study is defined as a required performance done by

individual students in front of their CL peers, which means that it is public, to complete a

learning task. The study employed CHAT and Interaction Hypothesis as the theoretical

frameworks.

In this qualitative case study, individual accountability in CL in Indonesian

secondary school EFL classrooms was the focus of the cases as well as the unit of

analysis. From a CHAT perspective, the implementation of CL in Indonesian secondary

school EFL classrooms constituted the activity systems and individual accountability in

CL was one of the activities in the systems. Hence, it is important to see the relation

between the subjects (i.e., the students who performed individual accountability in CL)

and the other components in the activity systems (tools, object/outcome, rules,

community, and division of labor) to understand the roles that the activity played in

enhancing EFL learning. The analysis resulted in the identification of seven roles of

individual accountability of CL across sites (i.e., the Indonesian secondary school EFL

classrooms). Specifically, through individual accountability in CL, the EFL learners: 1)

gain learning experience as mandated by the curriculum, 2) present the previously

121

thought about/discussed/learned information to the peers, 3) get more opportunities to use

the target language, 4) get more opportunities to interact with peers, 5) give and receive

vocabulary help from peers, 6) learn about pronunciation from peers, and 7) gain

confidence to speak in the target language in front of peers.

I start the chapter by presenting the identified roles. Then, drawing on the

elements of Interaction Hypothesis (comprehensible input, interaction, and negotiation

for meaning, and comprehensible output), I probe how each role contributed to second

language acquisition and learning. This chapter will show how individual accountability,

as one of the principles and activities in CL, was meaningful for the students across the

sites due to the roles that it played in their EFL learning.

The Seven Identified Roles of Individual Accountability in CL

In this section, I present the seven identified roles of individual accountability in

CL in the two Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms. As discussed in Chapter 4

(recall Analytic Framework: Generating Themes section), complex reasoning (deductive-

inductive process) (Creswell, 2011) was part of the process of generating themes that I

went through. The seven identified roles were identified through the process of the axial

coding as well as with help from the notion of an activity system as a system of

relationships between its components, especially between the subjects and the other

components in the system. Since the study explored how individual accountability in CL

enhanced EFL learning, the identified roles were presented in an order that to some

degree follows the logic of the second language acquisition and learning theory used as

122

one of the theoretical frameworks in the study, Interaction Hypothesis: input, interaction,

negotiation for meaning, and output.

Role #1: Gain Learning Experience as Mandated by the Curriculum

The first identified role was that the students’ individual accountability

performance in CL in their EFL classroom helped them gain learning experience as

mandated by the curriculum implemented in their school. The relation between the

subjects and the rules applied in the activity systems (see Figure 6.1) helped me to

identify this role. Rules refer to any formal and informal regulations that in varying

degree can constrain or liberate the activity and provide guidance to the subject of what

are correct procedures and acceptable interactions to take with other community members

(Engeström, 1993). Specifically, the rules addressed in this section were the formal

regulations or constructs, i.e., the curriculums that set the target competencies and

learning goals/objectives, the lesson plans, and the official documents (relevant Decrees

of the Minister of Education and Culture). These rules guided how learning processes

should take place to help the students attain their learning goals/objectives.

123

Figure 6.1. The relation between the subjects and the rules in the activity systems.

The learning experience mandated by the 2013 curriculum was learning

experience under the scientific approach stated in the Process Standard for Primary and

Secondary Education (National Education Standard Board, 2013b). The use of the

scientific approach was aimed at enacting a number of learning concepts that were used

to develop the 2013 curriculum. They reflect a paradigm shift in learning valued by

Indonesian education system, including: “from teacher-centered to student-centered

learning,” “from passive to active learning” and “from individual learning to learning in

groups” (National Education Standard Board, 2013b, p. 2). These learning concepts (i.e.

student-centered learning, active learning, and learning in groups), as references suggest

(e.g., Cohen, 1994; Keyser, 2000; Richards, 2002; Sharan, 2002), are some of the

underlying concepts of CL.

The Decree on the Implementation of the 2013 Curriculum and the Process

Standard for Primary and Secondary Education specified three stages of learning in a

lesson: opening, main, and closing. At the main stage, the curriculum dictated that five

learning phases should take place: 1) observing, 2) questioning, 3) exploring, 4)

Subjects Object Outcome

Rules

Tools

Community Division of Labor

124

associating, and 5) communicating. In Andini’s observed lessons, the communicating

phase was realized through individual accountability performance in CL. Specifically,

Andini’s students communicated the target texts to their peers through their individual

accountability performance in CL (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150401, 20150404,

20150406, and 20150413). Andini’s students also performed their individual

accountability as one of the learning activities at the opening stage of the lesson (Field

Notes, 20150406). The following paragraphs will discuss in detail how the middle school

students’ individual accountability performance in CL played a role for them to gain the

learning experience as mandated by the curriculum.

In the first and third observed lessons, the middle school’s student participants

learned from notices (the day’s target text). Working in pairs and through the Think-Pair-

Share, each student participant had a notice with them and was asked to think about the

answers to these three questions: 1) What does the notice mean? (2) What should we do?

(3) Where can you find the notice? After the Think phase, the student participants

presented their answers to their partner (i.e., individual accountability in pairs). Next,

with the help of the previous presentation and feedback from their partner, the student

participants presented their answers again to the whole class (i.e., individual

accountability to the whole class) (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404). In short, the

student participants communicated their understanding of their assigned notice by

performing two levels of individual accountability in Think-Pair-Share. They experienced

the communicating phase of the mandated scientific approach through their individual

accountability performance in CL.

125

In the second observed lesson in which the student participants learned the target

language through short messages (the day’s target text), the communicating phase of the

scientific approach was also carried out through individual accountability performance in

CL. More specifically, through Whispering Game the student participants performed two

levels of individual accountability, to a group member and to the whole class. To another

group member, the student participants whispered the given short message, and to the

whole class they reported the short message by reading it aloud. Some of the short

messages that the student participants worked on were: Marry will meet you behind the

meeting room after Monday meeting; Sandra, Shelly sells the seashells by the seashore

on Sunday. Please meet her (as written by Andini on the white board after each message

was reported by the representative of each group). The two individual accountability

performances took place in the main stage of the lesson, thus playing a role in students

gaining learning experiences mandated by the rules of this activity system (Field Notes,

20150401).

In the fourth observed lesson, the middle school’s student participants learned the

target language through narratives/fables. Through RoundRobin, the student participants

performed their individual accountability to the whole class; they took turns mentioning a

title of narrative/fable they knew for the whole class to hear (Field Notes, 20150406).

Chapter 7 discusses in greater detail a few steps Andini missed in her use of this CL

structure. As the lesson plan indicated, the learning activity that Andini carried out using

RoundRobin did not belong to any of the scientific approach’s five learning phases for

the main stage of the lesson. Andini set it as one of the activities for opening her lesson,

126

specifically one that says, “Students answer questions about the learning materials they

had learned and questions related to the target learning materials” (Lesson Plan,

20150406). The Process Standard specified this particular activity to be carried out in the

opening stage of a lesson (National Education Standard Board, 2013b). Hence, different

from the previous lessons, in the fourth lesson the students’ individual accountability

performance in CL was not used to carry out the communicating phase (i.e., in the main

stage of the lesson), but to activate students’ background knowledge of the target

text/learning materials (i.e., in the opening stage of the lesson).

In the fifth observed lesson, the students still learned about narratives/fables.

Their individual accountability performance in CL was to communicate their

comprehension of a fable they read, entitled Mousedeer and Crocodile (Lesson Plan,

20150413). Andini used Numbered Heads Together. Again, chapter 7 discusses in greater

detail a few steps Andini missed in her use of this structure. The students sat in their

group, were given a number as a label (i.e., one, two, three, four, or five), and listened to

Andini’s comprehension questions. After Andini finished reading one question (e.g. what

did the mousedeer want to do?), she asked students with a certain number to quickly raise

their hand, and the quickest student was given the chance to answer the question to the

whole class (Field Notes, 20150413). This was an individual accountability performance

to the whole class and took place in the main stage of the lesson for the students to

communicate their understanding of the text they read.

The English teacher’s book for grade eight describes that the communicating

phase of the scientific approach is for developing the students’ ability of presenting the

127

knowledge and skills they have mastered or have yet to develop either in spoken or

written mode (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2014). When asked about the relation

between the communicating phase and her students’ individual accountability

performance in CL in her lessons, Andini said:

Tujuan pembelajarannya, ya. Karena terakhir kan lisan, berarti saya terakhirnya

communicating,’ share’-nya itu lisan, kan? ‘Whispering’ kemarin juga,’

objective’-nya kan juga lisan, makanya itu, saya pakai, saya coba pakai.

The lesson objectives, yes. Since the last time it was spoken, it means that my last

activity was communicating, the share was also spoken, right? It is the same in

Whispering Game, the lesson objectives were also spoken, hence, I tried to use,

try to use it. (First Interview, 20150406)

Andini explained that since the target language skill for all of the observed lessons was

speaking, the communicating phase her students did through the individual accountability

performances in CL was for them to speak in the target language. This indicated that her

students’ individual accountability performances in CL were not only a medium for them

to gain the learning experience as mandated by the curriculum, but also to give them

learning activities relevant to the target language skill. This also showed how Andini as

the teacher played a role as one of the tools in the activity systems because the learning

activities she designed and facilitated followed what was mandated by the curriculum and

they were aimed at covering one of the competencies set by the curriculum for EFL

instruction, i.e. the students’ mastery of the language skills to communicate the target

texts they learned (National Education Standard Board, 2013a).

In short, the communicating phase was mandated by the 2013 curriculum to take

place at the main stage of the lesson. However, as discussed earlier, Andini employed

128

individual accountability performance in CL not only in the main stage but also in the

opening stage of the lesson, as in the use of RoundRobin in the fourth lesson. Hence,

through their individual accountability performances in CL, the middle school’s student

participants experienced a learning activity that activated their background knowledge in

the opening stage of the lesson and experienced the communicating phase in the main

stage of the lesson. Through individual accountability performances in CL, the student

participants in the middle school gained the learning experience that the curriculum set.

In the case of the high school’s student participants, through their individual

accountability performances in CL, they experienced the elaboration phase of learning,

which was mandated by the Process Standard of Primary and Secondary education

(National Education Standard Board, 2007). This Standard consisted of the guidelines for

the planning and the process of teaching and learning. Regarding the learning process,

similar to the Process Standard for the 2013 curriculum, the Process Standard for the

2006 curriculum prescribed three stages of learning, including: the opening, the main,

and the closing. The Standard dictated that the main stage of learning comprised three

phases: exploration, elaboration, and confirmation. CL was to take place in the

elaboration phase. The following paragraphs will show how through individual

accountability performance in CL, the high school’s student participants experienced the

mandated elaboration phase of the main stage of their learning. They will also show how

the formal constructs (the relevant Decrees) aligned with individual accountability in CL

in terms of giving the students the learning experience that these constructs set.

129

In the first observed lesson, the students learned a short news item (the day’s

target text) through Numbered Heads Together in which they performed individual

accountability to the whole class. Putri followed similar steps as Andini took when she

was using this CL structure in her class. A few steps missed in Putri’s use of this structure

will also be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7. Her students sat in groups of four or

five and worked on an exercise sheet containing a short news item with 12 blanks in it.

They individually filled in the blanks as Putri was reading the complete news item aloud.

Afterwards, each student in the group was given a number (i.e., one, two, three, four, five

or six). One number was called out and assigned a blank to fill in. The students having

the corresponding number raised their hand quickly and the quickest got the chance to

write their answer on the white board and this was their individual accountability to the

whole class (Field Notes, 20150318). In short, in this lesson individual accountability in

CL was used to facilitate the students in presenting the result of their individual work to

the whole class. This, as presented in the previous paragraph, was one of the activities in

the elaboration phase mandated by the Process Standard to happen in the main stage of a

lesson.

In the same lesson, the high school student participants performed their individual

accountability in the other groups and again to the whole class through One Stray. Putri

used the structure to elicit words related to news items. Working in the same groups as

they did in Numbered Heads Together, the student participants listed down as many news

item-related words as possible. Next, one member from each group was asked to stay in

their group while the rest visited the other groups. Meeting the other groups’ members

130

and sitting with them, the student participants shared their word list (i.e., individual

accountability in other groups) and explained the meaning of the words when necessary.

Then, everybody went back to their original group and added words to their list of news

item-related words. After that, one representative from each group came to the white

board and wrote their words (i.e., individual accountability to the whole class) (Field

Notes, 20150318). Hence, in this lesson, individual accountability in CL was employed to

facilitate the students’ presentations of their group’s work, and this activity allowed the

students to gain learning experiences related to the mandated Process Standard. More

specifically, they elaborated on the learning materials as part of the main stage of a

lesson.

Still in the same lesson, the student participants carried out another performance

of individual accountability to the whole class. It was through Jigsaw that Putri got her

students to explore the aspects of a news item. Each group was given one aspect: group

one got the definition, group two the social function/purpose, group three the generic

structure/organization, and group four the language features. Afterwards, they were asked

to discuss their assigned part. Then, one student from each group presented to the whole

class the result of their discussion (i.e., individual accountability to the whole class)

(Field Notes, 20150318). There were also a few steps missed in Putri’s use of Jigsaw

both in the first and second observed lessons and they will be discussed in detail in

Chapter 7. As in One Stray, individual accountability in Jigsaw was for the students to

present the group’s work, and this elaboration activity was mandated by the Process

Standard to take place in the main stage of a lesson.

131

In the second observed lesson, still with the same text genre (news items) as the

learning materials, the students performed individual accountability in other groups and

to the whole class through One Stray. They sat in the same group as they did in the

previous lesson (i.e. the Jigsaw groups) and were asked to discuss the same aspect of

news item they got last time: the definition, social function, generic structure, or language

features. Then, two students from each group were asked to stay (i.e., becoming the

hosts) and the rest (i.e., becoming the guests) to visit the other groups. The hosts

explained the assigned aspect of news item to their guests. The guests explained as well

the information they had to the hosts of the group they were visiting. This exchange of

information was a form of individual accountability in/to other groups. Afterwards,

everybody came back to their group and completed their notes in their notebooks. One

representative from each group then wrote their work on the white board. This was a

form of individual accountability to the whole class (Field Notes, 20150401). Both

individual accountability in/to the other group and individual accountability to the whole

class in this lesson were for the students to present their group’s work. Again, this

elaboration activity was mandated by the Process Standard to take place in the main stage

of a lesson.

As described above, the use of individual accountability in CL in the two

observed lessons was for the high school’s student participants to elaborate or present the

learning materials, i.e., news item, including relevant vocabulary and the aspects/features

of the text to their peers (Field Notes, 20150318, 20150401). When asked about this,

Putri stated:

132

Pertimbangan saya menitikberatkan pada penguasaan siswa akan ‘knowledge of

news item’ karena pertemuan itu merupakan pertemuan pertama bagi siswa. Jadi

anak biar tau dulu tentang’ news item’. Apabila anak sudah tau maka anak akan

mempunyai gambaran tentang teks ‘news item’.

My consideration for putting emphasis on my students’ mastery of the knowledge

of news item was because it was the first meeting. So, it was for them to getting to

know news items. When they do, they will have the idea of what news item is.

(Third Interview, 20150404)

Putri stressed that her focus in the two lessons was for the students to master the

knowledge of news item, which was a new text genre for her students. This was realized

through her students’ presentations of their own and their group’s work and these

presentations were the forms of elaboration activities mandated by the Process Standard.

The presentations were carried out through individual accountability performances in CL.

This, as in the case of Andini, showed Putri’s role as one of the tools in the activity

systems. She designed and facilitated her students’ learning in activities that followed

what’s mandated by the curriculum while at the same time aimed at covering one of the

competences set by the curriculum for EFL instruction, i.e. the students’ mastery of the

knowledge of the target texts (National Education Standard Board, 2006).

In conclusion, individual accountability in CL in the secondary school EFL

classrooms played a role as a medium for the students to gain learning experience as

mandated by the curriculum implemented in their respective school. The Process

Standard of Primary and Secondary Education and the other Decrees of the Minister of

Education and Culture applied in the two schools were the rules that provided guidance

for the teachers in designing and carrying out their lessons. This guidance included the

incorporation of CL and where in the lesson their students should communicate or

133

elaborate on what they had learned, i.e., performing their individual accountability. This

analysis also showed that in their effort to comply with the Process Standard with regard

to how learning should take place, the teachers also aimed at covering the competencies

mandated by the Content Standard. From a CHAT lens, this shows that this particular

role of individual accountability in CL emerged not only because of the

interconnectedness between the subject and the rules but also because of the internal

relationships between these two components and the tools in the activity systems. The

teachers were among the tools in the activity systems because they were the implementer

of the curriculum, the designer of the lessons, and the implementer of CL in their EFL

classrooms.

Role # 2 Present the Previously Thought about, Discussed, and Learned Information

to Peers

The second role was that the students’ individual accountability performances in

CL in their EFL classroom were a medium for them to present the previously thought

about, discussed, and learned information to their peers in spoken English. This role was

identified with the help of the relation between the subjects with the division of labor in

the activity systems (see Figure 6.2). The division of labor refers to how the tasks are

shared among the community (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010).

134

Figure 6.2. The relation between the subjects and the division of labor in the activity

systems.

In the middle school classrooms, the role was evident especially when the student

participants were learning through Think-Pair-Share and the Whispering Game. In the

first and third observed lesson in which Think-Pair-Share was employed, each student

participant read a notice, learned about it through the given questions, and in spoken

English presented their answers to their partner (individual accountability in pairs). Then,

they had a discussion with their partner about their presentation and gave each other

feedback. Lastly, they presented their revised answers to the whole class (individual

accountability to the whole class) (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404). Through the two

levels of individual accountability in Think-Pair-Share, the student participants shared

with their peers the notice they had previously learned. The student participants were

exposed to a variety of notices because each of their peers had a different notice, and all

of them performed their individual accountability. This was a form of task-sharing or

division of labor in the classroom community that likely broadened the student


Rules

Tools


135

participants’ knowledge of notices as opposed to the students’ learning a number of

notices on their own.

The division of labor was also evident in the second observed lesson in which the

student participants learned about short messages through Whispering Game. In their

group, each student participant received a message from the teacher or their peer and

delivered it to another peer, which later reported to the whole class. In order to deliver the

message well, i.e. so that their peer got the message right, the student participants needed

to learn the message including its content and how to pronounce the words in the

message. Hence, they had a discussion with the previous message deliverer, either the

teacher or a peer. When the student participants delivered the message to another group

member, they were performing individual accountability in pairs, and when they reported

the message to the whole class, they were performing individual accountability to the

whole class (Field Notes, 20150401). It is clear that through their individual

accountability performances in Whispering Game, the student participants presented the

previously learned and discussed information to their peers.

When he was reflecting on his experience of learning about notices through

Think-Pair-Share, Budi said:

Jadi kita menyampaikan, kita bisa menyampaikan, apa ya namanya, istilahnya,

kayak ilmu yang kita punya kepada temen-temen.

So we present, we can present, what’s so called, what’s the term, sort of the

knowledge we have to our peers. (Second Interview, 20150630)

Budi highlighted that through individual accountability in CL he shared the information

(“knowledge”) he had about the notice he read to his peers. Midya shared the same view

136

as Budi. Recalling her experience of learning through Think-Pair-Share, Midya said that

the individual accountability she performed when learning through the CL structure was

for her to tell the other students what she knew about the notice she read:

Ngasih tau ‘notice’ yang aku dapet waktu itu.

Telling what I understood about the notice I had at that time. (Second Interview,

20150608)

As in the case of the middle school student participants, through their individual

accountability performances in CL, the high school student participants presented the

previously thought about, discussed, and learned information to their peers in spoken

English. This role of individual accountability was observable when they were learning

about news items through One Stray in the first and second observed lesson. In the first

observed lesson, One Stray was employed to introduce the student participant to news

items, which was a new text genre for them. Specifically, the student participants were

asked to list as many news-related words as possible with their home group members.

Then, they shared the list they generated to the other groups (individual accountability in

other groups). The word list shared or presented was the result of the student participants’

thinking, discussion, and learning with their peers, which helped them accumulate

vocabulary of news items (Field Notes, 20150318).

In the second observed lesson, after discussing the assigned aspect of a news item

with their home group members, the high school student participants presented the result

of the discussion to the other groups (individual accountability in other groups) (Field

Notes, 20150401). The individual accountability performances in One Stray in the second

observed lesson were also a form of division of labor through which the student

137

participants specialized on a certain part of the learning materials and learned from the

other groups’ expertise. Reciprocity and exchange of information took place because of

the division of labor.

Recalling the use of One Stray in her classroom, Natya said that she learned from

her classmates’ individual accountability performances:

Pengetahuannya jadi nambah, dikit-dikit gitu. Maksudnya kan, misalkan pasif

terus, di kelompok terus, ngga maju ke depan atau ngga mau komunikasi dengan

yang lain kan ngga tau informasi dari kelompok lain, dari kelompok sendiri

bahkan.

My knowledge gets increased, bit-by-bit. I mean, if I don’t participate, sticking

around in the group, not presenting in front of the class or not communicating

with the others, I would not know any information from the other groups, or even

from my own group. (Second Interview, 20150629)

Natya highlighted the importance of presenting the information she had and

communicating with the other groups’ members for increasing her understanding

(“knowledge”) of the learning materials. Embedded in her account was that she was

aware of the division of labor and the information gap it created for her and her peers to

learn from each other (“I mean, if I don’t participate, sticking around in the group, not

presenting in front of the class or not communicating with the others, I would not know

any information from the other groups”). Joko shared a similar view. He said that when

he was learning the aspects of a news item through One Stray, he shared the information

that his home group had to the other groups and vice versa. He said

Bisa berbagi tentang pendapat dari kelompok yang, maksudnya, tugas yang

sudah dibuat sama kelompok kami, yang kami bagikan dengan mereka. Dan juga

bisa bertukar informasi. Jadi saya ketika bertamu, juga diajari oleh mereka

tentang masalah yang mereka bahas. Jadi, informasi dari semua kelompok bisa

disatukan dan diambil kesimpulannya.

138

I can share my group’s ideas, which, I mean, my group’s work that we shared

with the others. We can also exchange information. So, when I visit them, they

will teach me what they discussed. So, we can gather all the information and then

draw the conclusions. (Second Interview, 20150530)

Joko’s experience suggested that the presentations of the assigned learning materials

previously discussed in his home group and the information exchange between groups

arranged by One Stray (i.e. individual accountability performance in other groups)

enhanced his learning. These activities, in his view, increased the accumulation of

information on the aspects of news items, which allowed him to get the key points of the

learning materials (“make the conclusions”). In short, both Joko and Natya perceived that

their individual accountability performances in One Stray were a form of division of

labor in which they were required to present what they had thought about, discussed, and

learned in their home groups.

Andini confirmed that the individual accountability in CL that her students

performed when they were learning through Think-Pair-Share and Whispering Game was

a medium for them to present the previously thought about, discussed, and learned

information to their peers in spoken English. She observed that in order for her students

to perform their individual accountability, when working in CL group they should know

what they should do and “carry out the assigned task.” This means that they should know

the division of labor and follow it accordingly. She said

Masing masing individu harus berusaha untuk memahami dan melaksanakan

tugas yang diberikan saat kerja di kelompok CL karena nanti dia mempunyai

tanggung jawab pribadi.

Individual students should try to understand and carry out the given task when

learning in CL group because they will be held accountable for this. (Second

Interview, 20150408)

139

Andini further explained that when students knew the task assigned to them, they

would try to understand and master what they should present in their individual

accountability performances. In other words, knowing the division of labor was part of

students’ preparation to present the learning materials (information) to their partner,

group members, or to a wider context of audience, such as in other groups or to the whole

class. The two observed lessons in which Think-Pair-Share was used showed that the

student participants followed the procedure of the CL structure without facing any

difficulties. None of them seemed reluctant to perform the two levels of individual

accountability (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404). Andini said that it was not the first

time for them to learn through Think-Pair-Share. She believed that her students’

experience learning through the CL structure had helped them to know what to expect. In

other words, her students’ understanding of the division of labor in Think-Pair-Share

helped them to present the information they previously thought about, discussed, and

learned (Second Interview, 20150408).

Putri also confirmed that her students’ individual accountability performances

when they were learning through One Stray were for them to present the previously

thought about, discussed, and learned information to their peers in spoken English. She

stressed that the presentations were especially beneficial for the students because the

learning materials were new for them (news items) and her emphasis was on their

mastery of the knowledge of this text genre (Follow-up Interview, 20150604). She agreed

with Andini in that when learning through CL, each student should know the task

assigned to them, highlighting that she should work on this issue in her CL

140

implementation especially in her tenth grade classrooms because she believed that they

were new to CL (First Interview, 20150318). In short, the two teacher participants

suggested that students’ knowing the division of labor would help realize their

presentation of the previously thought about, discussed, and learned information to their

peers in spoken English (individual accountability performances).

In sum, looking at the relation between the secondary school students as the

performers of individual accountability in CL and the division of labor or how the

learning tasks were shared, my analysis showed that individual accountability prescribed

by the procedure of the CL structures used in the student participants’ EFL classrooms

served as the medium for the student participants to present the previously thought about,

discussed, and learned information to their peers in spoken English. In other words, the

division of labor made individual students carry out the presentations; their individual

accountability performances were required. Reciprocity and information exchange

followed the presentations. This showed the close connection between the subjects and

the division of labor and between these two components and the community in the

activity systems, especially because the student participants shared the same learning

objectives and they were the audience of their peers’ presentations.

Role # 3: Have More Opportunities to Use the Target Language

The third identified role was that unlike with conventional group work, through

individual accountability in CL, the student participants had more opportunities to use

English. This role was identified with the help of the relation between the subjects and

the object as well as the expected outcome in an activity system (Figure 6.3). The object

141

is “what is to be accomplished” (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p. 63). The

implementation of CL in the secondary school EFL classrooms, including individual

accountability as one of its activities, was the attainment of the objectives of each lesson.

As mandated by the curriculums guiding these classrooms, the lesson objectives cover

the development of the four language skills in English, including listening, speaking,

reading, and writing. The expected outcome or results of English instruction in the

secondary schools, including the CL implementation, was the students’ improved

communicative competence in English. In order to achieve this, language learners should

learn the target language through using it to communicate with their peers (Larsen-

Freeman, 2012; Richards, 2002).

Figure 6.3. The relation between the subjects and the object/outcome in the activity

system.

Though the purpose of this study was not to compare conventional group work

with CL, the participant observations gave me opportunities to see conventional group

work in these settings. Examples from these lessons are shared here as negative cases


Rules

Tools


142

(Regin, 1997). The interviews also revealed the research participants’ views on

conventional group work, with regard to how it differed from CL, especially in terms of

the opportunities for the students to use the target language and to interact with their

peers. The third type of interview questions, i.e. questions based on the ongoing

documents analysis and each week’s analysis of participant observations data (e.g. using

specific data as talking points) (see Appendix E and F, part c), allowed me to also

understand how the research participants viewed the use of conventional group work,

which took place across sites during the study’s timeframe. The interviews revealed that

the teacher participants were, to some extent, aware of the differences between CL and

conventional group work (i.e., that in CL, individual students were held accountable for

their own and their peers’ learning). Nevetheless, it was not the case with the student

participants. During the interviews, the student participants were not told about the

differences between CL and conventional group work but the term kelompok biasa

(Indonesian language meaning regular group) was used in the third type of interview

questions, such as: “What language did you and your peers use when you were learning

in regular groups, not in CL groups such as Think-Pair-Share and Whispering Game?”

The term conventional group work, however, is used in this dissertation research because

it is the term usually used in the literature. Additionally, at some point in the interviews

or in informal conversations with my student participants, I told them the topic of my

research and its focus, individual accountability in CL, with language that I expected

would help their understanding and/or with the help of the information written on the

assent form.

143

According to Regin (1997), negative cases are cases that are not displaying the

effect. In this study, I looked at the implementation of CL in the EFL classrooms and

focused on the roles that individual accountability in CL played in enhancing EFL

learning. Hence, the positive cases in my study were the implementation of CL,

specifically the enactment of individual accountability that enhanced EFL learning. I will

use the negative cases to support my argument presented in this section. Specifically, I

will show how the student participants had fewer opportunities to use spoken English

when they were learning through conventional group work.

Chapter 5 discussed that there were four levels of individual accountability in CL:

1) individual accountability in pairs, 2) individual accountability in home groups, 3)

individual accountability in other groups, and 4) individual accountability to the whole

class. A lower level of individual accountability was usually followed by peer interaction

that helped the student participants to prepare for a higher level of individual

accountability. As indicated in the previous sections, individual accountability

performances in CL in the EFL classrooms were carried out in the target language, be it

in spoken or written mode. Hence, when the student participants performed more than

one level of individual accountability, they used English more, a condition supportive to

the attainment of their lesson objectives and the goal of their EFL learning.

Peer interaction that usually followed a lower level of individual accountability

was also an arena in which the students practiced using spoken English. In the use of

Think-Pair-Share in the middle school classrooms (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404),

peer interaction took place after the student participants performed their individual

144

accountability to their partner, i.e., telling their answers to the three given questions about

the notice they read. They gave feedback to each other, which was mostly on vocabulary,

so that they could present their answers with no Indonesian words and with vocabulary

that suited the given notice in their performance of individual accountability to the whole

class (Field Notes, 20150331). In the use of Whispering Game, a similar interaction

happened after the student participants delivered the given message to a fellow group

member. This interaction was needed to make sure that the next message courier

understood the message and could deliver the same message to the next student in the

group. Most of the student participants tried to ensure that their partner mastered all of

the words in the given message, as evidenced by them repeating the message again and

again. This demonstrated the students’ frequent use of English. Some students who were

no longer message couriers came to a student who was receiving a message and helped

the message courier deliver the message. Andini reminded them not to do that (Field

Notes, 20150404). In the high school classroom, peer interaction was observable when

the student participants were learning about news items through One Stray. After

presenting their list of news-related words/the assigned aspect of news item (i.e.

individual accountability in other groups), the student participants conversed with other

groups’ members about what they had just presented (Field Notes, 20150318, 20150401).

This showcases the use of English in the high school classroom although what the student

participants produced centered on words.

Even though the use of Indonesian and Javanese was heard during the student

participants’ interaction across sites, English words were used especially when they were

145

giving each other feedback on vocabulary (as will be discussed in more detail in role #5).

In short, the use of the target language was promoted through the interactions described

above, which helped the student to prepare for their next level of individual

accountability performance in CL. In the case of the middle school student participants,

through their individual accountability performances in CL, they practiced their speaking

in English, which was the target language skill of all of the observed lessons. As for the

high school student participants, their individual accountability performances in One

Stray were for them to display their mastery of the knowledge of news items, which was

one of the objectives of the lessons.

The use of conventional group work in the secondary classrooms provided fewer

opportunities for the student participants to use the target language compared to the use

of the CL structures. This was observable in one of the middle school classrooms when

the student participants were working on a grammar exercise (in 8 G). They were put in

groups of four or five. Each group was given a worksheet containing a fable and asked to

underline the past verbs, circle the past continuous, and square the adverbs used in the

fable. To closely observe the student participants’ interaction during this activity, I visited

one group and stayed there (See Figure 6.4 below). There were five students in this

group, two boys and three girls. Boy number one said,”Aku wae, sing kotak” (Javanese,

meaning: I will do the squaring). Boy number two replied, “Aku sing garis” (Javanese,

meaning: I will do the underlining). The worksheet was in front of two of the three girls.

The other girl was sitting in front of them. She tried to identify the assigned grammar

points as well but had difficulty in doing so because she was reading the sheet from the

146

opposite direction. The boys then took over the sheet and did the task together. The girls

talked about the task in Indonesian and then each of them tried to do the labeling from

where they sat (see Figure 6.4). While the girls were doing the labeling, one of the boys

asked everybody in the group, in Indonesian: “’Onto’ itu apa?” (Indonesian: what is

onto?) One of the girls replied, also in Indonesian, “Itu dari ‘on to’” (Indonesian: It is

from on to).” After all groups finished the task, Andini asked them to exchange their

work with a neighboring group and check their work. She led this activity (Field Notes,

20150406).

Figure 6.4 . Representation of the group of middle school students working on a grammar

exercise through conventional group work.

The above description of the use of the conventional group work depicted how the

middle school student participants used Indonesian and Javanese in their interaction with

their group members while completing the given task. Additionally, in this interaction,

147

the individual students were not preparing for any presentations or performances.

Compared to the use of CL structures in their classroom, the following target language

use-promoting activities were not available in the use of the conventional group work

described above: 1) students’ performances of individual accountability, and 2) the use of

English in these performances. In other words, each student was not assigned any task

that required them to present or share to their peers, in the target language, about what

they had learned. This was an indication that they may not have worked toward the

intended outcome of improved communicative competence in English, specifically

toward the development of their skill in speaking in English stated in the day’s lesson

plan (Lesson Plan, 20150406).

In the implementation of CL in the middle school, even though the students’

preparation for their individual accountability performance was carried out in an

interaction with only a little use of English, when they were performing their individual

accountability (e.g., in Think-Pair-Share, Whispering Game), they used English without

any Indonesian and/or Javanese words. In the middle school students’ individual

accountability performances in CL, the target language was used for: 1) presenting their

answers to the three given questions to their partner about the notice they had (the Pair

phase of Think-Pair-Share), 2) presenting the same answers to the whole class (the Share

phase of Think-Pair-Share, 3) delivering the given short message to another group

member (Whispering Game), and 4) presenting the given short message to the whole

class (Whispering Game) (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150401, 20150404). These uses of

spoken English were possible because of the levels of individual accountability in the CL

148

structures, which were not present in the use of the conventional group work previously

described.

Budi explained how he used less English and more Indonesian when he was not

working in CL groups such as Think-Pair-Share and Whispering Game:

Pada saat kelompok biasa, saat presentasi di depan hanya perwakilan, tidak

semua mendapat kesempatan untuk maju, tampil. Dan mungkin, saat kelompok

biasa, mungkin karena jumlah anggota kelompok yang terlalu banyak, sehingga

kami lebih nyaman dan memilih menggunakan bahasa ibu, bahasa Indonesia dan

tidak menggunakan bahasa Inggris.

When working in regular group, only the representative of the group was

presenting, not all got the opportunity to come in front, perform. And maybe,

when working in regular group, maybe because of the number of group members

is too big, we feel more comfortable and choose to use our mother language,

Indonesian and not using English. (Second Interview, 20150404)

Budi’s explanation suggested that there were more use of English than the uses of

Indonesian in CL because in CL every group member was held accountable to represent

the group and do the presentation (“When working in regular group, only the

representative of the group was presenting, not all got the opportunity to come in front,

perform”). Budi was from 8 H classroom in which Think-Pair-Share and Whispering

Game were used. As discussed earlier, in these two CL structures, each student was to

perform in front of a partner and then to the whole class using English. Hence, in Budi’s

view, it was individual accountability performances in CL, which were not required in

conventional group work, promoting the use of English. Budi assumed that in

conventional group work “the number of group members is too big.” This usually had

made him and his peers feel more comfortable using their first language, Indonesian,

rather than using English to interact with each other. In other words, through individual

149

accountability performances in Think-Pair-Share and Whispering Game, Budi had more

opportunities to use English.

Budi’s teacher, Andini, shared a similar view with regard to how individual

accountability in CL promoted the use of English. However, unlike Budi, she did not see

that the number of students in conventional group work was a cause of the fewer uses of

English, saying:

Dalam CL, masing-masing individu punya peran dan tanggungjawab masing-

masing walau dalam kegiatan yang sederhana seperti ‘RoundRobin’ dan ‘Talking

Chips’. Kalo dalam kelompok kerja konvensional, kemungkinan hanya siswa yang

pandai yang berperan.

In CL, each student has a role to play and responsibility, even in a simple activity

such as RoundRobin and Talking Chips. In conventional group work, there is a

possibility that only the smart students take part. (Third Interview, 20150408)

Andini highlighted that in CL each student was given a role to play and responsibility,

including in the CL structures she usually used in her classrooms (Preliminary Questions,

20150212), RoundRobin and Talking Chips (Kagan & Kagan, 2009), which she

considered simple. She, however, did not use Talking Chips in any of the observed

lessons. As set by Kagan and Kagan (2009), individual students’ responsibility when they

are learning through RoundRobin is to state responses or solutions to a question or

problem that their teacher poses. When Talking Chips is used, individual students’

responsibility is to place one of the given talking chips in the center of the table and

contribute to the group discussion (Kagan & Kagan, 2009). In these two CL structures,

there is only one layer of individual accountability: individual accountability in (home)

groups. Even if there is only one layer of individual accountability in a CL structure,

when it is used in a language class, students’ responses are to be presented in the target

150

language. Even though only one type of individual accountability was carried out by the

middle school students when they were learning through Numbered Heads Together (out

of two, see Table 5.2), all of the eighth graders chosen to represent their groups used

English in answering Andini’s comprehension questions on a fable the class read that day

(Field Notes, 20150431). Andini’s account above also reflects her view that, since in

conventional group work responsibility was not assigned to each group member, certain

kids will likely dominate the talk.

The use of less English in conventional group work was observed in the high

school classroom too, especially in the last three observed lessons (i.e. lessons three-five).

The negative cases I present here were from the third and fifth lessons in which speaking

was the target language skill. In the third lesson, the students were put in groups of four.

Putri gave each student a worksheet containing four news items. Each group was

assigned one news item as their focus. Putri stressed that the students’ job was to practice

with their group members reading or reporting the news item with good pronunciation,

eye contact, and confidence. Only one group out of the four was seen taking turns reading

the news. The other students were generally off-task, such as playing with their

cellphones and talking about non-school related content in Javanese (Field Notes,

20150404). This was partly because each student was not given a responsibility to

practice reading the news in front of their group members and to pay attention to their

peers’ practices. If such responsibility was given, the student participants would likely

have used the target language at least twice: in their group and in front of the class. The

student participants actually needed frequent practice using the target language because

151

the day’s target language skill was speaking, and they were to present a piece of news in

front of the class.

In the fifth lesson, Putri used conventional group work for teaching expressions

for making and accepting/refusing an invitation. The first task was for the students to

perform a given dialogue of inviting and accepting/refusing an invitation with a partner.

Putri’s oral instruction for this activity went: “Choose your own partner. And then I will

give you a dialogue, actually different dialogues, and practice with your pair. You will

perform the dialogue without text.” Only a few pairs were seen practicing the dialogue.

For example, five girls were sitting close to each other: 1) two were holding the dialogue

sheet, 2) one was playing with her cellphone, 3) another one was playing with a balloon,

and 4) the last one was laying her head on the desk. Putri asked all pairs to perform the

dialogue in front of the class. While Putri asked her students to perform the dialogue

without the text, I observed that most of the student participants simply read the assigned

dialogue (Field Notes, 20150409). Hence, as the high school student participants hardly

practiced the dialogue with their partner; their activity of reading the dialogue in front of

the class could be the only moment they used the target language while in fact speaking

was the focused language skill in the lesson (Lesson Plan, 20150409). This happened

because practicing their dialogue lines with their partner was not required; individual

students were not given this responsibility and held accountable.

Similar to how conventional group work was used in the middle school

classrooms, the majority of the high school student participants were not held

accountable for their own learning (such as mastering their dialogue lines) and the

152

learning of their peers (such as paying attention to their partner saying their dialogue

lines) when they were doing the given tasks through conventional group work. Their in-

front-of-the-class performances (reading the news and performing the dialogue) were not

preceded by practice in their group. This meant less use of spoken English that was

actually needed in the lessons that focused on speaking skills.

Even though there was a missing step(s) in the use of the CL structures in the first

and second lesson, the high school student participants used the target language when

they were performing their individual accountability, such as presenting the list of news-

related vocabulary and the assigned aspect of a news item (in Jigsaw and One Stray)

(Field Notes, 20150318, 20150401). Their individual accountability performance in CL

was on two planes: in the other groups and to the whole class, and this meant more use of

English, specifically in spoken mode. Joko recalled the use of English in conventional

group work and compared it with the use of the language in individual accountability

performances in CL, saying:

Dalam kelompok biasa menggunakan bahasa Inggris bisa dibilang jarang karena

kelompok biasa menggunakan bahasa ibu mereka untuk membahas bahasa

Inggris. Namun dengan adanya ‘individual accountability’ siswa diharuskan

menggunakan bahasa Inggris untuk menyampaikan hasil diskusi mereka.

In regular group work, the use of English is rare because in such group, they used

their first language to discuss English language. Nevertheless, with individual

accountability, the students should use English to present the result of their

discussion. (Second Interview, 20160616)

Joko highlighted that because of the responsibility for presenting the learning materials to

the other groups, through CL he and his peers used more English than when they were

153

working in conventional groups (“with individual accountability, the students should use

English to present the result of their discussion”). Natya shared a similar view:

Di kelompok biasa kita lebih banyak mendiskusikannya menggunakan bahasa

Indonesia atau bahasa Jawa bukan bahasa Inggris, sedangkan dengan metode

CL tadi kita lebih banyak menggunakan bahasa Inggris karena kita langsung

berinteraksi dengan kelompok lain.

In regular group work, we discuss in Indonesian or Javanese language more, not

in English while with CL method we use English more because we interact

directly with the other groups. (Second Interview, 20150529)

Natya underlined that CL promoted the use of English because it required peer

interaction (“while with CL method we use English more because we interact directly

with the other groups”). Both Joko and Natya’s account showed that when learning

through CL the high school student participants were aware of their responsibility for

presenting what they had learned to the other class members and of the requirement for

using English when doing the presentations. Hence, it was individual accountability in

CL that most promoted the use of English in their classroom. This was echoed by their

teacher when she was asked about the use of English when her students were learning

through CL. Putri said:

Anak-anak jadi aktif; guru hanya sebagai motivator saja.

The kids became active; my job was just to motivate them. (Third Interview,

20150424)

Putri’s answer suggested that through individual accountability in CL her students

became “active” both in their interaction with the learning materials and in using the

target language. Her job was then to give them encouragement.

154

Through their individual accountability performance in CL, the middle and high

school student participants had more opportunities to use English than when they were

learning through the conventional group work. My analysis showed the student

participants tended to use their first language more in their conventional group work than

in their CL group work because in the latter they were required to communicate (i.e.,

through peer interaction and individual accountability performances) with other group

members and to the whole class to share what they had learned. The student participants

were aware of the requirement for the use of English when communicating the learning

materials to their peers. Hence, since there were levels of individual accountability in CL,

the student participants had more opportunities to use the target language that contributed

to their English learning, especially in speaking as one of the four language skills taught.

Looking at this finding through a CHAT lens, it was clear that the preset procedure of the

CL structures, as one of the rules applied in the activity systems, contributed to the

students having more opportunities to use the target language. Hence, more than two

components in the activity systems accounted for this particular role of individual

accountability in CL to emerge.

Role #4: Have More Opportunities to Interact with Peers

The fourth identified role was that through individual accountability in CL, the

student participants had more opportunities to interact with their peers than when they

were learning in conventional group work. This role was identified with the help of the

relation between the student participants as the subjects of individual accountability in

CL and their community (see Figure 6.5). In an activity system, the community

155

comprises multiple individuals and/or subgroups who share the same general object

(Engeström, 1993) and a set of social meanings (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p.

64). In this study, the community comprises the EFL learners who shared the same

learning objectives, aimed at achieving communicative competence in English, and as

Chapter 5 indicated, liked the idea of working in groups in their English class. The

community also had the teachers who facilitated the learning for the attainment of the

object/outcome. In CL, peer interaction is required (Johnson & Johnson, 1985/1999;

Kagan & Kagan, 2009). As the previous section (role #3) has indicated, peer interaction

in CL helped prepare the student participants to perform their individual accountability

and helped their group to complete the given task. This was observable in the use of

Think-Pair-Share (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404) and the Whispering Game (Field

Notes, 20150401) in the middle school classrooms and One Stray (Field Notes, 20150318

20150401) in the high school classroom. The negative cases of the conventional group

work across sites will be used again to support my argument here.

Figure 6.5. The relation between the subjects and the community in the activity system.


Rules

Tools


156

The previous section discussed that peer interaction in CL was one of the

activities in some of the CL structures used in the EFL classrooms in which the student

participants talked about what they learned. Before this interaction took place, student

participants prepared for their share of the work. In the use of Think-Pair-Share in

Andini’s two groups of eighth graders, the interaction took place after individual students

performed their individual accountability in front of their partner (i.e., telling the answers

to the three given questions about the notice they read). They conversed with their partner

about the notice and gave each other feedback on vocabulary. This vocabulary help will

be discussed further in role #6. The conversation that the student participants were

engaged in helped them to prepare for their performance of individual accountability to

the whole class. More specifically, after the conversation, they came up with answers

with English vocabulary (no Indonesian words and/or answers) that suited the notice they

read (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404).

When the eighth graders in 8 H were learning another short functional text (i.e.

short messages) through Whispering Game, they interacted with a fellow group member

after one of them delivered the given short message. In their interaction, the student

participants were seen telling the given message repeatedly to another student and asking

each other questions about the message being conveyed. Indonesian and Javanese were

heard in the process. The interaction was necessary to ensure that the next message

receiver understood the message and then able to deliver it well (Field Notes, 20150401).

The two accounts above showed that the student participants as the members of their EFL

classroom community followed the instructional strategy being implemented by their

157

teacher. These students seemed to understand that working in groups was part of their

English learning activities and got used to it. Additionally, this shared social meaning

was likely a factor that contributed to their interacting with their peers. This interaction

appeared to help them complete the given learning tasks.

As discussed in Chapter 5, there were three CL structures used in the high school

classroom: Numbered Heads Together, One Stray, and Jigsaw. However, except in the

use of One Stray, not all of the steps in the preset procedure of the other CL structures

were followed. One of the consequences was that, in Numbered Heads Together and

Jigsaw, peer interaction did not happen. In the use of One Stray, peer interaction

happened after the students shared the information they had (i.e., news item-related

words/the aspect of news items) to the other groups’ members. The student participants

from two groups talked about the information they had just received from each other. A

female student was heard saying in Javanese: Wis mudheng urung? (Did you

understand?), after presenting an aspect of her group’s assigned news items to another

group (Field Notes; 20150401). This kind of interaction contributed to the students’

individual accountability performance in the group they visited next and when they

shared the information they received from the other groups with their home group

members. Their list of the news-item related words got longer, and to some extent they

had better sense of how to pronounce the words as a result of this peer interaction (Field

Notes, 20150318, 20150401; Natya, Second Interview, 20150629).

As indicated in the discussion of role #3, when the middle school student

participants were working in the conventional group work in the fourth observed lesson

158

(recall Figure #6.4) they had little conversation (Field Notes, 20150406). Conversation

was less observable compared to the conversations they had when learning through the

two CL structures (Think-Pair -Share and Whispering Game). It was similar in the case

of the high school students. When they were working in conventional group work in the

third, fourth, and fifth observed lessons, their conversation was less evident than when

they were learning through One Stray. Additionally, when conventional group work was

in use, only a few of the high school students were engaged in task-related conversations.

The rest of the class was seen displaying off-task behavior (Field Notes, 20150404,

20150408, 20150409). The similarity between the peer interaction that took place in the

use of CL structures across sites was that in their interaction with their peers, individual

students had completed their share of work (already performed their individual

accountability) and they were in preparation for their next performance of individual

accountability. In conventional group work’s peer interaction, individual students neither

just completed a presentation nor were in preparation for the next presentation. This is

what made peer interaction in CL different from peer interaction in the conventional

group work activities.

The two focal high school student participants shared their views of the benefits

of peer interaction in the CL structures implemented in their classroom, saying:

Kita dapet informasi dari teman.

We got information from our peers. (Joko, First Interview, 20150408)

Berbagi informasi. Kalau kita belum tau infomasi tentang kerjaan kelompok lain,

kita jadi tau.

159

Information sharing. If we have not known the information from the other groups,

we will get to know about it. (Natya, First Interview, 20150408)

According to them, through the peer interaction they received information from the other

groups. Hence, they were aware of and seemed to share an understanding of the

importance of the other students as the members of their EFL classroom community for

their learning and that their peers had their share of work. Natya added, “I can teach

them; they can teach me,” suggesting that she also contributed to her peers’ learning

(First Interview, 20150408). Midya had a similar view on the benefit of peer interaction

in CL, saying

Bisa saling melengkapi, maksudnya, yang misal satunya nggak tahu, terus bisa

tanya lainnya, terus bisa sama-sama paham, saling ngajarin.

We can complete each other, I mean, if one does not understand, he/she can ask

the others, so that he/she will understand it, teaching each other. (First Interview,

20150404)

While Midya viewed that she and her CL peers could “teach each other,” Budi said:

Siswa bisa lebih mengetahui kemampuan temannya sendiri.

The students will know their peers’ ability. (Second Interview, 20150530)

Budi suggested that when he was interacting with his peers, he could reflect on his ability

in English compared to his peers. He added to the benefits other focal students noted

about peer interaction in CL, because he recognized this non-learning materials-related

benefit: reflecting on English ability.

Andini echoed the focal students when she stated that through peer interaction in

CL her students tried to prepare themselves well, including getting and giving each other

160

feedback, in order to perform better in the next level of individual accountability

performances. Recalling the use of Think-Pair-Share in her class, Andini said

Kemudian setelah ‘pair’, mereka saling mengisi. Saat ‘share’ itu, sudah dapat

masukan dari temannya, saling melengkapi.

After the Pair phase, the students gave feedback to each other. When they were in

the Share phase, they had received feedback from their partner, they helped each

other. (First Interview, 20150408)

Andini’s account highlighted that the feedback receiving and giving activities happened

(“…the students gave feedback to each other” “…they had received feedback from their

partner, they helped each other”) in the peer interaction in the use of Think-Pair-Share in

her classrooms. On the other hand, Putri looked at the CL interaction in her high school

classroom from a different perspective. She said that through CL interaction most of her

students came to a realization that they could contribute to their peers’ learning. She

recalled what they said: “Saya itu teryata bisa, lho” (“I realized that I could actually do it,

you know”) (First Interview, 20150404).

The research participants’ views of the benefits of peer interaction in CL helped

explain how individual accountability in CL necessitated peer interaction in which the

students prepared for their next individual accountability performance. It was when the

students were preparing for their individual accountability performance through the CL

interaction that they presented the work assigned to them, helped each other, reflected on

the ability in the target language, and realized that they could participate in their peers’

learning. In conclusion, compared to the negative cases of the conventional group work,

CL structures and their required individual accountability performances gave more

161

opportunities for the student participants to interact with their peers, fellow members of

their EFL classroom community.

As this section has demonstrated, besides sharing the same learning objectives

and outcome, and an understanding of working in groups as part of their English learning,

the student participants in both sites shared other social meanings such as an

understanding that they were learning in CL and benefitting from the interaction with

their peers. They were aware of how their classroom community contributed to their

individual accountability performance. This is an indication of the interconnectedness

between the subjects of individual accountability in CL and their community, as well as

between the subjects and the tools in the activity systems, especially with regard to how

they benefited from each other during their CL interaction—other learners as learning

tools. The shared social meanings among the student participants were reflected and

manifested in their helping and learning from each other toward the common object. In

other words, in the two activity systems, other learners were the tools to mediate the

subjects and object relation. This suggests that the social environment (i.e., the social

meanings shared in the community) impacted whether or not the enactment of individual

accountability in CL, specifically its peer interaction, helped students to achieve their

learning objectives.

Role #5: Give and Receive Vocabulary Help

The fifth identified role was that through peer interaction, which is part of the

process of individual accountability in CL, the EFL learners gave and received

vocabulary help. The vocabulary help benefitted these learners especially for their next

162

individual accountability performance. This role was identified with the help of the

relation between the subjects and the tools in the activity systems (Figure 6.6). Using the

tools (e.g., technology, training, conceptual ideas, people), the subject moves toward

accomplishing the object (Koszalka & Wu, 2004). As indicated in Chapter 5, for enacting

the required individual accountability in CL, the student participants were helped by,

among other tools, their dictionary, books, the Internet, their first language, their peers,

and their teacher. This section will particularly focus on other learners or peers as the

student participants’ learning tool because peer interaction is an integral part of CL

(Johnson & Johnson, 1985/1999; Kagan & Kagan, 2009). In the two activity systems, the

student participants as the performer of individual accountability in CL used each other

as a learning tool specifically in preparing for their next level of individual accountability

performance.

Figure 6.6. The relation between the subjects and the tools in the activity systems.

In the Pair phase of Think-Pair-Share, the middle school student participants

presented their answers to the given questions on the assigned notice to their partner. The


Rules

Tools


163

presentation was supposed to be in English but the use of Indonesian and/or Javanese

words were also heard. In other words, the use of English was dominant. Andini then

asked her students to give each other feedback. An example of this process was noted. A

girl got a notice that said “No Admittance, Employees Only.” In English, she presented

her answers to the given questions to her partner, a boy. After this performance of

individual accountability in pairs, the boy helped her to translate the meaning of the word

employees into Indonesian because as was reflected in her answers, the girl thought that

the word meant people who hired other people. The boy also helped her to put together

this new understanding in her answers. She then presented all of her answers to the whole

class (Field Notes, 20150331).

Vocabulary help in the Pair phase was also observed in the use of Think-Pair-

Share in the third observed lesson in the middle school. Two girls worked together,

showing each other the notice they had. One of them presented her answers in English

but some Indonesian words were also heard. Her notice said, “No smoking.” After her

performance, she asked her partner in Indonesian language: “What is SPBU (Stasiun

Pengisian Bahan Bakar) in English? Her partner replied in English, “Gas station.” With

this newly acquired word, the girl restated her answers to her partner (Field Notes,

20150404). For the two girls in the above descriptions, their partners were learning tools

because they received vocabulary help from them through the initial performance of

individual accountability. The help contributed to their next performance of individual

accountability. Budi recalled how he and his classmates gave each other vocabulary help

in their CL group:

164

Jadi, misalnya, kita pas dapet teman sekelompoknya itu unggul di bahasa Inggris,

jadi saat kita ada kosakata yang kita kurang paham atau mungkin ada kosakata

baru, atau kita kesulitan dalam bahasa Inggris, teman itu bisa membantu kita

supaya lebih mengerti lagi.

So, like, if we get group members who are good at English, so when we have

words that we do not really understand or new words, or we have difficulty in

English, peers can help us to understand more. (First Interview, 20150404)

Budi highlighted that the vocabulary help he received was from a more capable peer

(“…group members who are good at English”). Further, he explained that he also helped

his peers whenever they encountered new English words they did not know the

Indonesian meaning of. In his opinion, this process of helping each other was what made

completing a task through CL “lighter” than doing it on his own. He said:

Kalau teman ada kesulitan, aku juga membantu mencarikan yang punya teman.

Jadi, kemudian kita jadi tau misalnya kosakata-kosakata mana yang baru atau

kosakata mana yang teman belum paham. Dan kita juga, tugas kita, bakalan lebih

menjadi ringan, menjadi lebih ringan kalau dikerjakan dalam berkelompok

daripada individu.

If my peers have a difficulty, I also help them out. So, we will know for example

which words are new vocabularies or words that my peers did not know. And, we

also, our work will be lighter, will be lighter when done in groups than doing it on

our own. (First Interview, 20150404)

As with Budi, Midya stated that not only did she get feedback from her peers on

vocabulary but also she gave the same help to her partner. She said:

Dia membantu mencarikan kata yang tepat untuk diucapkan tadi.

She helped find suitable words for my presentation. (First Interview, 20150404)

165

From her partner in Think-Pair-Share, Midya received “suitable words” for her

answers. She then explained how her partner’s background knowledge helped the

feedback giving process:

Teman saya sudah pernah melihat ‘notice’ yang saya dapat, dia mengajari kata-

kata untuk ‘notice’ yang saya dapat.

My peer has once seen the notice that I got, she taught me words for presenting

the notice that I got. (Second Interview, 20150408)

Midya’s notice was not new for her partner, and Midya received vocabulary help

from her partner as a result. In return, she also helped her partner:

Jadi, itu ada kata yang susah dia tanya artinya, jadi aku jawab. Habis itu dia

juga minta dibenerin kata-katanya yang salah dari jawabannya yang tiga tadi.

So, there was a difficult word, she asked me the meaning, so I answered. And

then she also asked me to revise the incorrect words she used to answer the three

questions. (First Interview, 20150404)

Midya’s partner also asked for vocabulary help, which was on two levels: 1) asking about

the meaning of an English word used in the notice in Indonesian, and 2) revising the use

of incorrect words used in her answers. Midya’s recounts showed that she and her partner

helped each other on vocabulary for their answers (“helped find suitable words,” “taught

me words,” “asked me the meaning,”). Hence, after their initial performance of individual

accountability, these students were engaged in a conversation in which they were asking,

helping, and teaching each other vocabulary in preparation for the next performance, i.e.

individual accountability to the whole class. It is clear that for the two focal students,

their CL peers were learning tools and vice versa.

166

In the case of the high school classroom, the vocabulary help was less evident

because in the use of Jigsaw and Numbered Heads Together, individual accountability in

home groups that was supposed to take place prior to a higher level of individual

accountability did not happen. Consequently, peer interaction, which usually took place

following a lower level of individual accountability performance, also did not take place.

In the use of One Stray in the first and second observed lesson, peer interaction happened

after the student participants presented their list of news-related vocabulary (first lesson)

and the assigned aspect of news item (second lesson) to other groups’ members.

However, the student participants’ use of Indonesian and/or Javanese in their interaction

and their reluctance to use English, especially when I was near them, to some extent

hampered my observation of what was going on in their interaction (Field Notes,

20150318, 20150401). Natya, however, recalled how she and her peers helped each other

on vocabulary during their CL interaction in One Stray in the first lesson. She said

Kayak, misalnya kosakata gitu, kalau mereka tanya, ini misalnya, artinya apa.

Meja bahasa Inggrisnya apa? Trus, kadang-kadang saya juga yang balik nanya,

ini artinya apa, ini artinya apa, gitu.

Like, for example vocabulary, when they ask, this for example [referring to table],

what’s the meaning? What’s “meja” [Indonesian: table] in English? And then,

sometimes I ask them back: what’s the meaning of this, what’s the meaning of

that, something like that. (Second Interview, 20150529)

Natya confirmed that she and her peers asked each other questions on the meanings of the

Indonesian words they wanted to say in English (“…when they ask, this for example,

what’s the meaning” “…sometimes I ask them back”). Joko recalled how vocabulary

167

help was available when he and his peers learned through One Stray to make a list of

news-related words:

Untuk menyempurnakan materi yang terkumpul dari masing-masing anggota,

semuanya dapat saling membantu dalam mengoreksi dan memberi pembetulan

serta tambahan kosakata pada materi yang telah terkumpul dari semua anggota.

For perfecting the materials gathered from each group member, everyone can help

in correcting and refining and adding the vocabulary to the materials gathered

from all members. (Follow-up Interview, 20150905)

Joko said that after his group members were back from visiting the other groups, they

helped each other in improving their word list such as by adding more vocabulary to the

list (“everyone can help in correcting and refining and adding the vocabulary”). As the

next activity was for one representative from each group to write the words on the board

(individual accountability to the whole class), the students’ refining their word list in their

home groups was an activity in which they utilized each other as learning tools in

preparation for this highest level of individual accountability.

The two teacher participants also observed that their students helped each other on

vocabulary during their CL interaction. Andini gave an example:

Kemarin ada kata baru’ surveillance’. Itu ketika itu, mereka kan, “Apa ini

artinya? Paling tidak mereka berdiskusi dengan temannya, daripada kerja

sendiri, buka kamus. Mungkin lebih, lebih keinget.” Oh, kemarin dia ngomong ‘

surveillance,’ artinya ini.” Lebih mengena juga kalau mereka bekerjasama.

Yesterday there was a new word, surveillance. That’s when, they were like,

“What’s the meaning of this word?” At least they discussed it with their peers,

rather than figuring out the meaning on their own, looking up their dictionary.

Maybe it is more, it is easier to remember. “Oh, yesterday he/she said the word

surveillance, the meaning is this.” It is more meaningful when they were

cooperating. (Second Interview, 20150408)

168

Andini underlined that when her students were talking about a new word they

encountered and trying to figure out its meaning together, they would remember the word

better than when they were looking up the meaning in their dictionary. She stressed that

vocabulary was a language component that her students learned mostly during their CL

interaction (Follow-up Interview, 20150526). Putri affirmed what Andini said:

Untuk cari kata-kata baru,‘vocabulary’ yang baru, itu biasanya anak, dari teman.

For new words, new vocabulary, usually students, from their peers. (Follow-up


Putri stated that when her students found new words, usually they would ask the

members of their CL group to help them (“…usually students, from their peers.”). Hence,

the two teacher participants shared a similar view in that during CL interaction their

students received vocabulary help from their peers and gave them the same help in return.

They indicated that when the students were interacting with their CL peers, they would

use each other as learning tools rather than using the other tools available in their learning

environment, such as dictionaries. This, according to the two teachers, was evident

whenever their students encountered new English words. The two teacher participants

also perceived that vocabulary was a language component their students mostly learned

in their CL interaction compared to the other language components, such as grammar

(Follow-up Interviews, 20150526, 20150604).

All in all, during their interaction following a lower level individual

accountability performance, the student participants used each other as learning tools.

Specifically, they gave each other help on vocabulary that prepared them for a higher

level of individual accountability. Such help might not be available if the students work

169

in a conventional group or in a learning setting where they work on their own. From a

CHAT lens, this particular role of individual accountability in CL was possible because

of the presence of the other components in the activity systems. One component that was

close to the subjects and the tools was the rules. Among the rules in the activity systems

that allowed the subjects to get the vocabulary help were the procedures of the CL

structures used in the classrooms. Peer interaction structured by the procedures, which

was usually set to take place prior to a higher level of individual accountability, was an

arena in which the vocabulary help was made available. During the initial performance of

individual accountability, the student participants brought their realization of their need to

prepare for the next level of individual accountability performance, such as preparing for

the words to say. When teachers follow the procedures of any selected CL structures

(rules component), it is likely that their students will use each other as learning tools,

including giving each other help on vocabulary.

In the case of the high school classroom, vocabulary help was still available

despite the absence of peer interaction in the use of Jigsaw and Numbered Heads

Together and the use of Indonesian and/or Javanese during peer interaction in the

teacher’s use of One Stray. Rules and community components may have contributed to

the availability of this vocabulary help. Presentations (individual accountability

performance) were required in CL and were carried out in English (rules) and the

students shared an understanding of these requirements (community). Thus, they

provided help to each other, including on vocabulary.

170

Role # 6: Have Access to Pronunciation from Peers’ Performances

The sixth role identified was that, because of their peers’ individual accountability

performances, the EFL learners had access to pronunciation from their peers’

performances. This role was identified by looking back at the connection between the

subjects and the community in the activity systems (recall Figure 6.5 from role # 4). The

community comprises multiple individuals and/or subgroups that share the same general

object (Engeström, 1993) and the subjects-community relation was an integral part of the

activity system (Engeström, 1999). The EFL classrooms as communities comprised the

EFL learners and their teachers. Budi recalled how this role was possible:

Saat ada teman yang tampil, kemudian pengucapannya itu kayak misalnya kayak

kurang tepat, jadi kan kita bisa mengoreksi teman, kemudian kita juga bisa

belajar untuk lain kali tidak mengulang kesalahan yang sudah dilakukan oleh

teman. Dan nanti kalau teman sudah duduk, biasanya kita memberi saran atau

masukan tentang kesalahan pengucapannya, yang betul itu kayak gimana, seperti

itu. Biasanya lebih di pengucapannya.

When my peers were performing, and then their pronunciation was like, for

example, it was inaccurate, so we can correct it, then we learn not to do the same

mistake in the future. And when they were back from their performance, usually

we would give suggestions or feedback on their inaccurate pronunciation, such as

how to say it correctly, like that. So, it was more about pronunciation. (First


Budi explained that he learned from his peers’ inaccurate pronunciation during their

individual accountability performance (“…it was inaccurate, so we can correct it, and

then we learn not to do the same mistake in the future”). After his peers finished their

performance and returned to their seats, Budi would give them feedback (“And when

they were back from their performance, usually we would give suggestions or feedback

on their inaccurate pronunciation, such as how to say it correctly”). Meanwhile, Midya

171

said that she learned about pronunciation from her peers’ individual accountability

performance especially from those who had better speaking skills. She recalled how she

learned about pronunciation when she was learning through Think-Pair-Share, saying:

Teman yang ‘speaking’-nya lebih bagus membantu, mengajari ‘pronunciation’

dan kosakata. Tidak hanya teman satu pasangan, tapi teman yang lebih jago

bahasa Inggrisnya.

My peer whose speaking was better helped, including teaching me the

pronunciation and vocabulary. Not only my partner, but also my other peers

whose English was better. (Second Interview, 20150408)

When she was learning through Think-Pair-Share, Midya benefited from her partner

whose English speaking was better than hers. Her partner taught her to pronounce the

words in her presentation. Embedded in Midya’s account was that she learned about

pronunciation from her peers’ individual accountability performance (the Share phase),

especially from those with better pronunciation than hers. The two accounts above

showed that the two focal students viewed that their peers’ individual accountability

performance in CL were sources of pronunciation learning. In other words, because of

individual accountability in CL, the middle school’s EFL classroom community, which

consisted of students with varying levels of English proficiency, was a source of

pronunciation learning for everyone in the community.

As observed in the first and third lesson, being the member of the classroom

community who set speaking as the focused language skill, Andini facilitated her

students’ learning about pronunciation from their peers’ individual accountability

performances. In these two lessons, the student participants learned about notices through

Think-Pair-Share and carried out two individual accountability performance: in their pair

172

(the Pair phase) and to the whole class (the Share phase) in which they presented the

assigned notice. In the first lesson, as soon as a student finished his/her performance of

individual accountability to the whole class, Andini wrote the mispronounced words on

the white board. Some of the words she wrote on that day’s lesson were: disturb,

interrupt, and clogged. After all of her students performed their individual accountability

to the whole class, Andini led a whole-class pronunciation drill of the words listed on the

white board (Field Notes, 20150331). She utilized the availability of English

pronunciation from the community members’ individual accountability performances to

promote pronunciation learning in a lesson that focused on speaking skills.

In the third lesson, Andini also gave her students pronunciation feedback after

their individual accountability performance. Two instances of pronunciation feedback

were noted. Instead of saying /ˈnoʊ·t̬ɪs/ for the word notice, a boy said /ˈnoʊ·t̬ɑɪs/ for the

same word in his sentence: “Hi friend, I have a notice [showing the notice that said:

“Return the books when you finish reading them”].” Another boy whose notice said,

“Keep clean,” pronounced the word “find” as /fɪnd/ instead of /fɑɪnd/ when he said the

following sentence: “We can find this notice in…” Andini corrected the mispronounced

words by saying the words out loud, with the help of an electronic dictionary installed in

her laptop, and by asking her students to repeat after her or the dictionary voice (Field

Notes, 20150404).

Andini outlined how pronunciation learning took place when her students were

paying attention to their peers’ individual accountability performance:

173

Karena mereka berusaha sendiri memahami, jadi kebanyakan mereka mengikuti

apa yg dipahami temannya pada tahap sebelumnya. Pada saat ‘communicating’

biasanya saya baru membetulkan.

Since they tried to understand by themselves, so most of them followed what their

peers understood in the previous level. In the communicating phase, I usually

gave them my feedback. (Follow-up Interview, 20150526)

Andini explained that when her students were following their peers’ presentation, they

also paid attention to their peers’ pronunciation and to some extent regarded it as always

correct (“…so most of them followed what their peers understood in the previous level’).

This is why she suggested that it was necessary for her to give feedback on the individual

accountability performers’ missed pronounced words after they were done with their

presentation so the class members would not repeat the same mistakes in the future (”In

the communicating phase, I usually gave them my feedback”) (Follow-up Interview,

20150526). Hence, for the middle school student participants, because of individual

accountability in CL, they had access to their peers’ pronunciation. Their teacher used the

opportunity for the EFL classroom community to practice their English pronunciation.

In the case of the high school students, they had access to pronunciation when

students from the other groups were performing their individual accountability:

presenting the list of news item-related words (in One Stray) and the assigned aspect of

news item (in Jigsaw and One Stray). Putri moved around the classroom when her

students were performing their individual accountability to their neighbors. However,

unlike Andini, Putri did not give pronunciation feedback after her students were done

with their presentations (Field Notes, 20150318, 20150401).

174

The two focal students confirmed that they had access to pronunciation from their

peers’ individual accountability performances in CL. Joko said that he would especially

pay attention when in their performances his peers used words he had never heard before:

Beberapa dari mereka bisa mengucapkan kata yang belum pernah saya dengar

dan saya dapat mempelajari kata baru dan cara pengucapanya dari mereka.

Setelah itu, saya bisa bertanya kepada bu Putri untuk memastikan kebenaran

tulisan dan pelafalan kata baru yang saya pelajari dari mereka.

Some of my peers could pronounce the words I had never heard before, so from

them I could learn new words and how to pronounce them. Afterwards, I could

ask Mrs. Putri to make sure the accuracy of the spelling and the pronunciation that

I had just learned from my peers. (Second Interview, 20150616)

Joko explained that he would check with his teacher, Putri, for the accuracy of the

spelling and pronunciation of the words he just learned from his peers’ individual

accountability performance. Recalling the use of One Stray in her class, Natya indicated

that the levels of individual accountability performance in CL enabled her to learn about

pronunciation from her peers:

Saya belajar meskipun agak sedikit bingung dengan apa yang di sampaikan

teman-teman karena pelafalan yang kurang jelas dan waktu yang sangat singkat.

Pada saat mereka menjelaskan kembali dengan orang yang berbeda dan

pelafalan yang jelas baru saya paham apa yang di sampaikan pada kelompok

tersebut.

I learned, although I was a little bit confused with what they presented because of

their unclear pronunciation and the very limited time. When they were explaining

it [the learning materials] again to different students with clearer pronunciation,

then I understood what was being presented to that particular group. (Second


In the above narration, Natya revealed that from her peers’ individual accountability

performance in the other groups, she had learned how they pronounced the words used in

their presentation. If she had not understood what her peers were presenting in her own

175

group, she could see how they did it again in the other groups (“When they were

explaining it again to different students with clearer pronunciation then I understood what

was being presented to that particular group”). She also suggested that her peers’

pronunciation became clearer as they were presenting from one group to the other groups.

Putri echoed her students’ responses when she said that they learned about

pronunciation from their peers’ individual accountability performances and that they

could ask for her help if they had difficulties. She said:

Mereka bisa belajar dari teman-temannya dan kalau menemui kesulitan mereka

bisa bertanya kepada saya.

They can learn from their peers and if they find difficulties they can ask me.

(Follow-up Interview, 20150604)

The two teacher participants were different with regard to how they facilitated their

students’ learning from their peers’ pronunciation. Andini led a review of the

mispronounced words after her students’ individual accountability performance to the

whole class, while Putri let her students ask her when they were unsure with how to

pronounce the words just learned from their peers. Yet, both of them were aware of how

spoken performances of individual accountability were sources of pronunciation learning

for the classroom community and felt the need to facilitate this learning.

In short, individual accountability in CL in the secondary school classrooms

provided access for the student participants to their peers’ pronunciation and was a

medium for their pronunciation learning. It was possible due to a number of factors

related to the EFL classrooms as a community, including peers with varying levels of

spoken English proficiency, the required public individual students’ presentation

176

including especially in spoken mode, the levels of individual accountability performances

in the CL structures (e.g. individual accountability in other groups—the performance was

done multiple times), and the teachers as the facilitator of this pronunciation learning.

From CHAT’s perspective, this particular finding, which was identified by

looking at the connection between the subjects and their community, also showed that

these two components were in a close relation with the other components in the activity

systems, such as the tools, the rules, and the division of labor. The teachers were also the

tools in the students’ pronunciation learning from their peers’ individual accountability

performances in CL. The preset procedure of the selected CL structures helped make

individual accountability performances available for the student participants to learn

about pronunciation. The division of labor in the groups, which was stemmed from the

preset procedure of CL, helped make the student participants’ pronunciation learning of

various kinds of task-related words possible.

Role #7: Gain Confidence to Speak in English

The seventh role was that, through their individual accountability performances in

CL, the EFL learners gained confidence to speak in English. This role was identified with

the help of, once again, the relation between the subjects and their community (recall

Figure 6.5). As discussed in role #4 and role #6, the EFL classrooms as communities

comprised the EFL learners and their teachers and they had a mutual understanding that

English was required for presentations or performances. This last identified role was

meaningful to the EFL learners because, as indicated in Chapter 5, for the focal students

177

(except the male eighth grader, Budi), speaking was the language skill they needed to

work on most. The teacher participants said

Saya fokusnya ke ‘speaking’ karena mereka agak-agak malu berbicara salah,

mereka takut untuk bicara salah. Makanya, saya cenderung ke ‘speaking’-nya.

I focus on speaking because they are a little bit shy of making mistake, afraid of

making mistake. That’s why I am more into speaking. (Andini, First Interview,

20150406)

Of the four language skills mandated by the 2013 curriculum to be taught in middle

schools, Andini focused more on speaking because she observed that her students were

shy and afraid of making mistakes when speaking in English. Putri found a similar

problem in her tenth graders:

Anak cenderung kurang percaya diri untuk berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris.

The students tended to have a little confidence in speaking in English. (Putri,

Follow-up Interview, 20150604)

The teacher participants’ accounts indicated that their students had low

confidence in speaking in English. During the first day of my participant observations, I

mainly sat on my chair and wrote my field notes. Although I had been introduced to the

class by the teachers, being a new class participant I felt that it was not a good idea to

proactively approach the CL groups during the lesson. I noticed that the student

participants were conversing with their CL peers in three languages – Indonesian,

Javanese, and English – with the last language being the least used. For my participant

observation in the next lessons, I set an agenda to approach some groups and pay

attention to the conversation that the students were engaged in during their CL

interaction. I found out that what the teachers said about their students’ English speaking

178

was correct. The students were talking about the given task when I approached them.

Some task-related English words were heard. As soon as I got close to them, however,

they spoke less than when I was observing from a distance.

I shared my observation with Putri that her students might be not confident using

English when I, someone new for them and who also teaches English at a university, was

around. She confirmed about her students’ confidence in using English but stressed that it

was not because I was new for them. As their teacher, she often found that the students

stopped their speaking in English whenever she was coming closer to them. She added,

“Padahal nanti kalau dilihat dari jauh, ngomong lagi” (“But then when observed from a

distance, they speak again”) (Follow-up Interview, 2015042015). Similarly, Andini said

that her students, especially those from 8 H, were shy to speak in English, including with

their peers (First Interview, 20150406). In short, the student participants across sites were

not confident in speaking in English, and speaking was the language skill that their

teacher focused on in their EFL instruction. The teacher participants argued that their

students’ low confidence in using spoken English was due to the fact that the language

was a foreign language in Indonesia. Putri said

Kan buat mereka bukan bahasa sehari-hari. Jadi, untuk ngomongnya aja agak

maju mundur, takutnya kalau salah.

You know for them English is not their daily language. So, the students find

speaking not easy, they are afraid of making mistakes. (First interview, 20150404)

Putri underlined that her students’ source of difficulty in speaking in English was because

they did not use the language in their daily life. Andini shared the same view with Putri.

She described that generally it was difficult to get her middle school students use English

179

throughout their lessons, including in her ninth grade classrooms. They kept asking for

permission to use Indonesian when they did not know how to say what they wanted to

say. She recalled

Pernah di kelas sembilan itu saya coba, bahasa Inggris, pelajaran Bahasa

Inggris itu harus ‘the whole language classroom’-nya itu bahasa Inggris. Trus, ya

itu: “Miss, ini ngomongnya, apa?” Kadang mereka harus, harus nas, istilahnya

nas, gitu. Kalau mereka sampai ngomong bahasa Indonesia kan dapat, dapat

‘fine’, dapat denda, gitu kan? Akhirnya memang agak-agak repot, walau mereka

di kelas sembilan.

I once tried in my ninth grade classroom, English lesson, in the English lesson the

whole language classroom [using English as the only language of instruction] is

English. And then, what happened was like: “Miss, how to say this?” Sometimes

they had to take nas [Javanese: break], that’s how we call it, nas. If they spoke in

Indonesian, they would, get a fine, get a fine, right? At the end it was not easy,

even though it was in ninth grade classroom. (Second Interview, 20150408)

The teacher participants’ accounts above suggested that regardless of their grade level,

the secondary school students found speaking in English difficult and this was due to the

status of English as a foreign language in the country. In other words, for the student

participants in this study, speaking in English was not required and not needed in their

daily life, and this made them face difficulties when asked to use it in their EFL

classroom.

Midya (the female eighth grader) explained why she was not confident in

speaking in the language she was learning:

Kadang tuh, apa, kadang yang saya tangkap tuh salah gitu. Jadi harusnya gini,

kok malah gini, lain gitu.

Sometimes, what is it, sometimes what I caught was wrong. So it [a word]

actually should be this way, but it turned out to be this way, it was different, you

know. (Midya, First Interview, 20150404)

180

Midya recalled that sometimes what she believed as the correct way of pronouncing an

English word (“So it [a word] should be this way…”) turned out to be not incorrect

(“…but turned out to be this way, it was different, you know.”), and for her this was why

speaking in the language was not easy. Likewise, Joko said that it was the pronunciation

that made him not confident in speaking in English:

Kalau saya takutnya itu, kadang bahasa Inggris kan ada yang pengucapannya

agak susah. Jadi, yang paling menantang itu.

For me what makes me afraid is that, you know sometimes in English there are

words that are quite hard to pronounce. So, that is the most challenging part. (First


The other tenth grader, Natya, attributed her difficulty in speaking English to her feeling

afraid of making mistakes, which echoed what her teacher said. Natya said:

“Di pikiran sudah ada tapi mau mengucapkan itu susah gitu loh. Takut salah.”

I have what to say in my mind but it is hard to say it. I am afraid of making

mistake. (First Interview, 20150408)

Although the student participants faced difficulties in using spoken English including

having difficulty in pronouncing the words, when it was time for them to perform their

individual accountability in CL, they would just do it. There were not any students in all

of the observed classrooms who objected to carrying out their individual accountability

performance in English. This was an indication that since performances that display

individual accountability were required in CL, the student participants would perform

them.

Budi (the male eighth grader) stated that CL helped develop his confidence in

speaking in English in front of his classmates. He explained further how individual

181

accountability in CL did it while recalling the use of Think-Pair-Share in his classroom

for learning about notices:

Bagi orang yang rasa percaya dirinya kurang, kan jadi mereka, istilahnya yang

awalnya takut untuk berani tampil, tetapi karena emang itu tugas jadi mereka

harus tampil di depan dan bagaimana caranya dia menyampaikan tentang

‘notice’ itu sendiri dengan baik kepada teman-teman.

For those who had a little confidence, so they, let’s say those who at first were

afraid to perform, but since it was their responsibility so they had to perform in

front of the class and in any case he/she presents the notice well to their peers.

(Second Interview, 20150530)

Budi stressed that it was the responsibility given to individual students to present what

they learned that made the students carry out the performances. He also talked about how

students’ presentation was mandated by the 2013 curriculum:

Kurikulumnya itu juga menuntut siswa harus bisa berbagi berbagi informasi yang

sudah didapatkan. Bukan hanya dalam pelajaran bahasa Inggris, pelajaran yang

lain biasanya juga menuntut siswa untuk tampil. Jadi, siswa lama kelamaan akan

terbiasa, dengan tampil di depan teman-teman.

The curriculum also demands that the students are able to share the information

that they got. It is not only for the English subject, the other subjects also demand

students to perform. So, gradually the students will get used to, perform in front

of their peers. (First Interview, 20150404)

Budi highlighted that since presenting the understanding of the learning materials was

required by the implemented curriculum, he viewed that he and his peers got used to

doing so in front of their peers. As with Budi, Midya perceived that individual

accountability in CL helped build her confidence in using spoken English. Recalling the

use of Think-Pair-Share in her class, Midya explained the levels of individual

accountability in CL were the factors:

182

Karena udah dapet ‘feel’ buat presentasi, merasakan rasanya presentasi itu

gimana.

It is because I already got the feel of doing the presentation, how it felt to present.


Midya suggested that since she did the presentation in front of her partner first in the Pair

phase, she “got the feel,” and it helped her in the presentation in front of the whole class

for the Share phase.

The two focal students from the high school echoed the two focal students from

the middle school when they said that the presentations carried out when learning in CL

helped “train our courage” and “developing our confidence” in speaking in English. They

said

Saat kita tampil di depan, bisa melatih keberanian.

When we were performing in front of the others, we trained our courage.

(Joko, First Interview, 20150428)

Joko perceived that it was when he was performing individual accountability in

CL that he practiced dealing with the difficulty that he had (i.e. pronunciation), and it

built his courage to speak in English. For Natya, individual accountability in CL

increased her confidence in speaking in English. She indicated that first of all she had to

have the courage to come in front of the class:

Menambah kepercayaan diri. Kalau misalnya kita terus-terusan berada di

belakang, kan kita, apa ya, takutnya itunya kurang. Berani tampil maju ke depan

aja sudah hebat, sudah bagus, apalagi berani ngomong, berani tampil di depan.

It is developing our confidence. If we keep on staying at the back, we are like,

what is it, I am afraid that we do not have it as much. Having the courage to come

in front of the class is great, already good, not to mention speaking, having the

courage to perform in front of the class. (Natya, First Interview, 20150428)

183

Referring to their performances of individual accountability to the whole class, Joko and

Natya suggested that since they were required, they did them and then had the realization

that it helped them gain confidence to speak in English in front of the class. Hence, the

four focal students perceived that their gaining confidence to speak in the target language

was due to the required individual accountability performances in CL and the

requirement for carrying them out in English. These requirements came from the

curriculums, the English lesson, their teachers, the CL structures being used, and their CL

peers (other community members) as they expected everybody to participate and

contribute for the completion of the given learning tasks through performances or

presentations in English.

The teacher participants shared similar views with their students. Andini said:

Kalau langsung harus ‘communicate in front of the class’, itu kadang-kadang

mereka ngga pede dan gelagapan ini mau ngomong apa. Paling tidak kalau

sudah di-‘share’ kan dengan temannya, dia sudah, sudah tau, ”Aku mau

ngomong ini, ngomong ini.” Temennya paham, ngga, ”Aku ngomong gitu paham

ngga?” Mereka kan sudah latihan. Pikir saya seperti itu. Jadi, ketika maju ke

depan, dengan semua mata tertuju padanya, itu mereka tidak terlalu gelagapan

mau ngomong apa. Latihan, sudah latihan di tahap ‘pair’-nya.

If they are asked to directly communicate in front of the class, sometimes they are

not confident and do not know what to say. At least if they have shared to their

partner, he/she has, has known, “I will say this, say this.” Whether their peers

understood, “Do they understand I say this?” They have practiced. I see it that

way. So, when they are in front of the class and all eyes are on them, they do not

feel like they have nothing to say. It is the practice they have practiced in the Pair

phase. (First Interview, 20150406)

Recalling the use of Think-Pair-Share in her two groups of eighth graders, Andini argued

that the individual accountability performance her students did in front of their partner

(the Pair phase) helped build her students’ confidence in speaking in the target language

184

front of the class (“It is the practice.”). She emphasized that the Pair phase was for the

students to practice their presentation and through this practice her students gained their

confidence to perform their individual accountability to the whole class. Putri also

perceived that when her students were presenting the information they had in front of

their classmates, they developed their confidence in speaking in the target language. She

said:

Untuk yang menyampaikan informasi itu, anak bisa berlatih untuk kepercayaan

diri, kemudian cara untuk menyampaikan informasi. Belajar bahasa Inggris

secara produktif. Kemudian untuk yang mendengarkan atau yang diberi

informasi, untuk bertanya itu lebih berani dibanding dengan bertanya dengan

gurunya.

In terms of delivering the information, they practice their confidence, how to

present the information. It is a way to learn English in a productive way. Then for

the audience or those who receive information, they are more courageous to ask

questions to the presenters than to their teacher. (Third Interview, 20150423)

Embedded in her account was that she valued the presentation or the sharing of

information that was integral in CL because it helped build the presenters’ confidence in

using spoken English. Additionally, she observed that the audience (the classroom

community) was more courageous to ask about the materials being presented to their

peers than to her.

In sum, the student participants in both sites had low confidence in speaking in

English. The EFL classrooms as communities had a shared understanding that individual

accountability performances in CL were required (i.e. the nature of CL helps make them

required performances), and that unlike in their daily life, speaking in English was

required in their EFL classrooms. This shared understanding made the student

185

participants not opt out of individual accountability performances, thus they used the

target language in these performances. As Chapter 5 has indicated, individual

accountability performances carried out by the student participants in this study were

mostly in spoken English. Hence, by performing the required individual accountability in

CL the EFL learners gained confidence in speaking in the target language. Seen from a

CHAT lens, as this section has demonstrated, this identified role of individual

accountability in CL was possible also because of the interconnection between the

community in which there were shared understandings or social meanings and the rules

that guided or applied in the community such as the curriculums and the preset procedure

of the selected CL structures.

Summary

The previous sections presented the seven roles of individual accountability in CL

in Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms. The roles were identified by looking at

the relation between the subjects and the other components in the activity systems: the

rules, the division of labor, the object/outcome, the community, and the tools. However,

these findings have shown that since all of the components in the activity systems were

interconnected, more than two, if not all components, were at play in the realization of

each of the roles. For example, that individual accountability in CL in the EFL

classrooms gave more opportunities for the student participants to use the target language

(role #3) did not exclusively result from the interconnection between the subjects and the

objects/outcome. The socio-historical contexts (the social environment) including the

curriculum mandates and the procedures of the CL structures used (rules), the shared

186

understanding among the members of the EFL classrooms (community) of the use of

English to present what had been learned, and how the task was shared among group

members and groups in the classrooms (division of labor) were also influential in the

relation between the subjects and the objects/outcome. The interconnection between these

components and their relation with the subjects resulted in the identification of the

aforementioned role of individual accountability in CL. Because of the

interconnectedness of the components in the implementation of CL in the secondary

school EFL classrooms (the activity systems), all of the identified roles of individual

accountability in CL in the EFL classrooms were also interconnected with regard to how

they enhanced the EFL learning. The next section will look at this interconnection from

the lens of a second language acquisition theory: Interaction Hypothesis.

Understanding the Identified Roles from an Interaction Hypothesis Lens

The purpose of this research was to explore the role or the function of individual

accountability in CL in enhancing EFL learning. This section will look at the seven

identified roles of individual accountability in CL in the secondary school EFL

classrooms using the elements of Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) to understand how

they helped the EFL learners develop their proficiency in English. I grouped the roles

according to their interconnectedness and their relation to the Interaction Hypothesis’s

key elements: comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and interaction. The other

element of Interaction Hypothesis, negotiation for meaning, was embedded in each

section below and discussed further in the last section.

187

Comprehensible Input

I categorized the following two roles of individual accountability in CL in the

secondary school EFL classrooms as demonstrating comprehensible input of Interaction

Hypothesis: 1) receive vocabulary help from peers (role #5), and 2) have access to

pronunciation (role #6). Krashen (1984) states that input essential for language

acquisition is comprehensible input, which contains “I + 1, structures ’slightly beyond’

the acquirer’s current state of competence” (p. 357). The first role, vocabulary help from

peers, exemplifies the input that the student participants received from their peers after

performing their individual accountability. The second role, access to pronunciation,

represents the input that the student participants received from their peers’ individual

accountability performances, be it during a lower level or higher level of individual

accountability performance. I will now discuss each role in turn.

Through the peer interaction that followed a lower level of individual

accountability performance, the student participants in the secondary school classrooms

received vocabulary help from their peers. The vocabulary help resulted from the process

of negotiation for meaning among the student participants with different levels of

language proficiency. For example, one of the focal students stated that when learning

through Think-Pair-Share he received vocabulary help from his peer whose English was

better than his (Budi, First Interview, 20150404). Based on Krashen’s (1984) notion of

comprehensible input, the interaction between low and high proficiency students may

result in the availability of comprehensible input essential for their second language

acquisition.

188

My analysis showed that the student participants had access to pronunciation from

their peers’ individual accountability performances in spoken English. One of the focal

students said that from his peers’ individual accountability performances, he learned new

words and their pronunciation (Joko, Second Interview, 20150616). For him, the words

learned from his peers’ individual accountability performances were meaningful because

they were used in the context of the given task and could contribute to his understanding

of the learning materials. In short, he received comprehensible input from his peers’

individual accountability performance.

The finding on access to pronunciation from peers’ individual accountability

performance supports Kagan’s (1995) proposition that “language acquisition is fostered

by input [from output of others] that is comprehensible” (p. 2). He asserts that even

though peer output, which is input for the other learner, is less accurate than teacher

output that is abundant in a traditional classroom, frequent communicative output

produced by students in their CL group yields speech acquisition more readily than

formal accurate input from the teacher. My analysis also showed that the teacher

participants were aware of the need to facilitate their students’ pronunciation learning.

For example, the middle school teacher participant led pronunciation practice based on

the words her students used in their individual accountability performance, which she

considered new or her students had difficulty pronouncing (Field Notes, 20150331,

20150404).

In short, through the process of individual accountability in CL in their EFL

classrooms, the students received comprehensible input in the form of vocabulary and

189

pronunciation. The process included the interaction with their peers to prepare for a

higher level of individual accountability in CL and the attention to their peers’ individual

accountability performances. These processes contributed to the student participant’ EFL

learning, specifically for the development of their speaking, which was a language skill

the student participants across sites found as the most challenging. They acquired

vocabulary and pronunciation, and the two were among the language components

essential for spoken language production.

Comprehensible Output

Swain (1985) posits that it is the action of producing the language that promotes

second language learning and the proficiency of the language learned; hence, learners

must be given the opportunity to produce the target language. I categorized three roles of

individual accountability in CL in the secondary school EFL classrooms as demonstrating

this element of Interaction Hypothesis: 1) gain learning experience as mandated by the

curriculum (role #1), 2) present the previously thought about, discussed, and learned

information to peers (role #2), and 3) have more opportunities to use the target language

(role #3). The similarity of these roles is that, through individual accountability in CL, the

student participants produced the language to communicate what they learned to their

peers, especially in spoken English. This similarity also shows how individual

accountability in CL accommodated the production of comprehensible output in the EFL

classrooms.

From the perspectives of Interaction Hypothesis, the more the learners have the

opportunities to use the target language, the better their communicative competence will

190

be. While they are producing the target language, the learners may: 1) notice that there

are words or phrases that they do not know how to say to convey accurately the message

they wish to convey, 2) test their hypothesis of how to say their intention, and 3) reflect

on the language used by themselves or their peers (Swain, 1985). These three functions of

output were best reflected in Andini’s account on the use of Think-Pair-Share in her

classes, specifically how her eighth graders’ individual accountability in pairs helped

them prepare for their individual accountability to the whole class (Field Notes,

20150331, 20150404). Andini highlighted that when her students were producing spoken

English before their peers, they noticed that they had difficulty saying what they wanted

to say (“If a student’s partner has not understood what he/she said, he/she will try to

make it clearer…”). In coping with this difficulty, as also demonstrated by the participant

observation data (Field Notes, 20150331, 20150404), Andini recalled that her students

used Indonesian and/or Javanese in their negotiation for meaning with their peers

(“…using a little bit of Indonesian language, and a little bit of Javanese language”). She

went on to explain that through performing their individual accountability in front of their

partner, her students also tested their hypothesis of how to say what they wanted to say

and reflected on the language they produced, such as thinking that if their partner

understood what they presented, the whole class would (“Oh, my partner understood

what I said. I explained him/her the way I did and he/she understood. This is the

provision for performing in front of the whole class”). These processes, along with the

process of gaining comprehensible input and producing comprehensible output through

negotiation for meaning (such as receiving and giving vocabulary help) and paying

191

attention to their peers’ individual accountability performances (such as focusing on their

pronunciation), contributed to the student participants’ production of spoken English.

The vocabulary help that the students received also demonstrated how CL and its

required individual accountability performances promoted the production of task-related

English words needed to complete the given learning tasks. The student participants used

the words (the vocabulary received) to better present what they learned to their peers in

the target language, especially in a context outside their own pair or home group (i.e.,

individual accountability in the other groups and to the whole class). For example, a

middle school student participant received help from her partner in Think-Pair-Share for

the word “employees,” which she initially thought meant “employers” (Field Notes,

20150331). If she did not get this help, she might have shared with her peers what she

learned from the assigned notice with the incorrect vocabulary. This confirms Gass and

Mackey’s (1985) proposition about the benefits of interaction for second language

acquisition. They state that the linguistic feedback that language learners receive during

interaction helps them to produce modified output. With the vocabulary help, the students

could produce utterances in English with no Indonesian word(s) and with vocabulary that

suited the given tasks.

Interaction

Long (1996) argues that interaction between learners promotes negotiation for

meaning essential for their language acquisition and learning. I categorized two roles of

individual accountability in CL in the secondary school EFL classrooms as demonstrating

this element of Interaction Hypothesis: 1) have more opportunities to interact with peers

192

(role #4) and 2) gain confidence to speak in English (role #7). The use of the CL

structures across sites, specifically the required individual accountability performances,

helped the teacher participants create a learning setting in which the individual students

had roles to play, had opportunities to interact with their CL peers, and thus used the

target language, especially spoken English.

In her seminal work on the advantages of CL in second language learning and

bilingual education, McGroarty (1989) stresses that interaction among students who have

specific roles to fulfill in completing a task offers multiple chances to ask questions and

clarify meanings, and she argues that interaction is central to the success of CL and

second language development. My analysis showed that a lower level of individual

accountability performance in CL was usually followed by peer interaction in which the

students gave assistance to each other. Specifically, they helped each other in preparation

for completing the next individual accountability performance. For example, they gave

each other help on English vocabulary, which also suggests that they were giving and

receiving comprehensible input because the words acquired were relevant to the task at

hand. This demonstrates how, through interaction with their peers, language learners gain

access to the language being learned (Foster & Ohta, 2005).

My analysis also found that because of individual accountability in CL, including

its levels of performances and peer interaction that took place between them, the student

participants gained confidence in speaking English. One of the focal students from the

middle school confirmed that her individual accountability in front of her partner during

Think-Pair-Share helped her to gain confidence to perform individual accountability to

193

the whole class (Midya, Second Interview, 20150404). In short, through peer interaction

that usually followed an individual accountability performance, language input and

output were made comprehensible, and this helped promote the student participants’

confidence in speaking in English in front of their peers.

Negotiation for Meaning

Long (1996) posits that negotiation for meaning is “negotiation work that triggers

interactional adjustments by the NS [native speakers] or more competent interlocutor”

(pp. 451-452). His notion of negotiation of meaning was generated from research that

looked at the conversations between native speakers and non-native speakers in first

language and second language learning environments. He posits that the processes of

negotiation for meaning or the interactional adjustments include repetitions, extensions,

reformulations, rephrasing, expansions, and recasts. My study was carried out in an EFL

learning environment, and there were no native speakers in the classrooms. However, the

notion of negotiation for meaning could help explain the phenomenon under study

because the student participants, like in most EFL classrooms in formal education

settings (schools), were not homogeneous in terms of their language proficiency. CL

accommodated the interactions between students having high and low proficiency. After

all, Foster and Ohta (2005) stress that, “it is not straightforward business to identify

negotiation for meaning moves” (p. 425). Even though my study did not specifically look

at the availability of the aforementioned speech of various kinds during negotiation for

meaning, the student participants’ use of Indonesian and/or Javanese during their peer

interaction might have contained some of the interactional adjustments, which were used

194

to clarify meanings and later to better produce the target language, such as utterances

with no Indonesian and with vocabulary that suit the assigned task.

In sum, through the process of individual accountability in CL, the EFL learners

in the secondary classrooms experienced learning in which the four elements essential for

their EFL acquisition and learning were available: comprehensible input, comprehensible

output, interaction, and negotiation for meaning. Through peer interaction, which usually

happened after an initial individual accountability performance, the students received

responses from their peers and negotiated for meaning (including giving and receiving

vocabulary help) that helped them to reflect on and ultimately modify their spoken

language production. By paying attention to their peers’ performance of individual

accountability, the students in this study also had access to pronunciation. The vocabulary

help and pronunciation model exemplified the availability of comprehensible input,

which could contribute to the students’ comprehensible output in their next individual

accountability performance. See Appendix L for a figure that depicts the availability of

comprehensible input, interaction, comprehensible output, and negotiation for meaning in

the processes of individual accountability in CL in the secondary school EFL classrooms.

Conclusion

This chapter has presented the seven roles of individual accountability in CL in

Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms. For the student participants, through

individual accountability in CL, they communicated or elaborated what they learned to

their peers, and this learning activity was mandated by the curriculum implemented in

their school (role #1). The preset procedure of CL structures used in the classrooms

195

helped the teacher participants in terms of division of labor so that each student through

their individual accountability presented the previously thought about, discussed, and

learned information to their peers (role #2). In other words, individual accountability in

CL was a medium to enact the learning experience mandated by the curriculums. The

processes of individual accountability in CL, including the levels of performances and the

peer interaction in between them, gave the student participants more opportunities to use

the target language (role #3). The peer interaction that usually took place after a lower

level of individual accountability helped the student participants to prepare for the next

level of individual accountability because they helped each other, shared the information

they had with their peers, reflected on the ability in the target language, and realized that

they could participate in their peers’ learning (role #4). The help that the student

participants received when they were interacting with each other was on vocabulary,

which was helpful to produce the target language with no Indonesian words and with

vocabulary that suit the assigned task in their next individual accountability performance

(role #5). Through individual accountability in CL, the student participants had access to

their peers’ pronunciation especially of the words used in the context of the given tasks

(role #6). Lastly, through the levels of individual accountability demonstrated in their

group performances and the peer interaction in between them, the student participants

gained confidence in using spoken English (role #7).

With regard to communicative competence, as the goal of all language learning

including the EFL learning in this study, the interconnected roles of individual

accountability in CL functioned to help the students learn the target language by using it

196

to communicate with their peers. This contributed to the students’ development of

speaking proficiency. For the student participants across sites, speaking was the most

challenging compared to the other language skills: listening, reading, and writing. The

student participants developed their English speaking proficiency through using the

language in their performances and using it to interact with their peers. These two

activities, performing in front of CL peers and interacting with them, were the

manifestation of the underlying concepts of individual accountability in CL; that is, the

students are held accountable for their own learning (such as mastering the assigned

learning materials or their share of work) and for the learning of their peers (such as

presenting or sharing the information they had to their peers and giving them vocabulary

help). More importantly, through these activities, comprehensible input, comprehensible

output, interaction, and negotiation for meaning essential for second language acquisition

and learning were made available for the EFL learners in this study.

197

Chapter 7: The Tensions in the Enactment of Individual Accountability in CL

in the EFL Classrooms

This study focused on two activity systems: the implementation of CL in

Indonesian middle school EFL classrooms and the implementation of CL in an

Indonesian high school EFL classroom. In these activity systems, the EFL students

performed their individual accountability. Chapter 6 demonstrated how different

components of the activity systems and their relationships shaped the enactment of

individual accountability in the CL implementation and the roles that it played in the EFL

learning. The present study showed that individual accountability in CL helped enhance

the EFL learning because the learners, through their performance of individual

accountability, learned the target language by using it to communicate with their peers.

The process of individual accountability in CL made the elements essential for second

language acquisition and learning available: comprehensible input, interaction,

negotiation for meaning, and comprehensible output.

As Chapter 4 indicated, the principles of constructivist grounded theory

(Charmaz, 2014) such as the use of sensitizing concepts, engagement in data coding, and

analytic memo writing, led me to recognize themes presented in this chapter. The themes

emerged from the data that I, as the researcher, did not anticipate from the outset of the

study but they suggest factors that hampered the enactment of individual accountability in

CL in the studied EFL classrooms. These factors may have prevented the learners from

attaining the object of their EFL learning. Knowing these factors, however, helps us

198

understand how individual accountability in CL can play its roles more effectively in

future CL implementation in the two sites or in similar contexts.

Seen from a CHAT perspective, the themes presented in this chapter were the

reflections or the manifestations of tensions in the relationships among the components of

the activity systems. Activity systems are not stable and harmonious systems; there are

inner contradictions caused by tensions among the components of the systems (Cole &

Engeström, 1993; Engeström, 1993). Yamagata-Lynch (2003) states that tensions in an

activity system may result from the conditions that one component creates for the other

components, which may cause the subjects to face contradictory situations that hamper

the attainment of the object (p. 103). Qualitative methodology employed in this study

allowed me to look at each component in the activity systems through participant

observations, in-depth interviewing, and documents analysis, in an in-depth manner.

These data collection strategies and the constructivist grounded theory employed as my

analytic framework helped me see the tensions within and between the components of the

activity systems. My analysis showed that there were conditions in the rules component

that created tensions in the relationships between this component and the other

components and in the relationships among the other components in the activity systems.

I start with the discussion on the conditions in the rules component. The next section

focuses on the steps missed in the use of some selected CL structures in the secondary

school EFL classrooms—individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction—

which were the reflections and manifestations of the conditions in the rules component

that caused the systemic tensions in the activity systems. I then discuss these systemic

199

tensions that put the EFL learners in situations that may have hampered the attainment of

the lesson objectives.

Conditions in the Rules Component

As indicated in Chapters 5 and 6, the teachers played a variety of roles in their CL

implementation, which also demonstrated the interconnectedness of the components of

the activity systems. First, the teachers were among the learning tools that the student

participants used in the process of their individual accountability in CL. For example, in

the case of the middle school, the teacher led a whole class pronunciation practice for the

new or difficult words used in her students’ performances of individual accountability to

the whole class—the teacher as a tool. Second, the teachers were the executors of the

curriculum implemented in their schools, the CL implementers, and the designers of the

enactment of individual accountability in CL. They chose CL structures they considered

suitable for the lessons and to some degree followed the preset procedure of the

structures, which guided the division of labor in the CL groups they formed and in the

class as a community. The division of labor allowed individual accountability in CL to

take place and play its roles in the students’ EFL learning—the teacher as the

implementers of the rules and the managers of the division of labor. Third, the teachers

were also members of the classroom community in which they shared the same learning

objectives and outcome. They implemented CL as part of their teaching methods to

achieve the lesson objectives—the teachers as part of the classroom community. The

relationships between the components that shaped the aforementioned multiple roles of

the teachers in the CL implementation, including the enactment of individual

200

accountability, suggest how a condition in one component can create tension in the

relationship between this component and another component or among other components

in the activity systems.

The two secondary school teachers were recruited to be the teacher participants in

this study because they had experiences in implementing CL in EFL classrooms. As

discussed in Chapter 5, they had implemented this teaching method for three to four

years, and their CL repertoire included Kagan’s structures that were developed based on

the principles of CL including individual accountability. In other words, the two teacher

participants’ previous experience with CL was one of the criteria for their recruitment,

which I expected would allow me to see how the teaching method was implemented as

well as how individual accountability was enacted in their EFL classrooms. The teacher

participants’ experiences with CL were expected to be a favorable condition in the CL

implementation in their EFL classrooms (the activity systems). However, my data

analysis showed me that there was one factor coming from the teacher participants that

affected the enactment of individual accountability in CL in their classrooms, especially

with regard to how they followed the procedures of the chosen CL structures: their

understanding of CL. This was the condition in the rules component.

The teacher participants’ understanding of CL was reflected in their accounts of

why they implemented CL. Andini recalled:

Saya menggunakan CL agar pembelajaran menyenangkan tapi tetep ‘learning

objective’ itu nyampai. Menurut saya gitu. Jadi, tidak hanya duduk, kemudian

mengerjakan grammar. Soalnya ada juga teman saya yang masih seperti itu.

Dengan K-13 ini masih anak-anak duduk, ‘individually’. Masih ada. Ketika saya

masuk, ketika menggantikan dia cuti, anak-anak itu berasa bedanya, gitu kan.

Anak-anak berasa bedanya. Makanya, saya mencoba lah, kalau, sebisa mungkin,

201

pakai, sebisa saya itu tadi. Kadang-kadang saya ngga tau ini apa, teorinya

seperti apa, harusnya aturan-aturannya seperti apa, cuma saya coba pakai itu,

CL.

I used CL in order to make the learning fun, but still the learning objectives were

achieved. I see it that way. So, it is not only sitting and doing grammar. It’s

because I have a colleague who is still doing that. With the 2013 curriculum the

students are sitting, individually. There is such a practice. When I was substituting

him/her, when he/she was on leave, the students could feel the difference, you

know. They could feel the difference. That’s why, I try, you know, that, as best as

I could, to the best of my ability, to use it as you saw. Sometimes I do not know

what this is, the theory, the rules, but I try to implement it, CL. (First Interview,

20150406)

Besides complying with the curriculum implemented in her school, Andini implemented

CL to give her students an enjoyable learning experience and achieve her lesson

objectives (“I used CL in order to make the learning fun but still the learning objectives

were achieved”). The above account also indicated that she might not implement CL the

way recommended by researchers or developers and might not understand its underlying

concepts (“Sometimes I do not know what this is, the theory, the rules, but I try to

implement it, CL.”). Andini’s understanding of CL suggests a condition in the rules

component because an understanding of how CL works should have guided her CL

practice, including how individual accountability was enacted. This condition in the rules

component affected the other component(s), such as the division of labor. In the

subsequent interview, she further expressed her hopes to learn more about CL:

Saya berharap, setiap pembelajaran saya bisa menggunakan CL, yang bervariasi,

sesuai dengan apa, tujuan pembelajarannya. Cuma, ya itu, saya harus, harus

belajar lagi, CL macam apa yang pas. Selama ini kan saya, hanya, masih

meraba-raba ini yang pas seperti apa. Karena juga, ini pembelajaran, materinya

kan materi-materi baru dan saya belum berpengalaman dengan materi yang baru

ini. Makanya, ini masih agak-agak ‘trial and error’, apakah dengan metode

202

seperti ini bisa berjalan, apakah tujuan pembelajarannya bisa tercapai atau

tidak. Itu, saya masih harus belajar soal itu.

I hope, in every lesson I can implement CL, with variations, which suit what’s

that, the learning objectives. The thing is, I have to, have to learn more, what kind

of CL is suitable. So far, I am just, I am still figuring out what’s suitable. Also,

this learning, the materials are new, and I do not have the experience with them.

That’s why, it’s kind of trial and error, whether with this method it will work,

whether the learning objectives are achieved. That is, I have to learn about that.

(Follow-up Interview, 20150526)

It is clear in her statements that Andini hoped to implement CL in her instruction and

learn more about the variety of CL structures so she could choose ones that suited her

lesson objectives. Embedded in her account was her awareness that her understanding of

CL was yet to develop (“I am still figuring out what’s suitable.”) and that her CL practice

might not have moved toward the direction of achieving the learning objectives (“…it’s

kind of trial and error whether with this method it would work, whether the learning

objectives were achieved.”). In short, even though she knew CL could help achieve her

lesson objectives, Andini stressed that her CL practice, which to some extent were

reflections of her understanding CL, may not favor the attainment of the objectives of her

lessons. Andini’s yet-to-develop understanding of CL, which impacted on how she

implemented CL and how individual accountability was enacted, suggests a condition in

the rules component. This condition affected the division of labor and other components

in the activity system and will be discussed in greater detail in the next section.

Similar to Andini, Putri implemented CL to get her students “interested” in the

lessons, as she said:

Saya menggunakan CL agar anak tertarik. Anak juga lebih aktif. Kalau yang apa,

yang CL ini kan mungkin kita ngasih apa, mungkin anak njelasin, ternyata masih

ada kekurangan ya kita tambahi ini itu.

203

I use CL so that the kids get interested in it. They become active, too. If, what is

it, through CL we give, probably the kids explain, if there is something missing,

we will add this or that. (First Interview, 20150404)

Putri explained that although she should make sure that all of the lessons covered the

target learning materials when her students were learning through CL (“…if there is

something missing, we will add this or that”), she observed that through this teaching

method her students became active in their learning process (“They become active,

too.”). Further, Putri expressed her concerns about not knowing the procedures of other

CL stuctures, saying:

Tapi yang saya pelajari, mungkin yang saya pahami baru itu. Jadi, kalau,

misalkan ini pakainya yang enaknya ini karena mungkin kalau untuk yang, uhm,

metode yang lain yang untuk CL belum begitu paham, jadi takutnya nanti kalau

ada kekeliruan, ternyata ininya berbeda bukan seperti ini caranya.

But that’s what I learned, maybe that’s all I know. So, like, it [maybe referring to

a certain CL structure she used in the observed lesson, either Jigsaw, Numbered

Heads Together, or One Stray] was what I thought suitable for this [certain

learning materials] because, maybe, for the other CL methods, uhm, I did not

really understand, so I was afraid that there would be mistakes, like that was not

the way it was supposed to be. (First Interview, 20150404)

Putri used CL structures that she knew, which she thought would be “suitable” for her

lessons. She also knew that there were a variety of CL structures, which she did not use

because she did not know their procedures (“…for the other CL methods, uhm, I did not

really understand”). Embedded in Putri’s recounting was her awareness of the need to

know and follow the procedures of selected CL structures. This depicted a condition in

the rules component in the CL implementation in the high school classroom. Putri was

the CL implementer and the user of CL structures; hence, she needed to know how CL

204

works, including knowing the variety of CL structures and their procedures.

Nevertheless, her understanding of CL was yet to develop.

In short, Andini and Putri implemented CL to give their students enjoyable,

active, and lesson objectives-directed learning experiences. At the same time, they felt

that they needed to broaden their own knowledge and repertoire of CL to better provide

their students with such learning experiences. My analysis showed that the teacher

participants’ understanding of CL was a condition in the rules component. Specifically,

due to their understanding of CL, the procedures of the selected CL structures that were

supposed to guide the enactment of individual accountability were sometimes only

partially followed. As a result, there were missed steps in the use of the selected CL

structures, and this led to systemic tensions in the activity systems, which may have

impeded the attainment of the lesson objectives through the enactment of individual

accountability in CL. The next section will elaborate on the missed steps, followed by a

section that discusses the systemic tensions (i.e., tensions in the subjects-division of

labor, subjects-tools, and subjects-community relationships).

The Missed Steps

The procedures of some selected CL structures that were partially followed by the

two teacher participants resulted in tensions in the CL implementation across sites. Parts

of their CL implementation did not reflect CL itself. Nonetheless, the teacher participants

believed that they were implementing CL. This section will describe the steps missed in

the teacher participants’ use of some selected CL structures: individual accountability in

home groups and peer interaction. These missed steps were conditions within the rules

205

component, due to the teachers’ understanding of CL, which created systemic tensions in

the activity systems.

Individual Accountability in Home Groups

In the middle school classroom (8 G), individual accountability in home groups

was missed in the use of RoundRobin and Numbered Heads Together for teaching

narratives/fables (Field Notes, 20150406, 20150413). In the high school classroom,

individual accountability in home groups was missed in the use of Numbered Heads

Together and Jigsaw for teaching news items (Field Notes, 20150318, 20150401).

Kagan and Kagan (2009), the developers of RoundRobin, describe the

procedure of this CL structure as follows: 1) teacher poses a problem to which there are

multiple possible responses or solutions, 2) teacher provides think time, and 3) students

take turns stating responses or solutions in their [home] group (p. 6.31). Andini used this

CL structure to get her students to mention a fable title they knew. The student

participants, however, were not asked to mention it to their home group members.

Instead, they took turns mentioning it for the rest of the class to hear; they performed

individual accountability to the whole class. Some students could not mention any title

when their turn came, to which Andini replied that she would come back to them later

and ask them to try again (Field Notes, 20150406).

Andini’s recounting below indicated her uncertainty with the use of the

RoundRobin in her classroom:

Niatnya saya mau ‘RoundRobin’ cuma bingung mau bagaimana ini. Masalahnya,

ketika saya nanya apa itu ‘narrative’, itu kan bisa pakai ‘RoundRobin’.

Bayangan, bisa ngga ya pakai ‘RoundRobin’? Apakah ini sesuai dengan

206

‘RoundRobin’ apa engga? Kalau ‘RoundRobin’ itu kan harus nanti, satu, ada

leader-nya, ya. Ada ‘leader’-nya nanti yang menyampaikan, gitu ya. Ya itu tadi,

lagi ‘blank’ mau gimana.

I intended to use RoundRobin but I did not know how to go about it. The problem

was, when I asked what narrative was, I could use RounRobin. I imagined it and

was like: Can I use RoundRobin, whether or not it will suit RoundRobin? When

using RoundRobin, there should be one, there’s a leader, right? There’s a leader

who will later make a report, right? But again, I was blank, did not know how to

go about it. (Second Interview, 20150408)

Even though Andini’s lesson plan for that day stated that RoundRobin was one of her

instructional strategies (Lesson Plan, 20150406), and she said that it was one of the CL

structures she usually used in her instruction (Preliminary Questions, 20150212),

Andini’s account above suggested that she was initially not sure with her use of

RoundRobin in her teaching that day (“I intended to use RoundRobin but I did not know

how to go about it…But again, I was blank, did not know how to go about it.”). She was

not certain whether or not the learning activity would be best carried out through this CL

structure and whether her understanding of the procedure of the structure was correct.

What happened in the actual lesson was the manifestation of the conditions in the

rules component: the preset procedure of RoundRobin was only partially followed, and it

caused the student participants to face situations in which they were not given the chance

to perform individual accountability in their home groups. Their individual accountability

was performed directly to the whole class. Andini’s “Mention one fable title” instruction

(Field Notes, 20150406) was one of the “questions about the learning materials they

[students] had learned and questions related to the target learning materials” in a lesson

that focused on speaking skills (Lesson Plan, 20150406). If each of Andini’s students

207

could succesfully mention one fable title to their group members, they could have

mentioned it again with confidence to the whole class and would have had a greater

confidence to participate in the lesson and produce more spoken English.

Individual accountability in home groups was also missed in Andini’s use of

Numbered Heads Together carried out to check her students’ comprehension of a fable

they read. This CL structure was also developed by Kagan and Kagan (2009) and the

procedure is as follows: 1) students sit in their [home] groups; 2) each student in the

group is assigned one number (e.g., one, two, three, or four); 3) teacher poses a problem

and gives think time; 4) students privately write their answers; 5) students stand up and

“put their heads together,” showing answers, discussing, and teaching each other; 6)

students sit down when everyone knows the answer or has something to share; 7) teacher

calls a number; and 8) students with that number answer (p. 6.28). Andini followed all of

the steps but step #5 in which individual accountability in home groups should have taken

place (Field Notes, 20150413). Similarly, the same step was missed in the use of

Numbered Heads Together in the high school classroom (Field Notes, 20150318) for the

student participants to complete a news item. In other words, in the use of Numbered

Heads Together in the two secondary school classrooms, the student participants

performed individual accountability directly to the whole class. They missed the chance

to perform their individual accountability in their home groups, which was supposed to

take place before their performance of individual accountability to the whole class.

Chapter 6 indicated that the levels of individual accountability in CL gave the EFL

learners more opportunitues to use the target language (role #4). In addition, since

208

individual accountability performances were required and to be carried out in English,

these EFL learners gained confidence in producing spoken English (role #7). Hence, if an

initial or lower level of individual accountability is missed, EFL learners will have fewer

opportunities to use English more and may not gain confidence to produce English during

the lessons.

Reflecting on how Numbered Heads Together went in her classroom, Andini

stated:

Kemarin itu terbatas waktu. Insidental. Ya, kemarin itu ya, masalahnya ya,

memang tidak sempurna NHT [Numbered Heads Together]nya. Uhm, kalau

mungkin waktunya memungkinkan, waktunya sesuai dengan yang saya

rencanakan, ya saya akan juga, melaksanakan NHT yang, yang benar, gitu. Jadi,

kemarin agak, agak, ‘short cut’ NHT.

The time was limited. [It was] incidental. Well, last time, the problem was, it was

not a perfect NHT. Uhm, if the time allowed, the time suited what I planned, I

would also, implement NHT that was, correct, you know. So, last time it was

rather, rather, a short cut NHT. (Third Interview, 20150404)

According to Andini, the use of Numbered Heads Together in her teaching on that day

did not run as she planned. She considered Numbered Heads Together as a “short cut”

and addressed this to the limited time that she had. Andini’s account suggested that she

was aware of the imprecision of her use of Numbered Heads Together, and she knew how

to use it the “correct” way. Earlier that day, she had a district-level meeting that made her

late to her class. She had 30 minutes left for the class and used it to carry out the CL

structure (Field Notes, 20150413). Andini said that in her future teachings she would use

Numbered Heads Together in the “correct” way, which she described in the interview

conducted before the lesson as follows:

Kita beri pertanyaan ke anak, kan? Saya beri pertanyaan. Misalnya, lima soal,

habis itu kan ada lima anak. Berarti nanti kamu harus, ‘student’ satu, ‘one’,

209

‘two’, ‘three’, ‘four’, ‘five’. Masing-masing anak, yang pertama memikirkan dulu

jawabannnya, boleh ngga. Kemudian berdiskusi, apakah benar jawabannya.

Kalau dia mengalami kesulitan, boleh bertanya pada temannya, seperti itu. Nanti

saya akan bilang: “Uhm, ini ‘question number one for student number three’”.

Jadi, dia harus menguasai semua kan, dari lima pertanyaan itu.

We give questions to our students, right? I give the questions. For example, there

are five questions, and there are five students. Hence, then you have to, student

one, two, three, four, five. Each student, first of all, thinks of the answer, whether

or not it is acceptable. Then, they discuss whether or not the answer is correct. If

they get difficulties, they can ask their peers; that’s how it works. Then I will say:

“Uhm, this question number one is for student number three.” So, he/she have to

master all, the answers to all of the five questions. (Second Interview, 20150408)

Andini’s description of Numbered Heads Together suggested that as in the procedure of

the structure preset by Kagan and Kagan (2009), there are activities of think time,

individual accountability in home groups, peer interaction, and individual accountability

to the whole class. What makes Andini’s understanding or version of Numbered Heads

Together and that of Kagan and Kagan’s (2009) different is that in Andini’s version, the

questions are all given to students in the beginning, each student is to think of the answer

to all of the given questions, share the answers to group members, decide with them the

best answers, and master all of the answers. In Andini’s version of Numbered Heads

Together, individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction happens just

once for all of the questions in the lesson. In Kagan and Kagan’s (2009) version, there are

more opportunities for students to perform their individual accountability in their groups

and to interact with their peers in preparation for their individual accountability to the

whole class. The number of these opportunities is in line with the number of the questions

that the teacher will ask.

210

In short, there was a discrepancy between Andini’s understanding of how

Numbered Heads Together works and the procedure of this CL structure as preset by

Kagan and Kagan (2009) with regard to when or how the questions were given to

students. This discrepancy affects the frequency of individual accountability in home

groups. There was also a discrepancy between Andini’s understanding of how Numbered

Heads Together works and her actual use of this CL structure in her classroom. While she

knew that there was an activity of individual accountability in home groups in Numbered

Heads Together, this activity did not take place in her use of this CL structure in her

classroom (Field Notes, 20150413). These discrepancies were conditions in the rules

component because the procedure of the CL structures was one of the rules in the activity

system that provided guidance for the teachers on how to use the structures. As the

procedure of the selected CL structure was only partially followed, individual

accountability in home group was a missed step in Andini’s use of Numbered Heads

Together.

Like the middle school student participants, when the student participants in the

high school completed some missing words in a news item through Numbered Heads

Together, they performed their individual accountability directly to the whole class. They

neither told their answers to their home group members nor discussed with them the

answers to achieve a consensus. Consistent with how the CL structure was used in her

classroom, Putri described Numbered Heads Together as follows:

Kalau setahu saya, yang NHT itu yang, ada soal, kemudian anak satu kelompok

diberi nomor satu sampai lima, nah itu yang cepet-cepetan, misalkan nomor lima,

siapa yang angkat tangan nomor lima. Itu, menurut saya yang itu NHT. Tapi

kurang tahu juga.

211

As far as I know, NHT is the one that there are, exercises, and then a group of

students is labeled one to five, and then they compete with other groups, for

example I mention number five, those raise their hands is number five. That is

NHT, I guess. But I am not sure, though. (Follow-up Interview, 20150604)

Putri’s understanding of how Numbered Heads Together worked was different from

Andini’s. In Andini’s understanding, individual accountability in home groups was part

of the structure but it was not in Putri’s. In Putri’s understanding, there was only one

level of individual accountability in Numbered Heads Together: individual accountability

to the whole class. Putri’s understanding and use of this CL structure, which were

different from the preset procedure, were also conditions in the rules component of the

activity system because the procedure as one of the rules to guide the CL implementation

was only partially followed, resulting in one level of individual accountability being

missed: individual accountability in home groups.

Individual accountability in home groups was also absent in the use of Jigsaw in

the high school classroom (Field Notes, 20150318). Individual accountability in the

structure’s procedure as preset by Aronson (the originator of this CL instructional

strategy, 1978) and its variations remain the same: individual accountability in the home

groups, such as in Kagan and Kagan’s (2009) variation of Jigsaw named Team Jigsaw,

which was similar to the one Putri used in her teaching. The procedure of this variation is

as follows: 1) each group becomes an expert on a topic; 2) individuals from that group

teach another group; 3) after teaching, experts return to their seats; and 4) the process is

repeated so that each expert topic is covered. Of all of these steps, Putri’s students only

followed step #1. The student participants were put in groups to discuss the given

learning materials: aspects of a news item. Individual accountability in home groups was

212

supposed to take place here so that each group member shared what they knew and

practiced to build their expertise of the assigned aspect of a news item. Unfortunately,

this activity did not happen. One student from each group was then asked to share the

result of the discussion with the whole class. This was a form of individual accountability

to the whole class (Field Notes, 20150318). In short, the high school student participants

performed their individual accountability to the whole class, which was a level of

individual accountability Putri added, without performing their individual accountability

first in front of their home group members (Field Notes, 20150318).

Putri described the procedure of Jigsaw as follows:

Kalau untuk ‘Jigsaw’ itu, biasanya, biasanya dengan materi yang isinya agak

banyak. Jadi nanti kita bagi, kita bagi per kelompok untuk mendalami materi

yang sudah diberikan. Kemudian mereka bergabung dengan kelompok yang lain

untuk menjelaskan.

For Jigsaw, usually, usually, we use for relatively long materials. So we divide,

we divide them into groups to explore the given materials. Then they join another

group to explain. (Follow-up Interview, 20150604)

Putri’s description indicated that in her understanding of Jigsaw procedure, there was a

feature of individual accountability in home groups (“…we divide them into groups to

explore the given materials”). Nevertheless, in the actual use of this CL structure, this

level of individual accountability was not present (Field Notes, 20150318). This

discrepancy between Putri’s understanding of how Jigsaw works and the actual use of the

CL structure were conditions in the rules component reflected in individual

accountability in home group being missed.

In sum, individual accountability in home groups missed in the use of some

selected CL structures across sites was to some degree a reflection of the teacher

213

participants’ understanding of how the structures worked. While the CL structures were

part of the design of their lessons and part of their CL practice, the teacher participants

appeared not to see that individual accountability in home groups was an integral part of

the CL structures, as well as one of the principles of CL. Chapter 6 demonstrated that

individual accountability in CL promotes EFL learners’ production of comprehensible

output, which suggests that the more the learners do it the better their spoken English will

be. This section has shown that teachers’ mastery of the selected CL structures was a

factor affecting whether or not their students had the opportunities to perform their

individual accountability, as many as the structures suggested. In the case of the use of

Numbered Heads Together in the middle school classroom, the missed individual

accountability in home groups was due to the teacher participant’s time constraint.

Nevertheless, the discrepancies between her understanding of how the structure works

and the preset procedure of the structure, and between her understanding of how the

structure works and her actual use of the structure, were conditions within the rules

component that created tensions between this component and the other components and

among the components in the activity systems. The tensions, which were systemic, will

be discussed later in this chapter.

Peer Interaction

Besides individual accountability in home groups, peer interaction was also an

activity missed in the use of some selected CL structures in the secondary school EFL

classrooms, especially in Numbered Heads Together (across sites) and Jigsaw (the high

school classroom) (Field Notes, 20150318, 20150413). In the use of Numbered Heads

214

Together in the middle school classroom, after getting comprehension questions from

Andini, the student participants did not interact with their home group members to

discuss the answers, reach a consensus, and teach each other for their mastery of the

group’s answer. Students with the number that corresponded to the number Andini

mentioned gave their own answer directly to the whole class. Peer interaction did not take

place because individual students were not held accountable for discussing their own

answers to the questions to their group members first (Field Notes, 20150413). In fact,

even though the procedure of Numbered Heads Together as preset by Kagan and Kagan

(2009) and Andini’s understanding of this CL structure were different with regard to the

frequency of peer interaction, Andini knew that it was one of the activities in Numbered

Heads Together: “…they discuss whether or not the answer is correct. If they get

difficulties, they can ask their peers, that’s how it works” (Second Interview, 20150408).

Similarly, the high school student participants did not interact with their group

members when they were learning about a news item through Numbered Heads Together.

Specifically, after Putri mentioned to the whole class one blank to complete in the news

item, she did not ask her students to discuss the answer with their peers and reach a

consensus. Instead, after one number (label) was called upon to come to the white board

and write the answer, the corresponding number from each group raised their hand as

quickly as possible, and the quickest got the turn to write the answer. As in the middle

school classroom, the high school students performed their individual accountability

directly to the whole class without doing it first in their home group (Field Notes,

215

20150318). Unlike Andini, however, Putri did not know that peer interaction was an

integral part of Numbered Heads Together (Follow-up Interview, 20150604).

Peer interaction was to some degree not present in the use of Jigsaw in Putri’s

classroom. As discussed in the previous sub-section, the type of Jigsaw that Putri used in

her classroom was one similar to Team Jigsaw (Kagan & Kagan, 2009), which required

each home group to become an expert on a topic (step #1). This step suggests that home

group members interact, help, and teach each other so that each of them is ready to

represent the group to teach another group (step #1). The student participants sat in their

home groups and were given one aspect of a news item to discuss. Since this activity was

not preceded by the student participants’ individual accountability performance in front

of their home group members, not all students participated in their home group’s

discussion (peer interaction). Putri also did not ask each student to share what they knew

about the given materials to their home group members. In short, since the students were

not asked to think about the assigned aspect of a news item and share what they knew,

only few students in home groups were engaged in the conversation about the learning

materials (peer interaction) (Field Notes, 20150318).

Missing peer interaction moments in their CL experience can make students lose

opportunities to negotiate meanings with their peers and receive feedback from them to

better perform in the next level of individual accountability. These activities are critical

moments of language acquisition and learning. Peer interaction and individual

accountability in home groups were steps missed in the use of some selected CL

structures. My analysis showed that when individual accountability in home groups did

216

not take place, neither would peer interaction. When the two activities were missed, as

this study revealed, the student participants were put in situations that may not have gone

to the direction of attaining the objectives of their lessons. The following section

discussed these situations.

The Systemic Tensions in the CL Implementation

The components of the activity systems were interconnected, so were the tensions

in the relationships among the components—systemic tensions, which were caused by the

conditions in the rules component described in the previous sections. In this section, I

present three themes that depict the systemic tensions: 1) not presenting share of work, 2)

performing without preparation, and 3) having peer preference. They are the unfavorable

situations faced by the subjects that may have hampered the attainment of the object (the

lesson objectives) and the goal of enhancing their EFL learning (improved

communicative competence).

Not Presenting Share of Work

The inner tensions in the rules component affected the relation of the other

components in the activity systems, including the relation between the subjects and the

division of labor. It was evident in the use of Numbered Heads Together in the middle

school classroom and Jigsaw in the high school classroom. Because of the missed

individual accountability in their home groups, when they were learning through

Numbered Heads Together, the student participants in the middle school did not tell their

group members their answer to each comprehension question Andini asked, which was

their share of the work. Consequently, there could be students who did not have any

217

answer ready. The answers that the appointed student participants (only a few students)

gave to the whole class were the result of their own thinking because peer interaction

(discussion in home groups) also did not take place (Field Notes, 20150413). Thus, work

was not shared in home groups.

Midya recalled how she was learning through Numbered Heads Together:

Nomor saya ngga ditunjuk. Tidak ada diskusi. Teman yang ditunjuk memberikan

jawabannya sendiri, bukan jawaban hasil diskusi.

My number was not called. No discussion. My group members whose number

was called gave their own answers, not answers resulted from group discussion.


Midya’s recounting suggested that there was no presentation of share of work (individual

accountability in home groups) and peer interaction in her home group. Consequently,

she did not tell her answer to any questions her teacher asked, and her peers’ answers

were their own answers, not the group’s answers. In other words, because of individual

accountability and peer interaction being missed, Midya and her peers did not share their

work to their group members and their group did not have any work ready to share to the

whole class.

A favorable relation between the division of labor and the object/outcome in

Midya’s classroom if the preset procedure of Numbered Heads Together was followed

can be described as follows: 1) individual students have a responsibility to do their share

of work (coming up with the answer to the question being asked), 2) they display their

share of work or the answer with their home group members, 3) they discuss with their

peers to reach consencus (the group’s best answer), and 4) teach their peers so everyone

can represent the group to tell the group’s answer. These activities could have promoted

218

the student participants’ comprehension of the text they read, which was one of the day’s

learning objectives (Lesson Plan, 20150413).

In the case of the high school classroom, the tension in the relationship between

the subjects and the division of labor component in the high school classroom was

observable in the use of Jigsaw. This structure was used for the student participants to

learn about the aspects of a news item. As discussed earlier, individual accountability in

home groups was missed in the use of this CL structure. Representing their group, four

student participants shared their group’s expertise (the given aspect of a news item) to the

whole class. Even though no disputes over who was to represent each group or objections

to perform were observed, what the two focal students said about their Jigsaw groups

revealed what happened in their group’s division of labor:

Kalau kelompok saya itu yang maju yang bisa. Jadi kan kalau maju, bisa,

gampang, menjelaskannya gampang.

In my group’s case, it was the one who was able to do it who represented the

group. So like, if representing the group, able to do it, easy, easy to explain. (Joko,

First Interview, 20150408)

Joko said that when he and his peers were learning through Jigsaw, the one who

represented their group was the one who already knew the answer (what was assigned to

the group). He explained that when the representatives were peers who knew the answer,

they would not find any difficulties explaining it to other students (“easy to explain”).

Natya described how it went in her Jigsaw group:

“Kamu yang maju, ya. Aku ngga bisa.” Ya udah gantian yang lainnya, gitu.

“You represent our group, ok?” “No, I can’t.” Well, then the other will do it, like

that. (First Interview, 20150408)

219

Natya’s account indicated that there were group members who opted not to represent the

group because they did not want to; the one who represented their group to share the

expertise with the whole class was the one who was willing to do so.

The stories Natya and Joko shared about how their group chose its representative

for the presentation provided insights for understanding the close connection between the

subjects, the division of labor, and the object/outcome components in the activity

systems. If the student participants carried out their individual accountability

performance in their home groups first (i.e. presenting their share of the work) and

received feedback from their peers (through peer interaction), each of them could have

been prepared to present the assigned materials to the whole class, especially in terms of

their mastery of the knowledge of the target text, which was the learning objective that

Putri set to achieve that day (Third Interview, 20150423; Lesson Plan, 20150318).

Because of the absence of individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction,

the student participants may also have lost their opportunities to use the target language,

receive feedback, and access their peers’ spoken language production. Hence, the preset

procedure of the chosen CL structures needs to be followed so that the division of labor

in the groups can mediate the attainment of the object and in turn the outcome of the EFL

learning: students’ communicative competence in English.

Natya and Joko’s stories above to some extent also corroborated Putri’s

assumption about her tenth graders: that CL was new for them and they did not

experience learning through CL in their middle school (First Interview, 20150318). Her

assumption also suggested that her students were not familiar with the practice of

220

individual accountability when working in groups and were not aware of the required

responsibility to perform it (by selected CL structures). Therefore, even if the procedure

of Numbered Heads Together or any chosen CL structures is followed, students’

unfamiliarity with CL can also be a condition that may create tension in the relationships

between the other components in the activity systems, which can obstruct their learning.

Performing without Preparation

Besides affecting the relationship between the subjects and the division of labor,

the conditions in the rules component also created tension in the subjects-tools

relationship. The missed individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction

caused the student participants not to utilize each other as learning tools. As a result, they

performed their individual accountability to the whole class without preparation. In the

case of the middle school classroom, when learning through RoundRobin, some of the

student participants could not come up with any fable titles when they got their turn to

mention one to the whole class (Field Notes, 20150406). If individual accountability in

home groups and peer interaction were not missed, the student participants might have

shared to the whole class one or more fable title, gathered from everyone’s share of work

and interaction with their peers, with confidence. In addition, although it was not

prescribed by the developer of the CL structure (Kagan & Kagan, 2009), peer interaction

following individual accountability in home groups in RoundRobin, if carried out, could

be an arena in which the student participants gave responses to their peers, such as

reminding not to give the same fable title (response/answer) if it had been mentioned by

other group members already.

221

The tension in the relationship between the subjects and the tools due to the

missed individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction was also observed

in the use of Numbered Heads Together. Specifically, the two missed activities forced the

middle school student participants to face a situation in which they had to give their

answers to the questions directly to the whole class without preparation. In other words,

individual students did not share their own answer and have a discussion with their home

group members to achieve consensus (Field Notes, 20150413). The presentation, sharing,

and discussion in their home groups could actually help prepare the student participants

for their performance of individual accountability to the whole class, such as practicing

their spoken language production and receiving feedback on their share of the work.

These processes could have given the student participants preparation to perform their

individual accountability to the whole class. Moreover, through the process of mastering

their group’s answer (the consensus), the middle school student participants could have

given their answers to the whole class with a modified spoken production, which was

actually essential for increasing their proficiency in spoken English and promoting the

availability of comprehensible input beneficial for their peers.

In the case of the high school classroom, the tension in the relationship between

the subjects and the tools was observable in the use of Numbered Heads Together and

Jigsaw. Individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction missed in the use

of Numbered Heads Together made the student participants came to the board and wrote

their answers without preparation (Field Notes, 20150318). If the two activities took

place, the student participants could have received feedback from their peers, especially

222

on their vocabulary and spellings, because it was an individual accountability

performance in written mode. In addition, if individual accountability in home groups

was present, the student participants could have written their answers on the board with a

sense of confidence because what they wrote was their home group’s consensus. Also,

the discussion that they had with their peers could have added their understanding of the

gist of the news item, which was the day’s lesson objective (Lesson Plan, 20150318). In

other words, because of the absence of individual accountability and peer interaction in

the use of Numbered Heads Together in Putri’s classroom, her students’ performance of

individual accountability to the whole class was without preparation.

The tension in the relationships between the subjects and the tools in the activity

system because of individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction being

missed was also evident in the use of Jigsaw (Field Notes, 20150318). When learning

through this CL structure, the high school student participants did not perform their

individual accountability in their home groups. This level of individual accountability

could actually prepare the student participants for the next performance: individual

accountability in the other groups (prescribed but not enacted) and individual

accountability to the whole class. Through individual accountability in their home

groups, the high school student participants could have readily presented their mastery of

the learning materials: the assigned aspect of a news item. They could have become each

other’s audience of their presentation and could have received responses (such as

feedback on vocabulary) from their home group members after the presentation. Because

of the absence of individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction, the high

223

school student participants’ performance of individual accountability to the whole class

appeared to be without preparation.

In sum, the tension within the rules caused the student participants to face a

situation where they could not utilize their peers as one of the learning tools while in fact

they were learning through CL that highlights cooperation between students. This also

demonstrated how the conditions in the rules component could not mediate the relation

between the subjects and the tools, and how the conditions in one component could create

systemic tensions in the activity systems.

Having Peer Preference

The subjects-community relationship was also affected by the conditions in the

rules component. Yamagata-Lynch (2003) defines the community of an activity system

as the social group that the subject identifies being a member of while participating in the

activity (p. 102). The EFL classrooms were the communities in which the students were

members and they shared some understandings, such as that working in groups was one

of their language learning activities. While the teacher participants said that CL was part

of their instructional practice, my data analysis showed that their students had peer

preference when it came to working in groups. Peer preference was found across sites

and this indicated a tension between the subjects and the community. Specifically, the

student participants regarded that not all of their peers could be their resource person.

Andini paired up her students in the 8 H and 8 G classrooms in her use of Think-

Pair-Share and grouped the students in the 8 H classroom in her use of the Whispering

Game. There were no objections from the students with this pairing up and grouping

224

(Field Notes, 20150331, 20150401, and 20150404). Nevertheless, the two focal students

voiced their concerns:

Kalau misalnya waktu pasangan untuk belajar kelompok itu di, apa, disuruh

mencari sendiri itu biasanya lebih sedikit ya kekurangannya. Tetapi kalau

sewaktu, misalnya pasangannya atau teman sekelompoknya ditentukan apa, oleh

Miss Andini misalnya, itu kan satu kelas ya memang nggak ada yang musuhan,

tapi nggak semuanya akrab. Jadi mungkin, kalau misalnya sewaktu belajar

kelompok itu dapat temen yang nggak akrab, itu bukan temen deket, itu mungkin

nanti komunikasinya akan kurang.

If getting members for group work is, what’s that, left up to us, usually it has

fewer weaknesses. But if it is determined by, Miss Andini, for example, we are

not rivaling with each other, but we are not very close to each other, either. So,

maybe, if we get those whom we are not close with for working together in

groups, there is a possibility that we will communicate less. (Budi, Second


Budi’s account showed his preference for working with classmates with whom he was

familiar with and close to (“When getting members for group work is… left up to us,

usually it has less weaknesses”). By explaining the opposite situation (“…there is a

possibility that we will communicate less”), he also suggested that when working with

“close” classmates, he would communicate more. His peer preference indicated an

unfavorable situation in the EFL classroom community because he did not see all of his

classmates as resources or tools to maximize his learning, but only saw the benefit to

working with those he was close with. Midya had a similar view, saying:

Kalau teman satu kelompok dipilih oleh Miss Andini, ngga sesuai, kurang bisa

bersosialisasi. Kendalanya itu. Pas milih kelompok itu, sukanya milih temen yg

deket-deket. Lebih suka milih sendiri. Milih teman yang deket-deket, lebih akrab.

If our group members are chosen by Miss Andini, it is not suitable, less sociable.

That is the problem. When choosing group members, I like to choose classmates I

am close with. I prefer choosing them by myself. I choose classmates I am close

with, more familiar. (Midya, Second Interview, 20150608)

225

Like Budi, Midya stressed her preference for working with classmates who were her

close friends. Using the phrases “not suitable, less sociable,” like Budi, Midya suggested

that working in the same group with her classmates she was not close with meant there

was less communication or interaction in the group. Without peer interaction or

conversation between peers, it may be that language learners do not receive feedback on

their spoken language production and negotiate for meanings, which actually can

contribute to their next spoken language production.

Midya was not the only student in her classroom who had peer preference. When

Andini was putting Midya and her classmates in groups in the fourth observed lesson,

another girl objected to being grouped with the other students Andini chose for her. She

said that she was not allowed to do so because of a religious reason (Field Notes,

20150406). When asked about this, Andini said:

Itu cuma karena mereka, hanya ada beberapa siswa laki-laki yang tidak disukai

siswa wanita. Sebagai alasan aja. Coba kalau dia suka sama itu ya, ngga

masalah. Kita diskusi, bekerja sama dengan yang beda gender. Karena kita ngga

gitu itu, kita bukan sekolah yang tipenya, kan ada memang sekolah yang cewek

semua.

That was just because there were some boys that the girls did not like. It was just

their excuse. If only the girls were okay with these boys, it would not be a

problem for them. We discuss, cooperate with those with different gender. We are

not that, we are not that type of school; you know there are girl-only schools.


Andini stressed that what the girl said was an excuse for not working with a few boys that

she did not like and that the school did not segregate boys from girls. Earlier in the first

interview, she said that Midya’s classmates (8 G) had peer preferences; they did not want

226

to mingle with classmates that they were not close with. Hence, she had to force them to

work with the other students by choosing CL group members for them. She said:

8 G itu, mereka itu gap-gap-an. Makanya saya harus, harus paksa mereka untuk,

untuk nyampur.

Students in 8 G, they had peer preferences. That’s why I have to, have to push

them to, to mingle with the other students. (First Interview, 20150405)

The notion of individual accountability in CL suggests that each student in a group has

their share of the work or their contribution for the completion of any given learning task.

The middle school student participants’ peer preferences indicated that as the members of

their classroom community, they did not see each other as equal resources or tools in

their learning. The absence of individual accountability in home groups and peer

interaction in their teacher’s use of the CL structures during the observed lessons were

factors that contributed to the student participants’ peer preference. They had limited

opportunities to see how their peers’ share of work, and feedback, could help complete

their learning tasks. Moreover, because of the absence of individual accountability in

home groups and peer interaction, the student participants lost opportunities for

producing comprehensible output, negotiation for meaning, and receiving

comprehensible input, which were essential for their language acquisition and learning.

Although it was not as observable as it was in the middle school, the high school

student participants also had peer preferences. In the use of the CL structures in the

observed lessons, it was Putri who grouped her students; they did not choose their own

group members. Similar to the two focal students from the middle school, the two focal

students from the high school preferred choosing group members by themselves. Joko

227

mentioned the reasons why he did not like the idea of working in a group with classmates

he was not close with:

Kecanggungan biasanya. Kalau canggung kan biasanya menyampaikan informasi

setengah-setengah. Masih ada rasa nggak enak. Ya, kayak, kalau belum pernah,

belum kenal kalau bicara kayaknya masih kaku, gitu lho. Bertukar informasi

kurang lancar.

It was usually the awkwardness. When they feel awkward, they tend to share

incomplete information. They still have a kind of uncomfortable feeling. Well, it’s

like, if I have not, have not got to know them well, the conversation won’t be

smooth, you know. The information exchanging will not be as smooth. (Second


Joko and the middle school’s focal students shared a similar concern about working with

classmates they were not close with. They thought that the communication would not go

as expected. Joko was more explicit by saying that the information sharing and

exchanging would “not be as smooth” as when it was with his close classmates. The

student participants’ peer preferences might have disadvantaged them because interaction

with either higher or lower proficient peers is an opportunity for making interactional

adjustments (such as asking for repetitions, extensions, paraphrasing), which is important

for their language acquisition and learning, especially in developing their speaking skills.

Natya had a slightly different perspective in seeing her peers when they were

working in groups:

Temen ada yang pasif, maksudnya, kalau pasifnya keterlaluan kan jengkel juga.

Ngaturnya gitu loh. Kalau misalkan diatur-atur kan, mungkin menurut dia,

“Ngapain ngatur-ngatur.” Kita kan bukan siapa-siapanya, gitu. Lama-lama jadi

berantem sendiri.

There are classmates who are passive, I mean, like, if they are too passive, it’s

irritating, too. It is the controlling. If they were controlled, they will be like. “Why

you are controlling us?” We are nobody to them, you know. Then, we would

quarrel with each other. (Second Interview, 20150529)

228

Natya suggested that she did not like it when she had group members who were passive –

those who did not take part in and did not care about the group’s work and even

expressed negativity (“Why you are controlling us?”). Putri shared an observation about

her students’ peer preference as follows:

Biasanya kalau sepuluh satu itu cenderung, laki-lakinya yang tidak mau terpisah.

Yang laki-lakinya itu, aduh kelompoknya ya itu saja. Kalau buat kelompok, ya itu

lagi.” Jangan itu ah, yuk.” Terus saya bagi. Kalau perempuannya itu mau.

Akhirnya ya mau, harus mau.

Usually in 10-one, the boys tend to stick in one group, the same group. The boys,

when asked to work in groups, they would again and again work in the same

group. “Please don’t do that.” Then I put them in different groups. As for the

girls, they were willing to. At the end, though, the boys were willing to, they

should. (First Interview, 20150404)

Putri revealed that her tenth graders’ peer preferences were more obvious, especially with

the boys who “tend to stick in one group.” They demonstrated their inclination toward

working with the same gender over and over again while the girls were willing to work

with anyone in the class, regardless of gender.

The two activities missed in their teacher’s use of CL structures, individual

accountability in home groups and peer interaction, contributed to the high school

students having peer preferences. The absence of two activities made the student

participants lose the opportunities to see how their peers could contribute to their learning

as they were presenting their share of work and preparing for performances. In other

words, they did not see their classmates as equal members of the classroom community in

terms of how they functioned as learning resources. As discussed earlier, the absence of

the two activities in CL also made the students miss opportunities to produce the target

229

language, interact with their peers, and receive feedback. This could have impeded the

student participants’ EFL learning. As discussed above, my research data showed that the

EFL students involved in this study had peer preferences when it came to group

members. Power relations can explain why the participation observation data revealed

very little of the student participants’ peer preferences (Bruffee, 1995); the students

followed what their teachers instructed them to do and did not articulate their voices of

dissent because of the teachers’ authority in the classrooms. Nevertheless, with regard to

the implementation of CL in the EFL classrooms as activity systems, the EFL students’

peer preference was also an indication of the tensions in the community component

caused by the teachers’ CL practice and their understanding of CL. The missed steps of

individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction contributed to the student

participants having peer preference and not seeing that their peers could all become

resources when learning in CL. These students did not have many opportunities to see

their peers presenting their share of the work (performing individual accountability) and

giving feedback for their peers’ individual accountability performances.

Conclusion

In sum, the two secondary school EFL teachers’ understanding of CL, which

made them sometimes only partially follow the procedures of the CL structures, was a

condition within the rules component that created systemic tensions in the activity

systems, involving the other components: subjects, the tools, the division of labor, the

community, and the objects/outcome. The missed steps in the use of CL structures in the

secondary school EFL classrooms resulted in the absence of a lower level of individual

230

accountability (individual accountability in home groups) and peer interaction, which

were supposed to take place before performance of a higher level of individual

accountability (individual accountability in other groups and to the whole lass). The

absence of the two activities in CL put the student participants in unfavorable situations:

1) not presenting share of work, 2) performing without preparation, and 3) having peer

preference. These unfavorable situations may have precluded the EFL learners from

attaining the objectives of their lessons and in turn the goal of enhancing their EFL

learning (the expected outcome).

This chapter has suggested the importance of teacher’s knowledge of CL,

including mastering and following the preset procedure of any CL structure selected as

part of their instructional strategies because it helps mediate the relationships of the

components in the activity systems, which in turn can help students to attain their

learning objectives. Hence, teachers not mastering and not following the procedure of

selected CL structures as preset by researchers or developers can be barriers in the

enactment of individual accountability in CL for enhancing learning.

This chapter has also indicated that students’ unfamiliarity with CL, including

how it works and what to expect (e.g. steps to follow in CL structures and an

understanding of the principle of individual accountability in CL with its processes), is a

condition in the subject component that may create tensions between this component and

the other components in an activity system. Other factors from the students themselves

may have contributed to their having peer preference despite the fact that they learned

through CL. These factors could include wanting to work only with peers who share the

231

same socio-economic status or only with peers who also take an English course at private

instutions. This suggests, once again, the interconnectedness between the subjects and the

tools, especially teachers. Specifically, if these other factors coming from the student

participants were true (my data did not allow me to claim these factors as contributing to

the identified tensions, especially for the theme of students having peer preference), their

teachers (as the tools in the activity systems) may need to use CL structures for

classbuilding and/or teambuilding first before using CL structures for academic functions

(e.g., knowledge building, processing information, presenting information) (see Kagan &

Kagan, 2009). Factors outside the activity systems may also have affected the subjects

(the students); one possibility includes that (as indicated by the two teacher participants)

the student participants did not always learn through CL (or even in conventional group

work) in their secondary school career because other teachers’ instruction may not be

student-centered. This may have made the student participants not accustomed to sharing

what they knew or learned with their peers, cooperating with them, or seeing their peers

as learning tools or resources.

232

Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions

Broadly speaking, there is a gap in the research literature on the depiction of the

process of CL implementation, why and under what conditions CL promotes learning,

how CL principles are enacted, and how to implement CL effectively. The field of

ESL/EFL teaching also needs information on these issues, specifically on how CL

promotes language acquisition and learning to develop learners’ communicative

competence in English. These gaps in the literature may have caused low occurrences of

CL in EFL classrooms in Indonesian secondary schools. To implement CL effectively,

CL principles should be followed (Chen, 2011; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Olsen &

Kagan, 1992; Slavin, 1999). This study focused on individual accountability, which is a

principle proposed by most CL experts. It sought to address the following: What is the

role of individual accountability in CL in Indonesian secondary school EFL classrooms?

Specifically, this study explored the roles of individual accountability as a principle of

and an activity in CL in enhancing EFL learning. In this final chapter, I first review the

findings presented in the two previous chapters and present two key findings. In the next

section, I discuss the key findings in relation to the existing literature. Next, I explore the

implications of this study. I then discuss the study’s limitations and present the

conclusions.

Key Findings

Chapter 5 described the following two cases: individual accountability in CL in

Indonesian middle school EFL classrooms and individual accountability in CL an

Indonesian high school EFL classroom. The description encompasses the socio-cultural

233

and socio-historical contexts of these cases. They were similar in a number of ways, such

as that CL was a mandated teaching method, speaking was the focused language skill in

the teacher participants’ EFL instruction, and the goal of the EFL learning was learners’

improved communicative competence. Because of these similarities, the roles that

individual accountability in CL played across sites were not different. However, the two

cases were different with regard to the educational background and the CL experience of

the teacher participants, the background of the students (e.g., their first languages), and

the learning tasks carried out through individual accountability in CL (knowledge-or

skills-focused tasks). This study showed that these differences did not affect how

individual accountability in CL played its roles in the EFL classrooms.

This study found seven roles of individual accountability in CL in the EFL

classrooms and they are presented in Chapter 6. These roles were identified with the help

of the system of relationships between the students as the subjects of individual

accountability in CL and the other components in the implementation of CL in the EFL

classrooms (the activity systems). The roles were then analyzed using the elements of

Interaction Hypothesis to make sense of how individual accountability in CL enhanced

the EFL learning. Receiving vocabulary help and having access to pronunciation were

two roles that showcase the availability of comprehensible input. The availability of the

interaction element was reflected by the other two roles: 1) having more opportunities to

interact with peers and 2) gaining confidence to speak in the target language. Three roles

showcase the availability of the element of comprehensible output: 1) meeting the

expectation of the mandated learning experience by the curriculums, 2) presenting the

234

previously thought about, discussed, and learned information to peers, and 3) having

more opportunities to use the target language. The other element of Interaction

Hypothesis—negotiation for meaning—helped explain how most of these roles

manifested in the EFL learning.

Chapter 7 discussed the systemic tensions in the activity systems caused by a

condition in the rules component: the teacher participants’ understanding of CL, which

made them sometimes only partially follow the procedures of the selected CL structures.

Specifically, I discussed how the activities of individual accountability in home groups

and peer interaction missed in the use of some selected CL structures caused tensions in

the relationship among the components in the activity systems. The tensions put students

in unfavorable situations by not presenting their share of work, performing without

preparation, and having peer preference. These situations might have impeded the

attainment of the lesson objectives and the goal of developing the EFL learners’

communicative competence. At the end of Chapter 7, I also acknowledged possible

factors, coming from components other than the rules in the activity systems and from

outside of the systems, that may have also contributed to the identified tensions.

There are two key findings of this study. The first explains that in EFL learning,

individual accountability in CL is a chain of activities that promotes language acquisition

and language learning. Secondly, an effective implementation of CL through the

enactment of individual accountability requires support from its social environment,

including teachers mastering and following the procedure of selected CL structures. The

sections that follow will elaborate on these findings.

235

Chain of Activities

This study shows that within individual accountability in CL, there are

interconnected activities: performances that demonstrate individual accountability and

peer interaction between these performances. There are four levels of individual

accountability performance identified: 1) in pairs, 2) in home group, 3) in other groups,

and 4) to the whole class. A performance of individual accountability entails the use of

the target language in public, either in spoken or written English. Within peer interaction

are feedback giving and feedback receiving activities. The compatibility of Interaction

Hypothesis to explain the seven identified roles of individual accountability in CL in the

EFL classrooms showcases the availability of four elements essential for second language

acquisition and learning (i.e., comprehensible input, interaction, comprehensible output,

and negotiation for meaning).

The seven identified roles of individual accountability in CL, listed in the

previous section, and the availability of the four elements in the processes of individual

accountability in CL in the EFL classrooms develop our understanding that “conscious

learning emerges from activity (performance)” and “activity is a precursor to learning”

(Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, pp. 62-64). In other words, in the studied classrooms,

the chain of activities in individual accountability in CL was a precursor to and medium

of conscious EFL learning. In the processes of individual accountability, the learners also

subconsciously learn (acquire) the target language (Krashen, 2003). For example, they

might not be aware that they were “picking up” (Krashen, 2003, p. 1) English vocabulary

in their interaction with their peers and when they listened to their peers’ presentations.

236

Although my study did not measure the EFL learners’ achievement as they were

learning through CL, its depiction of the processes of individual accountability provided

evidence of how EFL learning was to some degree enhanced through CL. For example,

the EFL learners in this study considered speaking as the most challenging language skill.

In their classrooms, performances that demonstrated individual accountability were

required, to be completed in English (comprehensible input and output available), and to

be prepared with peers (through interaction that promoted the occurences of negotiation

for meaning). These interconnected and required activities promoted second language

acquisition and learning, and thus helped the EFL learners gain confidence to speak in

English (recall Appendix L, which depicts second language acquisition and learning in

individual accountability in CL in the studied EFL classrooms).

Effective Implementation

This study develops our understanding that for an effective implementation of CL

through the enactment of individual accountability to take place, support from the social

environment is needed, including teachers’ understanding of CL (i.e., mastering and

following the procedure of selected CL structures). Individual accountability in CL

played its roles in the EFL learning because of the system of relationships between the

components in the CL implementation. These components can be categorized into two

groups: 1) the first group represents the object-directed activity (the mediated action/the

conscious learning/socio-cultural aspects), and 2) the other group represents social

environment of the activity (the socio-historical aspects/contextual elements). The

components of individual accountability in CL as an object-directed activity were: the

237

subjects (the students), the tools (e.g., teacher, peers, books, dictionaries, first language,

and the Internet), and the objects/outcome (the lesson objectives/the goal of the EFL

learning). The components of the social environment comprised: the rules (e.g., the

curriculums and the preset procedure of the selected CL structures), the community (the

EFL classroom community that comprised the students and their teachers), and the

division of labor (the tasks shared among the members of the community).

Here is an example of how individual accountability in CL, as an object-directed

activity, is supported by its social environment in order to play its role in the EFL

learning. Through individual accountability in CL, the EFL learners had opportunities to

use English (role #3) because of the availability of: 1) the levels of individual

accountability and peer interaction set by the procedure of the selected CL structures (the

rules component), 2) the EFL classroom in which the learners performed their individual

accountability in English and became the audience of their peers’ individual

accountability performance (the community component), and 3) the task shared among

individual students in CL groups (the division of labor component). This study shows that

the relation between the subjects and the other components, which was also mediated by

the relation among these components, materialized the roles of individual accountability

in CL in the secondary school classrooms that enhanced the EFL learning. Chapter 7 has

shown, however, that teachers’ understanding of CL, which is part of the rules

component, may create systemic tensions in an activity system. Hence, an effective

implementation of CL (i.e., one that enhances learning) through the enactment of

238

individual accountability requires support from its social environment, especially from

the teachers and their understanding of CL.

This study showed that the few missed steps in some of the teacher participants’

use of CL structures resulted in the absence of individual accountability in home groups

and peer interaction. As a consequence (along with other possible factors beyond this

study’s data, indicated in Chapter 7), the EFL learners were put in unfavorable situations:

1) not presenting their share of work, 2) performing with no preparation, and 3) having

peer preference. Again, although this study did not particularly examine whether or not

the lesson objectives were achieved through CL, the aforementioned consequences of the

steps missed in the CL implementation might have impeded the attainment of the lesson

objectives. The revese situations: 1) individual EFL learners present their share of work,

2) perform with preparation, and 3) see their peers as resources, are thus the favorable or

expected situations.This points to a need for teachers’ understanding of CL, including

mastering and following the procedures of selected CL structures, to ensure the

occurrences of individual accountability performance and peer interaction between these

performances. These activities, as already discussed in the previous section, helped

enhance EFL learning. In other words, teachers’ mastering and following the procedure

of selected CL structures, which is a reflection of the teachers’ understanding of CL, is a

condition for achieving effective implementation of CL through the enactment of

individual accountability.

239

Discussion

It has been suggested by the literature that CL increases ESL/EFL learners’

academic achievement (Bejarano, 1987; Ghaith, 2003; Liang, 2002; Sachs et al., 2003).

My study extends the finding of these studies by demonstrating how the elements of

second language acquisition and learning (comprehensible input, interaction,

comprehensible output, and negotiation for meaning) were available in the EFL

classrooms through the enactment of individual accountability in CL. This study also

informs our understanding of why and under what conditions CL has the effects of

promoting learning (Slavin, 1995) through its depiction of the processes of individual

accountability in CL and how each role of this CL principle was materialized and helped

enhance the EFL learning. This section discusses how the study’s key findings address

the gaps in the research literature and how they add to our understanding of the process of

CL implementation (how CL works), how individual accountability as a CL principle

works, how CL promotes ESL/EFL learning, and how to implement CL effectively

through the enactment of individual accountability.

How CL Works through its Individual Accountability

My study fills a gap in the literature on how CL and its principles work because it

reveals how one CL principle, individual accountability, played its roles in helping to

enhance EFL learning. Specifically, the levels of individual accountability performance

and peer interaction between these performances, which were set by the procedure of the

selected CL structures, made the EFL learners interact with the learning materials and

their peers. Thus, though directly measuring learning outcomes was not a focus of this

240

current research, my study does provide evidence that when individual accountability

(one of the CL principles) is enacted, learning is enhanced (Chen, 2011; Johnson &

Johnson, 1999; Olsen & Kagan, 1992; Slavin, 1996, Slavin, 1999), and that peer

assistance in CL helps students learn (Coelho, 2009). The section that follows will

discuss how individual accountability in CL works and promotes language acquisition

and learning in the EFL classrooms based on the identified roles and in relation to the

existing research literature.

How Individual Accountability in CL Enhances EFL Learning

Johnson and Johnson (1989) argue that principles of CL mediate the relationship

between cooperation and its outcomes. This study shows that individual accountability in

CL promoted language acquisition and learning in the EFL classrooms. For example,

when the high school students were listening to their peers’ explanation of the aspects of

a news item through One Stray, they received comprehensible input from their peers

(e.g., English vocabulary relevant with news items). It was the input in the target

language that had been adjusted by the performers of individual accountability (through

peer interaction) in hopes that their peers would better understand what was being

conveyed (an aspect of news item, language features, as an example). With this language

adjustment, performers of individual accountability produced comprehensible output,

especially during a higher level of individual accountability performance. The first key

finding is thus consistent with the propositions of Kagan (1995) and McGroarty (1989)

that CL facilitates second language acquisition and thus benefits language learners.

241

In discussing comprehensible input and the use of first language in second

language learning, Kagan and McGroarty (1993) state

Using considerable visual support, providing manipulative materials, listening to

classmates and teammates talk about activities and ideas, and, where the content

warrants and class composition allows, using explanation in the first language to

facilitate rapid understanding are all way that the principle of abundant

comprehensible input can be realized. (p. 49)

The two authors suggest that the use of first language in second language learning can

promote rapid understanding and the availability of comprehensible input. McGroarty

(1989) argues that CL gives linguistic advantages to ESL learners such as that it opens

opportunities for these learners to use their first language in ways that increase second

language skills. She asserts that CL “can provide teachers with a possible way to use the

primary language as a bridge rather than a barrier to academic knowledge and second

language mastery” (p. 134). My study shows that Indonesian and/or Javanese was used

when the EFL learners were conversing with their classmates, including during peer

interaction that was part of individual accountability in CL. During this interaction, with

the help of their first language, the EFL learners gave each other feedback especially on

English vocabulary. These learners might have needed such feedback to perform better in

the next level of individual accountability.

This study’s finding on the EFL learners’ vocabulary gain adds to what Cole

(2014) found in his meta-analysis that examined the effectiveness of a group of

instructional approaches (i.e. cooperative, collaborative, and peer tutoring) at improving

literacy outcomes for English language learners (ELLs). One of his findings was that peer

mediated-learning promotes word-level gains for the ELLs. My study reveals that

242

through the process of preparing for individual accountability in CL (peer interaction) the

EFL learners gained English vocabulary useful for their next level of individual

accountability performance. This vocabulary help promoted the EFL learners’ production

of comprehensible output. This was evident when the middle school students learned

through Think-Pair-Share. They received vocabulary help from their partner, which was

useful for performing their individual accountability to the whole class (the Share phase).

Through its finding on EFL learners’ English vocabulary gains, this study also

deepens our knowledge of the importance of students’ active participation in interaction

in their language learning (Mackey, 1999; Posada, 2006; Sato & Lyster, 2012).

Specifically, these studies pointed out that it was grammar forms that the second

language learners focused on when giving feedback to their peers, while in my study it

was vocabulary. The nature of the tasks given to the EFL learners in this study can help

explain why vocabulary was the focus when they were giving and receiving feedback.

Across sites, the tasks were for these learners, through their individual performances, to

present information on the assigned text genres (delivering content). Therefore, when the

EFL learners were interacting with each other before a higher level of individual

accountability performance or with members of the other groups, they focused on words

to better deliver the content of the assigned texts. In comparison, the student participants

in the previous research were observed when they engaged in conversational interactions.

The existing studies on interaction in second and foreign language learning

underline the importance of learners’ active participation for their second language

development (Gómez Lobatón, 2010; Mackey, 1999; Posada, 2006; Sato & Lyster,

243

2012). However, these studies did not uncover what constitutes active participation in

peer interaction. My study shows that individual accountability in CL gave the EFL

learners more opportunities to interact with their peers and to use the target language.

These findings shed light on how to arrange peer interaction (the when, what, and how)

that promotes language acquisition and learning. Specifically, the EFL learners interacted

with their peers after they performed their individual accountability (such as in Think-

Pair-Share in the middle school classroom and One Stray in the high school classroom)—

the when. With their peers, they talked about the task at hand. Specifically, it was about

the assigned learning materials that should be presented by each of them—the what. They

took turns giving feedback on each other’s performance of individual accountability—the

how. This feedback-giving and feedback-receiving activity corresponds with Webb’s

(1982) variables of student interaction and learning in small groups that she identified as

positively related to achievement: giving help and receiving help. In short, my study

illustrated that it is this pattern of peer interaction that contributed to the EFL learners

having more opportunities to use the target language (particularly in spoken mode) and to

negotiate for meaning.

Through their peers’ individual accountability performance, the EFL learners in

this study gained access to spoken language production, particularly pronunciation. This

finding is consistent with Kagan’s (1995) argument that students’ communicative output

in CL facilitates language acquisition including pronunciation. He asserts that even

though peer output is less accurate than teacher output that is abundant in a traditional

classroom, frequent communicative output produced by students in CL setting yields

244

speech acquisition for more readily than formal, accurate input from the teacher. By

paying attention to their peers’ individual accountability performance, the EFL learners in

this study learned new words related to the task at hand as well as how these words were

pronounced. Hence, the availability of individual accountability performance promotes

the acquisition of the target language.

My study revealed that the language skill that the EFL students found as the most

challenging was speaking, which has been suggested by other studies that investigated

foreign language learning (Laoughrin-Sacco, 1992; Price, 1991; Young, 1990). Because

of the EFL learners’ difficulties in producing spoken English, in this study, speaking was

the focused language skill in the two teachers’ instruction. Studies showed that CL

promoted ESL/EFL secondary school students’ achievement in speaking skills (Liang,

2002; Sachs et al., 2003) and their confidence in producing spoken English (Liang,

2002). Beyond the context of secondary schools, Suwantarathip and Wichadee’s (2010)

study demonstrated that CL reduces college students’ anxiety and promotes higher

language proficiency because it provides EFL learning environment that allows students

to support, encourage, and praise each other. These researchers argued that the process of

thinking, discussing, and creating meanings in groups provides a less anxiety-inducing

atmosphere, as opposed to whole class instruction. My study extends these studies’

findings through the description of how the chain of activities in individual accountability

in CL can give more opportunites for the EFL learners to use spoken English with their

peers and in turn they gain confidence in speaking in English.

245

CL is under the umbrella of Communicative Approach to language teaching

(Richards, 2002). This study’s key finding that individual accountability in CL is a chain

of activities that promotes language acquisition and learning provided evidence of how

the approach’s underlying concept was put in practice, i.e., language learners learn the

target language through using it to communicate with their peers (Larsen-Freeman, 2012;

Richards, 2002). Through their individual accountability performance, the EFL learners

in this study used the target language, either in spoken or written mode, to communicate

their understanding and mastery of the learning materials to their peers, which was also a

learning activity mandated by the curriculum implemented in their schools. This study,

then, offers a description of how Communicative Approach to language teaching was in

use. This information is scarce, not only in the literature of EFL instruction in Indonesian

contexts but also that of broader Asia Pacific countries, despite the fact that this approach

is enshrined in their EFL curriculums (Nunan, 2003). The Communicative Approach to

language teaching has been adopted for EFL instruction in Indonesia for more than four

decades (Lie, 2007) and still remains in place today (Agustien, 2015). However, silimar

with EFL instruction in other Asia Pacific countries, there is a huge gap between

ministerial rhetoric and classroom reality (Nunan, 2003).

How to Achieve Effective Implementation of CL through Enactment of Individual

Activity

There is a gap in the research literature on effective implementation of CL in

ESL/EFL classrooms. Addressing this gap provides a better understanding of how to

implement CL that enhances ESL/EFL learning, especially for developing their

246

communicative competence. It has been suggested by CL literature that effective CL

implementation can be achieved when the principles of CL are enacted (Chen, 2011;

Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Olsen & Kagan, 1992, Slavin, 1999). Through its depiction of

the systemic tensions in the CL implementation and how these tensions put students in

situations that may not lead to the attainment of the lesson objectives, this study adds to

our knowledge about situations that can enhance learning—effective CL

implementation—through the enactment of individual accountability. First, individual

students present their share of work. Second, they perform or present their share of work

with preparation. Third, they see their peers as resources. The study thus builds our

understanding that for an effective implementation of CL through the enactment of

individual accountability to take place, its social environment needs to support CL,

especially from the teachers as the implementers of CL. They need to master and follow

the procedures of selected CL structures. This section will discuss how this study

addresses the gap in the literature on effective implementation of CL with individual

accountability as its focus.

Some studies do not show that the implementation of CL enhanced students’

learning due to factors such as curriculum constraints (Sachs et al., 2003), the need to

train students on how CL works and the need of time for students to get used to learning

through CL (Chen, 2011), and the need to link the how (CL structures) that

accommodates the what (teaching content) (Bejarano, 1987). The factors that impact the

effectiveness of CL and how they relate to my study are discussed as the following. My

study found that the curriculum implemented in the two sites required students to

247

communicate or elaborate on what they learned and individual accountability in CL

helped the teachers to make it happen. Additionally, the curriculums’ Process Standard

mandates the use of CL. This finding is consistent with Ghaith’s (2004) study that found

that curriculum was among the factors that influenced teachers’ use of CL. Nevertheless,

in my study, despite the curriculums’ mandate of CL, the teacher participants’

understanding of CL affected how the selected CL structures were used and how

individual accountability was enacted in their EFL classrooms, which seemed to have

impacted the effectiveness of their CL implementation.

The EFL learners in the high school were new to CL, and their teacher stated the

need to build her students’ understanding of the idea of share of work assigned to

individual students (individual accountability) when working in CL. This finding is

consistent with Chen’s (2011) suggestion on the need to train students on how CL works

and the need for “adequate time for instruction and ‘fermentation’ of CL elements” for

implementation of CL structures (p. 30). In line with the mandate from the curriculums

for the EFL learners to communicate/elaborate on what they had learned (text genres) to

their peers, the CL structures used by their teachers across sites belonged to the same

category: structures for presenting information (Kagan & Kagan, 2009, p. 6.11). This

finding supports Bejarano’s (1987) recommendation that there are CL structures

developed specifically for accommodating the teaching of particular learning materials

(knowledge/skills) and that different CL structures serve different learning objectives.

My study shows, however, while the choice of CL structures may have suited the demand

from the curriculum for students communicating or elaborating on what they learn,

248

teachers’ mastering and following the procedure of selected CL structures impacted

whether or not this curriculum demand was met. In short, my study extends the previous

research findings by uncovering the need for support from the social environment (i.e.,

curriculum and knowledge of CL/the rules component) for an effective CL

implementation through individual accountability to take place.

This study questions the ability of CL to increase students’ liking of classmates

(Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1990). Johnson and Johnson (1999) point out that CL

“promotes the development of caring and committed relationships for every student” (p.

72), and Slavin (1990) lists liking of classmates as one of the advantages of CL.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that CL was part of their teachers’ instructional practice,

the EFL learners in this study had peer preferences when it came to working in groups.

They saw that not all of their classmates could play the role of resource person in their

learning. In addition, the EFL learners commented on the awkwardness of the interaction

and lack of trust they experienced when working with non-friend groups. The absence of

individual accountability in home groups and peer interaction in some of their teachers’

use of some CL structures may have affected the EFL learners having this peer

preference. Hence, in the context of this study, the CL implementation did not

automatically build students’ liking of classmates.

Sharan (2010) suggests that while CL has been endorsed by research because of

its benefits for learners, there is a need for research that documents factors impeding the

implementation. Such study can as well bring about the awareness of the conditions for

sustainable implementation. My study’s finding on the importance of teachers’

249

understanding of CL addresses the gap in the literature that Sharan (2010) identified.

Specifically, my study deepens our understanding that for an effective CL

implementation through individual accountability to take place (i.e., an implementation

that enhances learning), teachers need to master and follow the procedure of selected CL

structures. I found evidence of what has been cautioned by Antil, et al. (1998) that “lack

of a structured model might lead teachers to modify the approach in a manner

inconsistent with processes that underlie cooperative learning, which could reduce its

effectiveness” (in Lopata, et al., 2003, p. 233). My study shows that because the

procedures of the selected CL structures were sometimes only partially followed, the

students did not perform their individual accountability in their home groups (i.e. not

presenting their share of work) and did not interact with their home group members. The

absence of these two activities made the students perform their individual accountability

directly to the whole class (i.e. performing without preparation). This practice did not

reflect the underlying principles of CL, especially because the students did not utilize

each other as resources for preparing for their individual accountability performance. In

short, the teacher participants’ understanding of CL seems to have impeded their own CL

implementation.

As indicated in Chapter 5, the two teacher participants in this study were language

teachers with “interpretive beliefs” (Young & Lee, 1984), i.e., teachers whose instruction

emphasizes a fluency approach that promotes negotiation for meaning and active

interaction among learners. The two teachers believed that they were the facilitators of

their students’ learning and believed in the benefits of group work and CL. Unlike how

250

she characterized her colleagues’ instruction, the middle school teacher participant did

not “spoon-feed” learning materials to her students, nor did she merely give them

grammar exercises (First Interview, 20150406). Similarly, the high school teacher

participant believed that an English class should be loud because of the learners’ talk in

English (First Interview, 20150404). My research extends the existing studies that found

that implementers of CL were teachers with these interpretive beliefs (e.g., Cohen &

Tellez, 1994; Ghaith, 2004) by demonstrating that in addition to having these beliefs,

teachers need to master and follow the procedure of selected CL structures in order to

implement CL effectively.

Chapter 7 discussed the findings that the two teacher participants implemented

CL to give their students enjoyable, active, and lesson objectives-directed learning

experiences. In other words, they had the metacognitive awareness of “what they are

doing and why they are doing it” (Finkbeiner, 2004, p. 126). My study extends

Finkbeiner’s (2004) finding that EFL teacher candidates need to develop this

metacogitive awareness in their future CL practice. Specifically, my study shows that in

addition to having the awareness, teachers need to deepen their understanding of CL,

such as knowing the variety of CL structures and their procedures, to implement CL

effectively. In short, the teacher participants’ interpretive beliefs and their metacognitive

awareness of their CL practice and why it was part of their teaching methods appear not

to result in the occurrence of an effective CL implementation. A deeper understanding of

CL including mastering the procedures of selected CL structures as well as following

these procedures in practice is needed for CL implementation that enhances learning.

251

Otherwise, CL implementation may be impeded by the teachers themselves. Again, this

study underlines the need for support from the social environment (i.e., teachers’

understanding of CL—the rules component) for the occurence of effective

implementation of CL through individual accountability enactment.

Summary

In sum, by exploring the role of individual accountability in CL in enhancing EFL

learning, this study addressed the following gaps in the literature: 1) the process of CL

implementation (how CL works), 2) how individual accountability (as one of CL

principles) is enacted, 3) how CL enhances EFL learning, and 4) how to implement CL

effectively. My study depicted the processes of CL implementation in EFL classrooms

with individual accountability as the focus, and showed that when this CL principle was

enacted, EFL learning was to some degree enhanced. My study corroborates claims in the

existing research and seminal works that CL promotes second language acquisition and

learning. This includes that through peer interaction as part of individual accountability in

CL, the EFL learners utilized their first language to better modify their spoken production

in the target language. In addition, through the availability of individual accountability

performance, the EFL learners had access to their peers’ pronounciation and by

performing their individual accountability, these learners gained confidence in speaking

in English. The study also offers a new perspective to the existing literature on active

participation in interaction. Instead of receiving grammar feedback through peer

interaction, as part of individual accountability activities, the EFL learners in this study

received vocabulary help. Additionally, this study identifies a pattern of peer interaction

252

(one of the activities in individual accountability in CL) that encompasses activities of

help giving and receiving, which promotes the use of the target language and negotiation

for meaning.

This study also offers a description of how Communicative Approach to language

teaching is in use and provides the evidence that the activities in individual accountability

in CL make EFL learners use the target language to communicate with their peers, and

how these activities have the potential of improving their communicative competence.

Finally, my study demonstates that for an effective CL implementation to take place,

especially through the enactment of individual accountability, support from social

environment is needed, particularly teachers mastering and following the procedures of

selected CL structures. In doing so, my study challenges the existing literature on the

benefit of CL for promoting students liking of classmates.

Implications

In this section, I point out the implications of my study. First, I discuss the

implications for practice, including for teachers new to CL, teachers whose students are

new to CL, practitioners of CL, and teacher educators. Next, I lay out implications for

policy. Then, I discuss implications for research, which is followed by directions for

future research.

Implications for Practice

Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999) advocate that “concepts, rules, and theories

that are not associated with activity have no meaning” (p. 68). Therefore, based on the

253

findings of this study, I will discuss specific steps to take for effective CL

implementation with particular attention to the enactment of individual accountability.

This study shows that it is important that teachers follow the procedures of

selected CL structures so that their CL implementation goes in the direction of attaining

the lesson objectives. Hence, for teachers new to CL, the study suggests that they first use

CL structures or instructional strategies developed by CL experts exactly as described.

Doing so will give these teachers the idea of activities involved in individual

accountability in CL and how these activities can benefit their students. This study also

indicates that the function of all of CL structures selected by the teachers was for

presenting information, which was suitable with the mandated learning experience and

with speaking as the language skill focused on by the teacher participants. Then, this

study also suggests that it may be beneficial for teachers new to CL to look for relevant

literature on the variety of CL structures and their functions so that they will be able to

make informed decisions when selecting CL structures that suit their lesson objectives.

This study found that speaking was the most challenging language skill for the

EFL learners and individual accountability in CL, which had its levels of performance,

promoted the use of spoken English and helped the EFL learners gain confidence to

speak in English. Therefore, for EFL teachers whose students also struggle to speak in

English, I suggest the following. This study identifies four levels of individual

accountability (in pairs, home group, other groups, and to the whole class) and suggests

that a higher level of individual accountability is preceded by an initial or lower level of

individual accountability so that EFL learners perform their individual accountability

254

with preparation. Hence, EFL learners who struggle with speaking in the target language

need to first learn through CL structures that have one level of individual accountability.

For example, Fan-N-Pick (Kagan & Kagan, 2009) requires individual accountability in

pairs only or RoundRobin requires individual accountability in home groups only. Once

these learners gain confidence in speaking in English before their partner or home group

members, the teachers can start to use CL structures that require more than one level of

individual accountability, such as Think-Pair-Share and Numbered Heads Together.

One of this study’s findings (i.e., the EFL learners across sites had peer preference

despite the fact that CL was a teaching method their teachers usually used) suggests that

teachers need to build their students’ understanding of peers as learning tools/resources

when learning through CL. CL structures for classbuilding and/or teambuilding can

accommodate this need. Once the students get this idea, teachers can begin using

structures for academic functions, such as for knowledge building, procedure learning,

processing information, thinking skills, and presenting information (see Kagan & Kagan,

2009). This study is also useful for practitioners of CL in the field of ESL/EFL who

consider developing their own CL structures to better meet the need of their students. To

that end, this study proposes that there are two activities essential in a CL structure:

individual accountability and peer interaction. Specifically, peer interaction follows a

performance of individual accountability or it is between two levels of individual

accountability. This study shows that this chain of activities in individual accountability

in CL helps enhance EFL learning because EFL learners have more opportunities to use

the target language to present what they learn, interact with their peers, receive

255

vocabulary help from peers, have access to pronunciation from peers’ performances, and

gain confidence to use spoken English.

My study shows that not all CL structures or instructional strategies require

students’ individual accountability performance to the whole class, such as RoundRobin

and Jigsaw. However, most of the CL structures used by the two teacher participants in

this study (e.g., Numbered Heads Together, One Stray, and Jigsaw), required individual

accountability in home groups. Johnson and Johnson (1999) assert, “The purpose of

cooperative learning is to make each member a stronger individual and that students learn

together so that they can subsequently perform higher as individuals” (p. 71). Hence,

when CL practitioners, purposefully or in an impromptu manner, modify CL structures

by adding the feature of individual accountability to the whole class (such as in the use of

RoundRobin in the middle school classroom and Jigsaw in the high school classroom),

their students should first perform their individual accountability in their home groups

and/or in other groups. This is to prepare the students so that later they can better perform

their individual accountability to the whole class. Arranging students’ presentation in

home groups or in the other groups prior to their presentation to the whole class is also a

way to make the students utilize each other as learning tools. Specifically, they become

the audience of their peers’ performances and then give each other feedback.

For teacher educators, this study recommends the teaching of CL that connects

this teaching method with the implemented curriculum in their teacher candidates’

contexts. My study showed that curriculum was one of the rules guiding the

implementation of CL in the two sites, especially with regard to the mandated learning

256

experience. In other words, CL implementation may not be meaningful if it is not in

accordance with the implemented curriculum. This study also suggests that the enactment

of individual accountability as a CL principle helps teachers to provide students with

learning experience that leads to the attainment of lesson objectives—effective CL

implementation. Hence, the teaching of CL in teacher education programs needs to

include CL principles. Student teachers need to learn the defining characteristics of CL

because, as literature suggests, CL works and benefits students when its principles are

enacted (Chen, 2011; Olsen & Kagan, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1999).

Additionally, it is important for teacher education programs to emphasize student

teachers’ mastery of the procedures of CL structures; the teaching of CL needs to

incorporate the variety of CL structures as well as their functions and the procedures. My

study also reveals the teacher participants’ (practicing teachers) awareness of their need

to broaden their own knowledge and repertoire of CL to better provide their students with

learning experiences dictated by the curriculums. This is an indication that these

practicing teachers need continuous learning to better implement CL. I believe teacher

educators can provide this CL learning through research done collaboratively with

practicing teachers and/or through community service programs targeting practicing

teachers.

Implications for Policy

This study is noteworthy to policy of primary and secondary education in

Indonesia because it reveals the need for teachers to deepen their understanding of CL for

an effective implementation of CL. While the Process Standard of Primary and

257

Secondary Education of the implemented curriculums mandated learning experience that

involved CL (National Education Standard Board, 2007/2013b), these documents did not

elaborate what constitutes CL. For future development of this Standard, I recommend a

section on CL for teacher’s guidance. This section may present the variety of CL

approaches available in the literature, CL principles, and samples of CL structures along

with their functions and procedures. Kagan’s Structural Approach to CL needs to be

considered for inclusion. My study shows that Kagan’s Structural Approach, when

implemented following the preset procedures, helped the student participants to

communicate and/or elaborate on what they learned to their peers. This was a learning

activity mandated by the curriculums implemented in their schools as well as a form of

active learning instructed by Law No. 20/2003 on the National Education System.

The processes of the CL implementation, including the enactment of individual

accountability, in secondary school EFL classrooms depicted in this study should inform

Indonesian policy makers, especially those who are in charge of the EFL policies about

teaching methods. Most EFL classrooms in the country have not reflected the principles

of Communicative Approach to language teaching that was adopted since 1980s

(Alwasilah, 2012; Lie, 2007; Musthafa, 2009). To date, this approach guides the

curriculum and the teaching of EFL in Indonesia (Agustien, 2015). The underlying

concept of this approach is that language learners use the target language to communicate

with their peers. This concept, as my study demonstrates, was realized through the

enactment of individual accountability in CL. Hence, this study recommends EFL

instruction policy makers in Indonesia include CL as one of the teaching methods in the

258

“practical guidelines” (The Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language in

Indonesia, 2011, p. 8) for the EFL teachers. Moreover, the EFL teachers involved in this

study expressed their awareness of their need to broaden their own knowledge and

repertoire of CL to better provide their students with such learning experiences. This

suggests the need of learning resources for CL implementation and of professional

development programs that focus on CL.

Implications for Research

In my qualitative case study, the level of inquiry or unit of analysis was an

activity in CL, i.e., individual accountability, which was performed by EFL learners. This

activity in CL, which comprises a chain of interconnected activities, may not be

understood or made sense of through quantitative methodologies. My study makes unique

contributions to theory of CL, especially because it reveals the processes and the

contribution of individual accountability, which is one of CL principles, to help enhance

learning.

Individual accountability as a CL principle is observable and can be identified

(Kagan, 1989). This notion, however, is under-researched, particularly in the field of

ESL/EFL teaching. My research shows that individual accountability is a required

activity in CL within which there are connected activities (performance-interaction-

performance) carried out by individual students in public—witnessed by other learners. I

make the case that through this chain of activities, elements essential for language

acquisition and learning were made available for the EFL learners: comprehensible input,

interaction, negotiation for meaning, and comprehensible output. In other words, by

259

carrying out the activities of individual accountability in CL, the secondary school

students’ EFL learning can be enhanced. Hence, my study extends CL theory by showing

that individual accountability in CL is observable, or can be identified, and its chain of

activities helps enhance EFL learning.

Through the use of CHAT framework, my study exemplifies how the social

environment of CL implementation affected its object (the lesson objectives and

outcome). The expected outcome or the goal of the EFL instruction was the learners’

developed communicative competence, which encompassed the teaching of four

language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing). Nevertheless, the EFL context

made the the learners struggle with speaking in English, and the

communicating/elaborating activity mandated by the curriculums, made speaking the

main focus of the teacher participants’ instruction. Consequently, individual

accountability in CL in the two sites was mostly speaking performances (activities),

which might not be the case in different contexts, such as in ESL and English Language

Arts classrooms in English speaking countries. The teacher participants’ focus on their

students’ speaking skill, which was accommodated by the activities within individual

accountability in CL, is important to note because it showcases how the enactment of this

CL principle can help meet the need of both EFL learners (of the opportunities to use the

target language to communicate with their peers) and the teachers themselves (of

teaching method that suited the goal of EFL learning and the implemented curriculums).

In other words, the CHAT lens can help us to understand that CL implementation,

including the enactment of individual accountability, is nuanced by its social

260

environment. The use of CHAT’s concept of object-oriented activity and its social

environment also focused my research attention on the barriers of CL implementation as

well as the enactment of individual accountability in the research sites. This suggests

researchers interested in revealing the effectiveness of CL (e.g., through the enactment of

other CL principles or the effectiveness of a group of CL structures for teaching specific

learning materials or language skills) that they take into account the social environment

of the studied CL implementation.

My study also brings CL research out of the conventional model in which the use

of one CL instructional strategy was examined to see its effect on learning, such as

Student Team Achievement Division—STAD developed by Robert Slavin (1978) (e.g.,

Bejarano, 1987; Ghaith, 2001; Hijazi & Al-Natour, 2012; Liang, 2002; Syafini& Rizan,

2009). Since my study focused on one activity in CL—individual accountability, which is

present in almost all approaches of CL—it embraced any CL structures selected by the

teacher participants as part of their teaching. In other words, my study did not prescribe

any CL structures to be used by the teacher participants during the study’s timeframe.

Researching CL with this model afforded me the opportunity to see CL implementation

based on the teacher participants’ understanding of CL, and the meanings of CL for them,

as well as to understand their CL implementation in relation to their teaching contexts.

The use of this model of CL research, like this study demonstrated, may present

challenges such as researchers finding discrepancies between researchers-developers

structured model of CL and teacher participants’ application of CL. This challenge,

261

however, can be mitigated through, for example, the utilization of in-depth interviewing

or focus group discusisons to understand the sources of the identified discrepancies.

Directions for Future Research

This study shows that individual accountability in CL is an observable activity

(can be identified) and there are interrelated activities in it. This study thus lays the

groundwork for research on other CL principles because other CL principles may also be

observable. In the future, more research is needed to analyze and theorize how other CL

principles (such as positive interdependence, equal participation, and simultaneous

interaction) work to see how each of them, individually and/or in combination, plays a

role in enhancing learning. Future research can also investigate to what extent the

absence of other principles impact the effectiveness of an implementation of CL and the

meanings of other CL principles among teachers new to CL and/or CL practitioners.

Research in this area can help the development of CL structures and the development of

criteria of effective CL implementation.

This study reveals that the teacher participants focused on speaking in their

insruction because of the need of their EFL learners, and CL and its individual

accountability could accommodate the teaching of this language skill and help elevate the

learners’ confidence in speaking in English. Given that CL is a mandated teaching

method in the context of Indonesian primary and secondary education, CL is a teaching

method under the umbrella of Communicative Approach to language teaching adopted by

EFL instruction in the country, and Indonesia being a country with low English

proficiency (Anderson, 2012), I see a need to further explore how CL enhances EFL

262

learning with particular attention in the teaching of the other language skills (listening,

reading, and writing). Learners’ communicative competence is not only built upon their

speaking ability, but also upon these other language skills. I believe research in these

areas can shed light on how CL facilitates the teaching of the four language skills,

including the identification of CL approaches and/or structures that best suit the teaching

of each language skill.

Teachers’ understanding of CL, as this study has shown, is important to ensure

effective CL implementation through the enactment of individual accountability. This

suggests future studies that examine the teaching of CL in teacher education programs:

the what, the why, and the how. For example, studies that document and describe course

materials used in the teaching of CL to teacher candidates, explain why these materials

are involved and not others, and investigate how teacher educators teach CL in their

classes and why they teach the way they do. Equally important are studies that investigate

the what, the why, and the how of the teaching of CL to in-service teachers in their

professional development programs. For example, studies that exlore how teacher

educators support practicing teachers in their CL implementation, and identify what is

needed by practicing teachers to be able to implement CL effectively.

Limitations

The short period of investigation (one month, especially with regard to participant

observations) in the sites posed a limitation to this study. However, the nature of a

qualitative study, i.e. data collection, management and analysis that go hand in hand,

helped mitigate this limitation. This means that the analysis of data previously collected

263

informed the next data collection activity. Methodology and data source triangulation

(Stake, 1995) also mitigated this limitation. Specifically, my research data were gathered

from three data collection strategies: participant observations, in-depth interviewing, and

document analysis, resulting in multiple data sources, which helped me to gain sufficient

data to analyze and generate meaningful findings. Lastly, this limitation was mitigated

through the use of negative case analysis, which allowed me to support my arguments by

involving data from lessons in which the teacher particpants used conventional group

work.

Another methodological limitation was my position as “the researcher as

translator” (Temple & Young, 2004, p. 168). As indicated in Chapter 4 (recall Credibility

section) and Chapter 5 (see footnote #3 and #5), I translated quotes from the interviews

and relevant curriculum and instructional documents—those used to support my

arguments— from Indonesian to English for the purpose of including these data in this

dissertation. In addition to these translations, while all interviews were conducted in

Indonesian (their transcriptions were thus also in Indonesian), I did the coding and memo

writing in English, which involved an act of translating of key words and phrases from

the transcriptions and document analysis data. Also, my member checking (recall

Credibility section in Chapter 4) was carried out in Indonesian.

The type of translation I employed, or one which was close to what I did, is called

direct translation: “A translator or translators who are bi-lingual attempt to translate as

best they can from one language into the other” (Sechrest, Fay, Zaidi, 1972, p. 50). One

264

problem with this type of translation was cautioned by these three authors as the

following:

…idiosyncrasies may be introduced by the translator himself. The translator

himself may not be sufficiently skilled on one or the other of the languages in

which he is working, he may not be culturally representative of the group for

which the materials are to be used, and he may by the reason of his own

experience, have peculiarities of word understanding or word use which will not

be shared by persons for whom the materials are intended. (p. 51)

With regard to the authors’ notion of “culturally representative,” as indicated in Chapter 1

(recall Researcher Positionality), I may not be culturally representative to the intended

audience of the curriculum and instructional documents. I have never been a school

teacher. Hence, my knowledge of the curriculum and instructional documents may not be

representative of Indonesian EFL teachers’. I also may not be culturally representative in

comparison to my research participants. Even though my research participants and I are

bilingual in the same languages (Javanese and Indonesian), our proficiency in these

languages may not be the same. Grosjean (1989) states:

The bilingual uses the two languages—separately or together—for different

purposes, in different domains of life, with different people. Because the needs

and uses of the two languages are usually quite different, the bilingual is rarely

equally or completely fluent in the two languages. (p. 6)

My level of proficiency in Javanese may be lower than that of my research participants

(with the exception of the two focal students from the middle school who used

Indonesian in their homes) because my family and I speak mostly in Indonesian and

English. Also, my profession requires the use of English both in spoken and written

forms. In other words, for me, Javanese is a second language. With regard to English, as

indicated in Chapter 1 (recall Researcher Positionality) and Chapter 5 (see footnote #3

265

and #5), it is a foreign language for me. This may have impacted on my English

translations, especially given that the translation materials were from spoken language

(which suggests fast-changing discourses) and formal written documents (i.e. the

curriculum and instructional documents, which were terminology-laden).

Notwithstanding these cautions, Temple and Young (2004) posit:

The researcher/translator role offers the researcher significant opportunities for

close attention to cross cultural meanings and interpretations and potentially

brings the researcher up close to the problems of meaning equivalence within the

research process. (p. 168)

Part of my reasons for not hiring a translator was as articulated by Temple and Young

(2004) above. My research participants and I spoke Indonesian and as indicated above, to

varying degrees of proficiency we spoke Javanese (again, not in the case of the middle

school’s focal students). Javanese words or phrases were often used by the teacher

participants in the interviews. For example, Andini said: “Oh, temenku paham kok tak

bilangin seperti ini” (Second Interview, 20150408, recall Individual Accountability in

the Activity System (Middle School) section in Chapter 5). The word tak in this quote

exists in both Indonesian and Javanese, but they have different meanings in each

language. In Indonesian, it means not. Translating the above quote to Indonesian using

tak as not, the sentence reads: “Oh, my partner understood, you know, what not said the

way I did.” In Javanese, particularly in Andini’s sentence above, the word tak means I

(referring to oneself). Hence, when the quote is translated to Indonesian using tak as I, it

reads: “Oh, my partner understood, you know, what I said the way I did.” This particular

translation is the one that reflects what Andini meant in the interview. Given these “cross

cultural meanings and interpretations” (Temple & Young, 2004, p. 168), if I had to hire a

266

translator, he or she would have had to be someone who mastered three languages:

Indonesian, Javanese, and English. Moreover, he or she would have needed some

knowledge of the Indonesian education system, especially its EFL instruction, to better

provide “meaning equivalence” (Temple & Young, 2004, p. 168) for the readers of this

manuscript, especially those who are in the education system. Finding one was not an

easy task given my time and funding constraints.

I took a number of steps to mitigate this limitation of “the researcher as translator”

(Temple & Young, 2004, p. 168). First, as discussed in Chapter 4 (recall Credibility

section), I had an outsider to the study, who was an insider to Indonesian and Javanese

and had a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Teacher Education, to help figure out my

research participants’ intentions in their language, especially for the parts needed to

support the identified themes. He did so by reading this manuscript with particular

attention to the quotes and their translations and then giving me his feedback (e.g.

suggesting English word(s) that best reflected what my research participants meant).

Second, I had another outsider to the study, who was an insider to Indonesian

(unfortunately, not to Javanese) and to EFL instruction in Indonesia (the person has a

Master of Arts in TESOL). She verified my translations of quotes from the interviews

and relevant curriculum and instructional documents used within this manuscript, such as

making sure that I was consistent in using terminology and showing me translations that

she thought revealed my bias. Based on the feedback that I received from the two

outsiders, I revised my translations. With regard to my coding, memo writing, and

member checking, the translations were not verified by anyone (as these documents

267

comprised my research data) because I remained true to what I stated in my RSRB

documents: “I will not share data with anyone but dissertation committee members” (see

Appendix A, B, and C). However, the data are ready for an audit at any time (recall Data

Management in Chapter 4).

Conclusions

I found that individual accountability both as a principle and activity in CL

enhances learners’ interaction with their learning materials and with their peers, and in

the process it promotes the use of the target language. When the EFL learners are

engaging in the activities of individual accountability in CL using the target language,

they may enhance not only their own but also their peers’ EFL learning.

Individual accountability is a chain of activities without which CL may not help

teachers attain their lesson objectives. For individual accountability in CL to play its roles

to help enhance learning, support from its social environment (e.g., the curriculum, the

teachers’ understanding of CL, the students seeing their peers as learning resources, and

how works are shared among classroom members) is needed. The social environment can

affect whether or not individual accountability in CL is enacted in the manner that

reflects it as an underlying principle of CL and as a lesson objectives-oriented activity.

Social environment comprises rules, community, and division of labor components;

however, teachers’ understanding of CL as part of the rules component is influential

because of the variety of roles teachers play in their CL implementation, especially their

roles as curriculum and CL implementers as well as users of CL structures. Teachers’

268

understanding of CL can impact on the enactment of individual accountability in CL,

including whether or not this activity in CL helps enhance learning.

I have been an EFL teacher educator since 2008 but had never done any research

in formal EFL classrooms until this dissertation research. As I was conducting the study,

I kept telling myself that my future research will also take place in these classrooms.

From this study, I learned about the complexity of EFL instruction in my country, such as

the fact that not all teachers implement CL while it was a mandated teaching method and

that there was a need for more CL resources. Notwithstanding the complexity, I

witnessed CL in use. The research question, the qualitative case study utilized as the

research methodology, and CHAT and Interaction Hypothesis employed in this study as

the theoretical frameworks helped me to limit my inquiry and stay focused on its purpose.

In retrospect, my dissertation research was meaningful to me as a researcher and EFL

teacher educator. By doing this dissertation research, I recognized other areas of CL that

need to be explored to better understand how to enhance EFL learning through CL.

Because of this study’s findings on how teachers’ understanding of CL impacts on the

effectiveness of CL and its individual accountability, I gained a deeper understanding on

how to better equip my teacher candidates with CL, a mandated teaching method.

The implementation of CL as an effort to help the EFL learners attain

communicative competence in English, as this study has shown, faced its own challenges.

Nevertheless, conducting this study made my beliefs in CL for teaching EFL grow

stronger because I saw firsthand how it helped structure the language learning in a way

that capitalized on interactions, performances, and the use of the target language. These

269

activities were absent when I was learning EFL in Indonesian schools years ago. As I

started to see them happening in the studied classrooms, I could not be happier and feel

optimistic about the future of EFL instruction in my country and its outcomes in the years

to come. I believe CL will take place in many EFL classrooms and bring about the

betterment of Indonesians’ proficiency in English.

Additionally, implementing CL means showing students that they have peers as

learning resources and building their appreciation for each other, an attitude which is also

needed beyond classroom walls. This study helped me to see that the teachers themselves

needed learning resources to be able to make it happen. Because of this research, I get

more motivated to be part of their resource options. I know that I will not be able to be

there for as many teachers as I want but I promise myself that it will happen. I envision

involving practicing teachers in my future research on individual accountability in CL

and/or other CL principles, and based on what I found in this research, I intend to write a

book on individual accountability in CL for teachers new to CL. I imagine that the book

will help these teachers implement CL in a way that reflects research models of CL—

individual accountability is structured in their practice—and thus enhances their students’

learning.

270

References

Agustien, Helena I.R. (2015). By definition semua ELT yg bertujuan mengembangkan

komunikasi menggunakan CLT [Facebook comment]. Retrieved January 24,

2016, from

https://www.facebook.com/groups/626766864032969/search/?query=communicat

ive

Alghamdi, R. & Gillies, R. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning in comparison to

traditional learning (small groups) on EFL learners’ outcomes when learning

English as a foreign language. Asian Social Science, 9(13), 19-27.

Alghamdi, R. (2014). EFL learners’ verbal interaction during cooperative learning and

traditional learning (small group). Journal of Language Teaching and Research,

5(1), 21-27.

Alwasilah, A. C. (2012, May 19). Redesigning the curriculum for English teachers. The

Jakarta Post. Retrieved from

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/19/redesigning-curriculum-english-

tea chers.html

Alwasilah, A. C. (2013, September 21). Improving teacher training colleges. The Jakarta

Post. Retrieved from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/09/21/improving-

teacher-training-colleges.html

Anderson, C. (2012, October 28). Low English levels can hurt countries' progress. The

New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/world/europe/29iht-educbriefs29.html?_r=0

https://www.facebook.com/groups/626766864032969/search/?query=communicative

https://www.facebook.com/groups/626766864032969/search/?query=communicative

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/19/redesigning-curriculum-english-tea%20chers.html

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/19/redesigning-curriculum-english-tea%20chers.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/world/europe/29iht-educbriefs29.html?_r=0

271

Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning:

Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice.

American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419-454.

Aranson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw

classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Bagarić, V., & Djigunović, J. M. (2007). Defining communicative competence.

Metodika, 8(1), 94-103.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H.

Freeman and Company.

Baswedan, A. (2014, December 6). Surat Mendikbud kepada kepala sekolah mengenai

pelaksanaan Kurikulum 2013. Antaranews.com. Retrieved from

http://www.antaranews.com/info-pendidikan/berita/467945/surat-mendikbud-

kepada-kepala-sekolah-mengenai-pelaksanaan-kurikulum-2013

Bejarano, Y. (1987). A cooperative small‐group methodology in the language classroom.

TESOL Quarterly, 21, 483-504.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research in education. An

introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative

learning. Change, 27(1), 12-18.

Bygate, M. (1988). Units of oral expression and language learning in small group

interaction. Applied linguistics, 9(1), 59-82.

http://www.antaranews.com/info-pendidikan/berita/467945/surat-mendikbud-kepada-kepala-sekolah-mengenai-pelaksanaan-kurikulum-2013

http://www.antaranews.com/info-pendidikan/berita/467945/surat-mendikbud-kepada-kepala-sekolah-mengenai-pelaksanaan-kurikulum-2013

272

Celce‐Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2

instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL

Quarterly, 31(1), 141-152.

Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory (2nd

ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Chen, H. (2011). Structuring cooperative learning in teaching English pronunciation.

English Language Teaching, 4(3), 26-32.

Coelho, E. (2009). Cooperative learning: foundation for a communicative curriculum. In

Kessler, C. (Ed.), Cooperative language learning (pp. 31-49). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small

groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. DOI:

10.3102/00346543064001001

Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Scarloss, B. A., & Arellano, A. R. (1999). Complex

instruction: Equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory into Practice,

38(2), 80-86.

Cohen, M. D., & Tellez, K. (1994, April). Variables affecting the teacher implementation

of cooperative learning methods in ESL and bilingual classrooms. Paper presented

at the 75th

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

New Orleans, LA.

273

Cohen, E. G., Brody, C. M. & Sapon-Shevin, M. (Eds.). (2004). Teaching cooperative

learning: The challenge for teacher education (pp. 185-194). Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative research guidelines project. July 2006.

http://www.qualres.org/HomeMaxi-3803.html

Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural–historical approach to distributed

cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and

educational considerations (pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Cole, M. (2014). Speaking to read: Meta-analysis of peer-mediated learning for English

language learners. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(3), pp. 358-382.

Cresswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. London, UK: Sage Publications, Ltd.

DelliCarpini, M. (2009). Enhancing cooperative learning in TESOL teacher

education. ELT Journal, 62(1), 42-50.

Denzin, N. (1984). The research act. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Emerson, R.,

Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd

ed.). Chicago,

IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education. (2016). Visi dan misi.

Retrieved from http://dikdas.kemdikbud.go.id/index.php/visi-dan-misi/

Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd

ed.).

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.


http://dikdas.kemdikbud.go.id/index.php/visi-dan-misi/

274

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to

developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory:

The case of primary care medical practice. In Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J. (Eds.)

Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context, 64-103. New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Engestrom, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning

work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974.

Finkbeiner, C. (2004). Cooperation and collaboration in a foreign language teacher

training program. In Cohen, E. G., Brody, C. M. & Sapon-Shevin, M. (Eds.),

Teaching cooperative learning: The challenge for teacher education (pp. 111-

127). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Foster, P., & Ohta, A.S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second

language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402–430.

Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization

conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 675-686.

Gagné, N., & Parks, S. (2013). Cooperative learning tasks in a grade 6 intensive ESL

class: Role of scaffolding. Language Teaching Research, 17, 188-209.

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language

acquisition. In VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language

acquisition: An introduction (pp.175-194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

275

Ghaith, G. (2001). Learners' perceptions of their STAD cooperative experience. System,

29, 289-301.

Ghaith, G. (2003). Effects of the learning together model of cooperative learning on

English as a foreign language reading achievement, academic self-esteem, and

feelings of school alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 451-474.

Ghaith, G. (2004). Correlates of the implementation of the STAD cooperative learning

method in the English as a foreign language classroom. International Journal of

Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 279-294.

Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and

attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 13, 451-458.

Goldenberg, S. (1992). Thinking methodologically. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Gómez Lobatón, J. C. (2011). Peer Interaction: A social perspective towards the

development of foreign language learning. Profile, 13(1), 189-203.

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in

one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15.

Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2013). Establishing the validity of

qualitative studies. In University of Florida IFAS Extension. Retrieved from

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy394

Hijazi, D. & Al-Natour, A. (2012). Teachers’ attitudes towards using CL for teaching

English skills. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,

3, 443-460.

276

Holt, D. D. (1993). Cooperative Learning: A Response to Linguistic and Cultural

Diversity. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems, Inc.

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes

(Eds.). Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK:

Penguin.

Hyysalo, S. (2005). Objects and motives in a product design process. Mind, Culture, and

Activity, 12(1), 19–36.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,

and mixed approaches (4th

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Johnson, D. W. (1997). Cooperative learning: Past and present. Keynote address,

International Conference on Cooperative Learning and Constructivism, Penang,

Malaysia.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Holubec, E. J., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning:

Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and

curriculum development.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1985). Student-Student Interaction: Ignored but

Powerful. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 22-26.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1987). How can we put cooperative learning into

practice? Science Teacher, 54(6), 46-48.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory

into Practice, 38(2), 67-73.

277

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story:

Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher,

38, 365-379.

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and

development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191-206.

Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for

designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.

Kagan, S. (1986). Cooperative learning and sociocultural factors in schooling. In

California State Department of Education. Beyond Language: Social and Cultural

Factors in Schooling Language Minority Students. LA: Evaluation, Dissemination

and Assessment Center, California State University.

Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational

Leadership, 47(4), 12-15. Kagan, S. (1995). We can talk: Cooperative learning in

the elementary ESL classroom. Kagan Online Magazine, Spring 1995.

www.kaganonline.com. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.

Kagan, S. (1995). We can talk: Cooperative learning in the elementary ESL classroom.

Kagan Online Magazine, Spring 1995. www.kaganonline.com. San Clemente, CA:

Kagan Publishing.

Kagan, S. (1999). The “E” of PIES. Kagan Online Magazine, Summer 1999.

www.kaganonline.com. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.

http://www.kaganonline.com/

278

Kagan, S. (2001). Kagan structures and Learning Together: What is the difference? San

Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Kagan Online Magazine, Summer 2001.

www.KaganOnline.com. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.

Kagan, S. (2003). A brief history of Kagan structures. Kagan Online Magazine. San

Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.

Kagan, S., & High, J. (2002). Kagan structures for English language learners. Kagan

Online Magazine, Summer 2002, 141-153.

Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan

Publishing.

Kagan, S., & McGroarty, M. (1993). Principles of cooperative learning for language and

content gains. In Holt, D. D. (Ed.), Cooperative learning: A response to linguistic

and cultural diversity (pp. 47-66). McHenry, IL: The Center for Applied

Linguistics and Delta Systems, Inc.

Kamberelis, G. & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). On qualitative inquiry: Approaches to

language and literacy research (An NCRLL Volume). New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.

Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind,

Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4–18.

Keyser, M. W. (2000). Active learning and cooperative learning: understanding the

difference and using both styles effectively. Research Strategies, 17(1), 35-44.

http://www.kaganonline.com/

279

Koszalka, T. A., & Wu, C. P. (2004). A Cultural Historical Activity Theory [CHAT]

Analysis of Technology Integration: Case Study of Two Teachers. Association for

Educational Communications and Technology.

Krashen, S. D. (1984). Krashen responds to Faltis. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 357-359.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications (Vol. 1, p. 985).

London, UK: Longman.

Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei

lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). From unity to diversity: twenty-five years of language-

teaching methodology. In English Teaching Forum (Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 28-38).US

Department of State. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of

English Language Programs, SA-5, 2200 C Street NW 4th Floor, Washington,

DC 20037.

Laughrin-Sacco, S. (1992). More than meets the eye: An ethnography of an elementary

French class. Canadian Modern Language Review, 49, 80-101.

Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chailklin & J. Lave (Eds.). Understanding

practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2),

4–33.

Leont’ev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

280

Liang, T. (2002). Implementing cooperative learning in EFL teaching: Process and

effects (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University,

Taipei, Taiwan.

Liang, X. (2004). Cooperative learning as a sociocultural practice. Canadian Modern

Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 60, 637-668.

Liang, X., & Mohan, B. A. (2003). Dilemmas of cooperative learning and academic

proficiency in two languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(1),

35-51.

Lie, A. (2007). Education policy and EFL curriculum in Indonesia: Between the

commitment to competence and the quest for higher score. TEFLIN Journal,

18(1), 1-14.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publication, Inc.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language

acquisition. Handbook of second language acquisition, 2, 413-468.

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second

language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228.

Lopata, C., Miller, K. A., & Miller, R. H. (2003). Survey of actual and preferred use of

cooperative learning among exemplar teachers. The Journal of Educational

Research, 96, 232-239, DOI: 10.1080/00220670309598812

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.

281

Marcellino, M. (2008). English language teaching in Indonesia: A continuous challenge

in education and cultural diversity. TEFLIN Journal, 19(1), 57-69.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th

ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mattarima, K. & Hamdan, A. R. (2011). The teaching constraints of English as a foreign

language in Indonesia: The context of school based curriculum. Sosiohumanika,

4(2), 287-300.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand


McCafferty, S. G., Jacobs, G. M., & Iddings, A. C. D. (Eds.). (2006). Cooperative

learning and second language teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

McGroarty, M. (1989). The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in second

language instruction. NABE Journal, 13, 127-143.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Minister of National Education. (2007). The Decree of the Minister of National

Education Number 18 Year 2007 on In-service Teacher Certification. Jakarta:

Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

282

Minister of Education and Culture. (2013). The Decree of the Minister of Education and

Culture Number 68 Year 2013 on the Basic Framework and Structure of the

Curriculum for Middle Schools. Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Ministry of Education and Culture. (2014). English teacher’s book: When English rings a

bell for middle schools eight graders. Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan dan

Kebudayaan.

Moll, L. C. (Ed.). (1990). ‘Introduction’ L. C. Moll (ed.) Vygotsky and education:

Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Musthafa, B. (2009). English teaching in Indonesia: Status, issues, and challenges.

Retrieved from http://www.oocities.org/upis3/bm/english-teaching-in-

indonesia.htm

Nababan, P. W. J. (1991). Language in education: The case of Indonesia. International

Review of Education, 37(1), 115-131.

National Education Standard Board. (2006). The Decree of the Minister of Education and

Culture of the Republic of Indonesia Number 22 Year 2006 on the Content

Standard for Primary and Secondary Education. Jakarta: BNSP.

National Education Standard Board. (2007). The Decree of the Minister of Education and

Culture of the Republic of Indonesia Number 41 Year 2007 on the Process


http://www.oocities.org/upis3/bm/english-teaching-in-indonesia.htm

http://www.oocities.org/upis3/bm/english-teaching-in-indonesia.htm

283

National Education Standard Board (2013a). The Decree of the Minister of Education

and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia Number 64 Year 2013 on Content


National Education Standard Board. (2013b). The Decree of the Minister of Education

and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia Number 65 Year 2013 on the Process


Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies

and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 589-613.

Olivera, F., & Straus, S. G. (2004). Group-to-individual transfer of learning cognitive and

social factors. Small Group Research, 35, 440-465.

Olsen, R. E. & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In Kessler, C. (Ed.),

Cooperative language learning (pp. 1-30). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

Inc.

Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two

concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive

learning. ERIC Clearinghouse

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (3nd ed.). Thousand


Pica, T. (2009). Second language acquisition in the instructional environment. In Ritchie,

W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.). (2009). The new handbook of second language

acquisition. (pp. 473-501). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

284

Posada, J. (2006). The effect of peer feedback on students’ oral production. Universidad

Distrital Francisco José de Caldas. Master in Applied Linguistics to the teaching

of English.

Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interviews

with highly anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language

anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 101-108).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Ravitch, S. & Riggan, M. (2012). Reason & Rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide

research. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.

Regin, Charles. 1997. Turning the tables: How case-oriented research challenges

variable-oriented research. Comparative Social Research, 16, 27-24.

Richards, J. C. (2002). 30 Years of TEFL/TESL: A personal reflection. RELC Journal,

33(1), 1-35.

Role. (2014). In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary online. Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/role.

Ron, W. (2004). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: A personal view. MIS

Quarterly, 28(1), iii-xii.

Sachs, G. T., Candlin, C. N., & Rose, K. R. (2003). Developing cooperative learning in

the EFL/ESL secondary classroom. RELC Journal, 34, 338-369.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/role

285

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, UK: Sage

Publications, Ltd.

Sanjaya, W. (2008). Kurikulum dan pembelajaran. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media

Group.

Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer Interaction and Corrective Feedback for Accuracy and

Fluency Development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591-626.

doi:10.1017/S0272263112000356.

Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL

Quarterly, 25, 261-278.

Sechrest, L., Fay, T. L., & Zaidi, S. H. (1972). Problems of translation in cross-cultural

research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3(1), 41-56.

Secondary education. (April 11, 2014). In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved

from http://www.britannica.com/topic/secondary-education

Seidman, I. (2012). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences. (4rd

edition). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Seliger, H. (1977). Does practice make perfect?: A study of interaction patterns and L2

competence. Language Learning, 27, 263-278.

Shabaan, K. (2006). An initial study of the effects of cooperative learning on reading

comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and motivation to read. Reading

Psychology, 27, 377-403.

286

Sharan, S. (2002). Differentiating methods of cooperative learning in research and

practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 106-116.

Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: Valued pedagogy,

problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 300-313.

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1990). Group investigation expands cooperative learning.

Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17-21.

Shaw, P. A. (1992). Cooperative learning in graduate programs for language teacher

preparation. In Kessler, C. (Ed.), Cooperative language learning (pp. 175-202).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research Summer, 50,

315-342.

Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?

Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445.

Slavin, R. E. (1989). Here to stay—or gone tomorrow? Educational Leadership, 47(4), 3.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know,

what we need to know. Contemporary educational psychology, 21(1), 43-69.

Slavin, R. E. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory into

practice, 38(2), 74-79.

287

Soepriyatna. (2012). Investigating and assessing competence of high school teachers of

English in Indonesia. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 8(2), 38-49.

Sprague, J. (2010). Seeing through science: Epistemologies. In W. Luttrell (Ed.).

Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and

transformative practice, pp. 8-94. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stake, R. E. (1995) The art of case study research. London, UK: Sage Publication, Ltd.

Stake, R. E. (2005). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publication, Inc.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY:

The Guilford Press.

Sumitra, T. (January 12, 2015). Wajib belajar 12 tahun mulai Juni 2015. Retrieved from:

http://dikdas.kemdikbud.go.id/index.php/wajib-belajar-12-tahun-mulai-juni-2015/

Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2010). The impacts of cooperative learning on

anxiety and proficiency in an EFL class. Journal of College Teaching &

Learning, 7(11), 51-58.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input in

its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.). Input in second language

acquisition (pp. 235-53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. Handbook of research in

second language teaching and learning, 1, 471-483.

288

Syafini & Rizan, N. (2009). The effects of cooperative learning in enhancing writing

performance. Proceedings retrieved from

http://www.ukm.my/solls09/Proceeding/PDF/Shafini.pdf

Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dillemas.

Qualitative Research, 4(2), 161-178.

The Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia. (2011).

Pernyataan kebijakan tentang pengajaran bahasa Inggris di Indonesia. Retrieved

from http://didisukyadi.staf.upi.edu/files/2011/04/Teflin.pdf

The President of the Republic of Indonesia. (2003). Undang-Undang nomor 20 tahun

2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional. Jakarta: The Secretary of the Republic

of Indonesia.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-

efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 23, 944-956.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning

and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wallestad, C. K. (2010). Prospective TESOL teachers' beliefs, understandings, and

experiences of cooperative learning (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://gateway.proquest.com.ezp.lib.rochester.edu/openurl%3furl_ver=Z39.88-

http://www.ukm.my/solls09/Proceeding/PDF/Shafini.pdf

http://gradworks.umi.com.ezp.lib.rochester.edu/cgi-bin/redirect?url=http://gateway.proquest.com.ezp.lib.rochester.edu/openurl%3furl_ver=Z39.88-2004%26res_dat=xri:pqdiss%26rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation%26rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:3391092

289

2004%26res_dat=xri:pqdiss%26rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation%2

6rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:3391092

Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of

Educational Research, 52, 421-445.

Whispering Game. (May 28, 2009). Retrieved from http://esolonline.tki.org.nz/ESOL-

Online/Teacher-needs/Pedagogy/ESOL-teaching-strategies/Oral-

language/Teaching-approaches-and-strategies/Vocabulary/Whispering-game

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytical lens for examining

technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity,

10(2), 100-119. DOI: 10.1207/S1532-7884MCA1002_2

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting Analytical Dilemmas for Understanding

Complex Human Interactions in Design-Based Research from a Cultural-

Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) Framework. The Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 16, 451-484.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Understanding cultural historical activity theory. In

Activity Systems Analysis Methods (pp. 13-26). New York, NY: Springer

Publishing Company.

Yin, R. E. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th

ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students' perspectives on anxiety and speaking.

Foreign Language Annals, 23(6), 539-553.



290

Young, R. & Lee, S. (1984, March). EFL curriculum innovation and teacher attitudes.

Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Teachers of English to Speakers

of Other Languages, Houston, Texas.

291

Appendix A

294

Appendix B

297

Appendix C

301

Appendix D

Sample of Participant Observation Field Notes

Participant Observations Protocol

Performing to Learn: The Role of Individual Accountability

in Cooperative Learning Activity Systems


Puji Astuti, Principal Investigator

Jayne Lammers, Co-Principal Investigator

I Background Information

Date of observation: March 31, 2015

Grade level: 8

Number of students: 29 Students

Location of class: 8 H

Start time: 9.35

End time: 10.55

II Task Properties

Lesson objective: (Translated from Indonesian as the lesson plan is written in Indonesian)

Students are able to explain the meaning(s) of warning/caution texts orally with good

pronunciation, intonation, and language structure and display courtesy, care, and follow

the rules.

Attitude: Students display courtesy, care, and compliance with the rules applied in the

school environment and in their society.

Knowledge: Students are able to understand the function of notice.

Skill: Students are able to explain the meaning(s) of notices around them with good

pronunciation, intonation, and language structure and follow the message of the notices.

Focused language skill:

Speaking

Task objective: The lesson plan does not specify the objective of the task (one using CL).

Task Instruction:

Oral instruction: “Observe the notice you got and answer the questions: (1) What does the

notice mean? (2) What should we do? (3) Where can you find the notice?”

302

Focused learning material(s):

Notices the students got from the previous meeting (on Wednesday, March 25th

the

teacher asked the students to work in the library to find notices) and/or notices from the

teacher.

Name of cooperative learning (CL) structure used:

Think-Pair-Share

Procedure of the CL structure:

As written in the lesson plan, as follows:

Think

3. Gathering information

Each student is randomly given a different notice. Then, they observe the assigned notice,

are asked to observe and give their view about the social function, the structure , and the

linguistic features of the text.

Pair

4. Associating

Students discuss and exchange the information on the meaning(s) of the given notice with

their partner’s notice, regarding the social function and what to be done after seeing the

notice.

Share

5. Communicating

Students explain the meaning(s), social function, and what to be done after reading/seeing

the notice.

Duration:

Most of the class time was spent for the Think-Pair-Share, specifically the Share part. In

total the time spent for the structure is around 60 minutes.

Number of CL groups/Number of students in CL groups:

2 students (pair work)

III Contextual Background

The space provided below will be used to give a brief description of the lesson observed, the classroom

setting in which the lesson took place (space, seating arrangements, etc.), and any relevant details about the

students and teacher that are important. Diagrams might be used if they seem appropriate.

The students took the rubbish around them and put them in the dust bin.

Sitting arrangement: There are three cabinets at the back of the class, five columns, and

six rows of student chairs.

303

Before working in CL structure, the students sat separately, the first and second columns

from the door (our left when we face the back of the class) were for the boys, and the rest

of the columns were for the girls.

When they worked in CL structure, the students were quite spread out, even though most

of the boys were sitting where they previously sat.

Four boys were not in the class when the lesson started. They came back at 10.33.

At some point the students did not pay attention to the lesson/off-task, especially the

boys, but they were not noisy. They talked in Javanese here and there. What I mean by

off-task was that they had completed the task but seemed not to listen to who was

presenting in front of them.

IV The Processes of Individual Accountability in CL

Preparation Performance Post-performance

Tools used

PowerPoint slides

prepared by the T on

notice, an example of

it.

Dictionary

Internet was allowed.

The notices that the

students got from the

library (assignment

from Wed, March 25)

Other students.

The given notice or the

notice that the students

already got from the

library.

The students did not

hold their note when

performing their

individual

accountability.

Questions mostly

from the teacher.

The student held their

notice.

Comments from their

peers, although not

much, and they were

mostly from the

students sitting in the

front row.

Rules in Use

The procedure of the

Think-Pair-Share as

written in the lesson

plan.

Teacher’s authority to

call who to

perform/share.

Some students were

asked by the teacher to

choose who’s next to

perform

From the teacher:

“Speak loud enough so

other students can

hear.”

Answer the questions

written by the teacher.

The teacher

encouraged the

students to use their

own words.

Students’ listen to

teacher’s explanation

about grammar and/or

sentence structure.

304

Division of Labor

Each student in each

pair should be able to

explain or answer the

questions posed by the

teacher about the given

notice to their peer.

The chosen student

should come forward

and explain.

The rest of the students

listened.

The chosen student

listened to the

teacher’s

correction/explanation.

IV Object and Outcome Relationship The space provided below will be used to jot down how the relationship between the object of individual

accountability (e.g. the completion of the given task using individual accountability in CL) and the lesson

objective as well as with the outcome of EFL learning (i.e. communicative competence) are at play.

The teacher said: “Today we’ll learn about notice.”

The lesson objective, specifically the target knowledge and skill, says:

Knowledge: Students are able to understand the function of notice.

Skill: Students are able to explain the meaning(s) of notices around them with good

pronunciation, intonation, and language structure and follow them.

The teacher reminded the students the procedure of Think-Pair-Share.

V Interaction in the CL Groups The space provided below will be used to jot down how interaction in CL groups serves as an arena for

negotiation for meaning that provide comprehensible input and comprehensible output.

The exchange of information between pairs was seen. Although Indonesian and Javanese

language were often heard used by most of the pairs, they were used to clarify and make

sure that the message in English was gotten across. Most of the students seemed working

hard to be able to explain the assigned notice to their partner, although their partner did

not take any note when they were explaining.

At least two pairs were seen helping each other in answering the questions.

VI The Class as an EFL Learning Community The space provided below will be used to jot down how social meanings (e.g. routines) are shared in the

class as an EFL learning community in which individual accountability in CL takes place.

The students seemed to be used to work in pairs.

There were no objections from the students regarding their pairing done by the teacher.

There were no students who were reluctant to come forward and share.

305

Appendix E

Teacher Interviews Protocol






Date of Interview :

Teacher Participant : A/B*

*A indicates the EFL middle school teacher and

B indicated the EFL high school teacher

Place :

Start Time :

End Time :

I Overview

This qualitative case study attempts to gain an understanding of the lived experiences of

the participants in teaching and learning in CL setting (specifically in enacting individual

accountability) and the meaning they make of that experience. Hence, in-depth

interviewing will be employed as one of the data collection strategies because it is

essentially open-ended (Seidman, 2012). Specifically, semi-structured interview will be

utilized as it allows the principal investigator (PI) to follow topical trajectories in the

conversation that may stray from the guide when the PI feels this is appropriate (Cohen

and Crabtree, 2006).

Each teacher participant will be interviewed four times (weekly, during a month-long

data collection) by the PI. Each interview will last approximately 30 minutes and be

conducted on the school site during school hours. The location of the interview will be

secured to ensure the confidentiality of the teacher‘s comments. Each interview will be

audiotaped and viewed only by the investigators and dissertation committee members.

Three categories of questions will be used: (a) questions asked in the first week’s

interview and not used in the subsequent weeks, (b) questions prepared in the light of the

research question and research literature that informs the study, and will likely be asked

in each interview session, and (c) questions generated from the ongoing document

analysis and each week’s analysis of participant observations data (e.g. using specific

data as talking points). Questions within the last category, therefore, will be known later

in the data collection stage of the study. Some sample questions within this category are

provided below.

306

II The interview schedule and the categories of question that will be used each week:

Weeks Categories of Questions

Week 1 (Interview 1) a, b, c

Week 2 (Interview 2) b, c



III The three categories of question that will be used:

(a) Questions asked in the first week’s interview and not used in the subsequent weeks:

1) How long have you been teaching this English class?

2) What do you like about this class?

3) Tell me what you think of this class as an EFL learning community.

4) Tell me what you think of your students’ communicative competence so far?

5) What do you like about teaching English using cooperative learning (CL)?

(b) Questions prepared in the light of the research question and research literature that

informs the study and will be asked in each week:

1. Tell me what you think about how CL worked in your class this week.

How did you choose the CL technique(s) you implemented?

How did they work?

How did they help your lesson?

2. Tell me about your students’ participation in their CL group this week.

What are the rules of participation in CL groups in your class?

What did you expect your students to learn from their participation in their

CL group this week?

3. Tell me about your students’ interaction with their CL group members this week.

What are the rules of interaction in CL groups in your class?

What did you expect your students to learn from their interaction with

their CL group members this week?

4. Tell me about your students’ responsibility when they are working in CL group

this week.

How did your students accept the responsibility for their own learning

when working in their CL group?

How did your students accept the responsibility for their peers’ learning

when working in their CL group?

307

(c) Questions generated from the ongoing documents analysis and each week’s analysis

of participant observations data (e .g. using specific data as talking points). Some

samples:

1) I noticed that some students had difficulties explaining what they learned to their

group members. What could be the causes?

2) I also noted that most of your students were familiar with the CL structure(s) you

used this week. When did you introduce these structures to your students? Why

those structures?

3) You used the same CL structure in this week’s lessons. Tell me what made you do

so.

IV The Script of the Opening of Interview 1

Hello, how are you?

It’s great to see you again.

Thank you for giving me some of your time for this interview. I really appreciate it. This

will be the first from our four interview sessions.

I have some questions that I will ask you today. However, if there are questions that make

you uncomfortable, you may not answer them. I will audiotape this interview, as well as

our other interview sessions, and will keep the confidentiality of the information that you

will give me.

We will start when you are ready.

V The Script of the Opening of Interview 2 and 3

Hello, how are you doing?

Good to see you again.

As in the previous week, this week I have some questions to ask you to better understand

cooperative learning in English classrooms and some other questions related to this

week’s observations.

Again, if there are questions that make you uncomfortable, you may not answer them. I

will audiotape today’s interview and will keep the confidentiality of the information that

you will give me.

Do you have any question or concern before we start?

We will start whenever you are ready.

308

VI The Script of the Opening of Interview 4

Hi, how are you?

Nice to see you again.

Today will be our last interview session.

Do you have any question or concern before we start?

As you know, in each of our session I ask you questions related to how CL works and

questions related to this week’s observation. As in the previous interview sessions, I will

audiotape today’s interview and will keep the confidentiality of the information that you

will give me. We will start when you are ready.

VII The Script of the Closing of Interview 1, 2, and 3

Thank you very much for your time today. I really appreciate it.

In our interview next week, I might ask you questions that relate to the information that I

got from you today, to clarify information, and I will ask questions related to the

phenomenon under investigation and questions generated from the week’s observations.

Please feel free to contact me if you think you have additional information.

Thank you so much. Have a great weekend.

VIII The Script of the Closing of Interview 4

This is the last interview session.

Thank you for your time and for sharing with me your cooperative learning stories.

I really appreciate it. I will keep the information you gave me as confidential.

If you think you have additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I will contact you again through email and phone call to clarify whether what I write in

my report reflects what you really mean. Thank you so much.

IX References:






Press.


309

Appendix F

Student Interviews Protocol






Date of interview :

Student Participant : A1/A2/B1/B2* *A indicates students of teacher participant A, B indicates

students of

teacher participant B

Place :

Start Time :

End Time :

I Overview

This qualitative case study attempts to gain understanding of the lived experiences of the

participants in teaching and learning in cooperative learning (CL) setting (specifically in

enacting individual accountability) and the meaning they make of that experience. Hence,

in-depth interviewing will be employed as one of the data collection strategies because it

is essentially open-ended (Seidman, 2012). Specifically, semi-structured interview will be

utilized because it allows the principal investigator (PI) to follow topical trajectories in

the conversation that may stray from the guide when the PI feels this is appropriate

(Cohen and Crabtree, 2006).

Each student participant will be interviewed biweekly (during a month-long data

collection) by the PI. Each interview will last approximately 30 minutes and be

conducted on the school site during school hours. The location of the interview will be

secured to ensure the confidentiality of the student participants’ comments. Each

interview will be audiotaped and viewed only by the investigators and dissertation

committee members.

Three categories of questions will be used: (a) questions asked in the first week’s

interview and not used in the subsequent weeks, (b) questions prepared in the light of the

research question and research literature that informs the study, and will likely be asked

in each interview session, and (c) questions generated from the ongoing document

analysis and each week’s analysis of participant observations data (e.g. using specific

data as talking points). Questions within the last category, therefore, will be known later

310

during data collection stage of the study. Some sample questions within this category are

provided below.

II The interview schedule, student participants, and the three categories of question

can be seen in the following table:

Weeks/Interview Sessions Student

Participants

Categories of

Questions

Week 1 (Interview 1) A1/ B1 a, b, c

Week 2 (Interview 1) A2/ B2 a, b, c

Week 3 (Interview 2) A1/ B1 b, c

Week 4 (Interview 2) A2/ B2 b, c *A indicates students of teacher participant A, B indicates students of

teacher participant B

III The three categories of question that will be used:

(c) Questions asked in the first interview session (Week 1 and Week 2):

1. How long have you been learning English with______ (the name of the teacher

participant)

2. What do you like about your English class?

3. What is it like to learn with the teacher and other students in this class?

4. Tell me about how well you listen, speak, read and write in English?

5. What do you like about learning English in group work?

(d) Questions prepared in the light of the research question and research literature that

informs the study and will likely be asked in each interview session.

1. What makes cooperation happen in your CL group?

2. To whom do you feel responsible when you work in CL groups?

Why do you take this responsibility?

How do you take this responsibility?

3. Tell me about, if any, the rules of participation in your CL groups?

4. Tell me about the roles that you played in your CL group this week.

5. Tell me about what you learn from your participation in your CL group this

week.

6. Tell me about what you learn from your interaction with the other members of

your CL group this week.

(c) Questions generated from the ongoing documents analysis and each week’s analysis

of participant observations data (e.g. using specific data as talking points). Some

samples:

311

1. I saw you represented your CL group by reporting the result of the discussion

to the whole class. Why it was you?

2. I noted that you used Bahasa Indonesia to talk with people from the other CL

groups and used English when communicating with your CL group members.

Why did you do that?

3. You asked your teacher to explain some points before you made a short

presentation in your CL group. What made you do that?

IV The script of the opening of Interview 1 (Week 1 and 2, meeting the student

subjects for the first time for the interview purpose)

Hi, how are you?

It’s great to see you again.

As you know, I carry out a research on cooperative learning (CL). Simply speaking, CL

takes place when people work together in a group in which each of them is responsible

for their own learning and for the learning of others.

My research aims at gaining a better understanding of how CL works in English classes

in Indonesia, specifically in middle and high school. Such understanding is important in

order to better implement CL for enhancing English learning.

Thank you for your willingness to participate in this interview. I will use audiorecorder

during the interview and will keep the confidentiality of the information that I will get

from you.

I have some questions that I will ask you today. However, if there are questions that make

you uncomfortable, you may not answer them.

We will start when you are ready.

V The script of the closing of Interview 1

Hello, good to see you again.

Thank you very much for your time today. I really appreciate it.

In our interview next week, I might ask you questions that relate to the information that I

got from you today, to clarify information, and I will ask other questions generated from

the week’s observations.

Please feel free to contact me if you think you have additional information.

Thank you so much. Have a great weekend.

312

VI The script of the opening of Interview 2 (Week 3 and 4, the last interview session)

Hello, how are you doing?

Good to see you again.

As in the previous week, this week I have some questions to ask you to better understand

cooperative learning in English classrooms and some other questions related to this

week’s observations.

Again, if there are questions that make you uncomfortable, you may not answer them.

I will use an audiorecorder and will keep the confidentiality of the information that I will

get from you.

We can start whenever you are ready.

VII The script of the closing for Interview 2

This is our last interview session.

Thank you so much for your time and willingness to participate in my research.

I really appreciate it.

I will keep all of the information you gave me as confidential.

If you think you have additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I will contact you via email to check if the information that I record reflects what you

really mean to say.

Enjoy the rest of the semester. Wish you all the best in your study.

Thank you so much.

VIII References






Press.


313

Appendix G

A Sample of How Data were Coded

Analytic Memo of Middle School

Participation Observation 20150331

Codes

Different from what happened in the high

school class, the implemented CL structure,

specifically 1Think-Pair-Share (TPS), in the

middle school classroom 2faithfully follows

the proposed procedure (by Kagan).

Here’s the procedure of TPS available in

the literature:

Think-Pair-Share - The teacher poses a

question to the class and the students think

about their response. Then students pair

with a partner to talk over their ideas.

Finally, students share their ideas with the

class.

This procedure is followed by the middle

school teacher. After each student was

assigned with the notice, they did think

about the questions posed by the teacher,

discuss the answers to their pair, and share

them with the whole class.

Through TPS, individual accountability in

the middle school’s class takes place in 3two stages:

4when students share/discuss

the answer to the questions with their pair

and when they share with the whole class.

Audience for the first stage was students’

partner/pair and 5a

for the second stage was

the whole class, although mostly from

students sitting in the front row. 4When the students were sharing/discussing

the answers with their pairs, they put effort

to help them, even 6a

using Javanese or

Indonesian to get their meanings across.

Unfortunately, 5b

the response/feedback for

the second stage was mostly from the

teacher.

Regarding participation, as the TPS was

carried out in pairs, it looked equal.

1 Kagan’s Think-Pair-Share

2 Use of Think-Pair-Share following the

preset procedure

3 Double layers of individual accountability

in Think-Pair-Share 4 First layer: preparing for the second one

5 Second layer:

a Higher stake because of the audience

(whole class compared to pairs) b Feedback from the teacher

6 Interaction during Pair phase:

a Use of Indonesian language between

the two layers b

Observable: information exchanging

and helping each other

314

What’s the role of individual accountability

in the lesson? 8Display of students’ understanding of the

meaning of the assigned notice/notice they

got with good pronunciation and intonation.

This activity reflects the lesson objectives

stated in the lesson plan, 9specifically on

knowledge and skills.

It is interesting to see that the procedure of

TPS is in line with the learning steps

mandated by the 2013 curriculum’s

scientific approach: 10

Think with Gathering Information 10

Pair with Associating 10

Share with Communicating

Should double check the Decree if these are

the steps in the scientific approach

mandated by the 2013 curriculum.

Individual students’ accountability in the

TPS was helped by their pairs, especially at

the stage of Pair.

As it was a pair work, 6b

the interaction

between partners was observable. Most

pairs were seen exchanging information

and helping each other out.

8 Role of individual accountability:

displaying students’ understanding of

the meanings of the assigned text

9 Lesson’s focused areas: knowledge and

skills

10

Teacher matching steps in Think-Pair-

Share with the scientific approach’s steps

mandated by the 2013 curriculum

315

Appendix H

A Sample of Codes from a Participant Observation Memo and an Interview

Transcription that Correspond to the Same Observed Lesson

(Middle School, 20150331)

From a Participant Observation’s Memo From an Interview Transcription

Kagan’s Think-Pair-Share

Use of Think-Pair-Share following the

preset procedure

Double layers of individual accountability

in Think-Pair-Share

First layer: preparing for the second one

Interaction during Pair phase:

Use of Indonesian language between

the two layers

Second layer:

Higher stake because of the audience

(whole class compared to pairs)

Feedback from the teacher

Role of individual accountability:

displaying students’ understanding of

the meanings of the assigned text

Lesson’s focused areas: knowledge and

skills

Teacher matching steps in Think-Pair-

Share with the scientific approach’s

steps mandated by the 2013 curriculum

First layer: practicing

Interaction during Pair phase:

Asking if partner understood what’s

just presented

Helping each other

Students having difficulty using full

English

Students using Indonesian/Javanese

language

Students using the two languages to

make meanings clear

Students having difficulty using

English

Share phase:

Students having the courage to speak

Students knowing what to say

Matching CL structures with lesson

objectives

Needing to learn more about CL

CL for joyful learning

CL for meeting learning objectives

Students accomplishing individual

accountability

Observing phase (of the scientific approach)

facilitated by Think phase

Communicating phase (of the scientific

approach) for speaking lessons

316

Appendix I

A Sample of Codes, Categories, and Theme

Theme: Having Peer Preference

Categories Codes Line-by-line data examples

Not close to all classmates

1Not rivalling with each

other 2Not close to each other

3Choosing close

classmates as group

members 4Prefer choosing group

members by himself 5Choosing close and

familiar classmates

Tetapi kalau sewaktu,

misalnya pasangannya atau

teman sekelompoknya

ditentukan apa, oleh Miss

Andini misalnya, itu kan satu

kelas ya memang nggak ada

yang musuhan, tapi nggak

semuanya akrab.

But if it is determined by

Miss Andini for example, 1we

are not rivalling with each

other but we are not 2very

close to each other, either.

Pas milih kelompok itu

sukanya milih temen yg deket-

deket. Lebih suka milih

sendiri. Milih teman yang

deket-deket, lebih akrab.

When choosing group

members, I like to 3choose

classmates I am close with. I 4prefer choosing them by

myself. I 5choose classmates I

am close with, more familiar.

Working with not-close peers:

having less communication

7Working with not-

close peers: less

Jadi mungkin kalau misalnya

sewaktu belajar kelompok itu

dapat temen yang nggak

akrab, itu bukan temen deket,

itu mungkin nanti

komunikasinya akan kurang.

So, like, 7if we get those

whom we are not close with

for working together in

317

communication

8Teacher’s grouping:

not suitable, less

sociable

9Not knowing group

members well: not

smooth conversation

and exchange of

information

groups, there is a possibility

that we will communicate

less.

Kalau teman satu kelompok

dipilih oleh Miss Andini, ngga

sesuai, kurang bisa

bersosialisasi.

If our 8group members are

chosen by Miss Andini, it is

not suitable, less sociable.

That is the problem.

Ya, kayak, kalau belum

pernah, belum kenal kalau

bicara kayaknya masih kaku,

gitu lho. Bertukar informasi

kurang lancar.

Well, it’s like, if I have not, 9have not got to know them

well, the conversation won’t

be smooth, you know. The

information exchanging will

not be as smooth.

Having peer preference

10

Choosing group

members by himself:

less weakness

11

Choosing close peers

as group members

Kalau misalnya waktu

pasangan untuk belajar

kelompok itu di, apa, disuruh

mencari sendiri itu biasanya

lebih sedikit ya

kekurangannya.

When 10

getting members for

group work is, what’s that,

left up to us, usually it has less

weaknesses.

Lebih suka milih sendiri.

Milih teman yang deket-deket

itu.

318

12

Students having peer

preference

13

Pushing students to

mingle with other

students

I 11

prefer choosing by myself.

Choosing peers I am close

with.

8 G itu, mereka itu gap-gap-

an. Makanya saya harus,

harus paksa mereka untuk,

untuk nyampur.

Students in 8 G, they 12

had

peer preference. That’s why I

have to, have to 13

push them

to, to mingle with the other

students.

319

Appendix J

Samples of Methodological, Substantive, and Theoretical Memo

A Methodological Memo on Member Check

June 8, 2015

Q1: Why are you considering this question of whether or not to send the participant

observation field notes (POFs) to your teacher participants?

Q2: What might you hope to gain by sending the POFs to the teachers?

A: It is because of the trustworthiness (specifically credibility) of the study that I am

trying to establish. All of the comments/cautions that you all gave make sense to me.

However, for your information, I have two sets of POFs: one is mainly my descriptions

of the lesson that followed points in the observation protocol, and the other set is ones

with my commentaries/analysis. Therefore, sending the former set could be an alternative

if I should send the POFs and is less likely creating disagreements.

But I have decided that I will not send any of the POFs and my interview transcriptions

with the following considerations.

#1 As I was doing groceries today, I thought a lot about this idea of sending my POFs to

my teacher participants. I then realized/felt relieved that the teacher interviews was also a

way to ensure that what I wrote in my POFs were what happened/what the teachers

actually did in their classes. The third category of questions in the teacher interviews

protocol (i.e., questions generated from the ongoing documents analysis and each week’s

analysis of participant observations data (e .g. using specific data as talking points)) did

that job. For example, in one of my middle school POFs I wrote that the teacher

implemented one CL structure. The interview that followed this observation revealed that

she implemented two CL structures. During the observation I was not able notice one of

the structures because the teacher did not faithfully/precisely follow the preset procedure

of the structure.

#2 What [a peer] is doing for her member checking makes also makes sense to me for

some reasons. I was transcribing the interviews, I thought that there will be more

questions (for clarification) during my analytic memo writing for each of the interview,

which I will do soon. (Note: I have analytic memo written for each of my POFs.) I am

also certain that there will be other questions that I will have when I am coding the

transcription. I will carry on with my data organization and analysis and filing questions

for clarification for my participants. Also, what I planned what I would do for member

checking was written in my proposal (p. 68) as follows:

320

Giving them summaries before writing up my study and asking for reactions, corrections,

and further insights.

Given the above plan for member checking, I think I also will not send the interview

transcriptions to my research participants (students and teachers). The last round of the

interviews (also the previous rounds, to some degree) comprised follow-up questions,

mostly for clarifying points the participants made in the previous interviews. So I think I

already catch what they meant. In addition to that, I think it will not wise to keep ‘coming

back/disturbing’ my research participants; last week I interviewed them, a week before I

asked them to send me a document, the list continues.

A Substantive Memo on a Participant Observation in the High School Classroom

20150318

March 18, 2015

It is interesting to see CL structures in implementation. As predicted, however, the

procedure is not faithfully followed. The question is why it is not followed: not knowing

the structures well, time consuming, or what? As a result, the processes of individual

accountability are hardly seen.

English as a language learned is hardly heard during students’ interaction in their group.

Because of this, comprehensible input and output as well as negotiation for meaning are

not available.

If individual accountability takes place, the use of English (at least to the degree that

students use in combination with their mother tongue to prepare their individual

accountability performance), is likely high.

Some students were seen often off-task. Should the procedure of the implemented

structures was followed, they will likely get busy learning for themselves and for their

group members.

When it comes to individual accountability performance (to the extent that students come

forward doing things by themselves), I failed to see how each group decides on who will

represent the group, especially when they do Jigsaw. This is a point that I should pay

attention to in the next observation. This also has to do with the class as the community

and the rules that apply in the class. However, teacher’s authority is at play here. At some

point, during Jigsaw, the teacher said, “Noni aja, kan sudah maju Niken-nya?” “How

about Noni (a girl’s name), Niken (another girl’s name) has represented the group.”

Regarding rules in use and division of labor, again, since the procedure of the

implemented structures is not faithfully (i.e. some steps are not enacted) followed, it is

hard to see the two in application.

Concerning the idea of functioning other students as resource person (tools), the use of

Numbered Heads Together by the teacher did not seem to display this notion.

321

Too bad the date of the next observation was national holiday. I actually want to see if the

session will be dedicated for speaking skill and see students act as news anchor and read

news item. It is because the 2006 curriculum adopts literacy-based approach that suggests

cycles of language learning: listening followed by speaking, reading followed by writing.

Overall, the students were enthusiastic during the lesson.

So, what’s the role of individual accountability in CL in this lesson?

Display of what’s previously answered/solved by individual students themselves (in the

case of Numbered Heads Together) and by individual students regardless of whether

there is equal participation prior to the display (in the case of One Stay Three Stray and

Jigsaw).

A Theoretical Memo on CL Implementation in the High School Classroom

June 21, 2015

The teacher’s lack of understanding of CL/limited repertoire of CL contribute to the

following conditions:

Individual accountability is hardly enacted

As the processes of preparing for the individual accountability performance (this requires

or promotes interaction), doing the performance, and responding to peers’ comments and

feedback after the performance (this requires or promotes interaction) were hardly

present, the three elements of Interaction Hypothesis (comprehensible input and output

and negotiation for meaning) were also hardly present

No class or school rules that hinder CL (in both schools). Rules of CL are the procedure

of the implemented CL. As the procedure was not faithfully implemented, the rules were

not enacted well.

The students’ preference for working with certain peers (though not displayed in every

meeting), I think, was because they were not used to be responsible for their learning and

the learning of their peers(which can be built through CL). If they have this realization

(awareness), they will see other students as learning resource.

Since the procedure of the implemented structure was not faithfully followed, the

division of labor was not clear. A clear division of labor, in fact, could promote the

enactment of individual accountability. Teacher as the planner and implementer of CL

should master the procedure and follow it faithfully.

What should a teacher master other than the preset procedure?

The functions or advantages of the CL structures for their EFL learners

322

Why do we rely on already established CL structures?

They have been practiced and researched

The three meetings with no CL implementation (but conventional group work):

With the teacher admits that she has a limited repertoire of CL structures (4 or 5, and

confused one structure with the other, and her students who could not differentiate

between CL and conventional group work), it is safe to argue that that she implemented

conventional group work more often that she did implement CL

I think it is lighter (in terms of burden) to use conventional group work than to implement

CL because there were no rules to be enforced. In consequence, her students’ low

confidence (as she repeatedly complained) stayed low.

Enforcing CL rules (the procedure) means giving the chances for the students to get

comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and negotiation for meaning.

Speaking was the skill that she wanted to focus on. According to the 2006 curriculum,

speaking is one of the target language skills.

323

Appendix K

List of CL Structures Used in the Observed Lessons

Names of CL Structures Procedures

Think-Pair-Share (used in the middle

school classrooms/8 G 20150331 and 8 H

20150404)

Students think to themselves on a topic

provided by the teacher.

They pair up with another student to discuss

it.

They then share their thoughts with the class.

(Kagan, 1989, p. 13).

RoundRobin (used in the middle school

classroom/8 G 20150406)

Students sit in teams.

Teacher poses a problem to which there are

multiple possible responses or solutions, and

provides think time.

Students take turns stating responses or

solutions (Kagan & Kagan, 2009, p. 6.31)

Numbered Heads Together (used in the

middle school classroom/8 G 20150413

and in the high school classroom,

20150318)

Students work in groups.

Each student in the group is assigned one

number (e.g., one, two, three, or four).

Teacher poses a problem and gives think

time.

Students privately write their answers.

Students stand up and “put their heads

together,” showing answers, discussing, and

teaching each other.

Students sit down when everyone knows the

answer or has something to share.

Teacher calls a number.

324

Students with that number answer (Kagan &

Kagan, 2009, p. 6.28).

Whispering Game (used in the middle

school classroom/8 H 20150401)

Students sitting in the same group get the

same short message given by the teacher.

All group members work together, playing a

role as either the first receiver of the

message, message courier, or message

writer/reporter.

In each group, the message courier whispers

the message to the next student (i.e. a

message receiver who will be the next

message courier) and makes sure that he/she

gets the message right.

The last message courier is also the message

writer/reporter. This person writes the

message and reports it to the whole class (a

version of this instructional strategy:

“Whispering Game” May 28, 2009,

http://esolonline.tki.org.nz/ESOL-

Online/Teacher-needs/Pedagogy/ESOL-

teaching-strategies/Oral-language/Teaching-

approaches-and-

strategies/Vocabulary/Whispering-game)

Team Jigsaw (used in the high school

classroom, 20150318 and 20150401)

Each team becomes an expert on a topic.

Individuals from that team each teach

another team.

After teaching, experts return to their seats.

The process is repeated so that each expert

topic is covered (Kagan & Kagan, 2009,

p.17.3).

One Stray (used in the high school

classroom, 20150318 and 20150401)

One teammate “strays” from her team to a

new team to share or gather information.

Variation: Students return to their original

(home) teams to share what they learned

when they strayed (Kagan & Kagan, 2009, p.

6.28).

325

Appendix L

Figure Depiciting Second Language Acquisition and Learning in Individual Accountability in CL

in the Studied EFL Classrooms

325

For the

peers/audience:

Producing

comprehensible

output

(vocabulary)

For the

peers/audience:

Receiving

comprehensible

input

For the

performers:

Producing

comprehensible

output

For the

performers:

Receiving

comprehensible

input

(vocabulary)

For the

peers/audience:

Receiving

comprehensible

input

For the

performers:

Producing

comprehensible

output

A higher level of

individual

accountability

in CL

Peer interaction

Negotiation for

meaning:

Using first

language

Receiving and

giving

vocabulary help

An initial

level of

individual

accountability

in CL

They Can Teach Me”: The Role of Individual Accountability

Documents

Transcript of They Can Teach Me”: The Role of Individual Accountability