LITERATURE REVIEW Improving Teachers’ Competence In Teaching Methodology Using Cooperative Learning

161 methodology.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Recently many English teachers still use traditional methodology in their teaching which focuses on teacher centered. The use of traditional methodology such as grammar- translation makes students unable to use the language effectively Nunan, 1999. Nowadays students need to learn English as communication. Therefore teachers should apply approach to language learning which focuses on students to use the language and involve in cooperative learning tasks using language Nunan, 1999. A study by Muamaroh 2014 found that the use of cooperative learning could improve students’ oral English skill. Moreover, cooperative learning can be used to teach not only language classes but also mathematics, science, geography, and history Shachar Sharan, 1994:313; Slavin, 1991:77. The role of teacher in cooperative learning CL methodology is totally different from traditional methodology. Hisher role is more complex than traditional one. Heshe should initiate group work; present guidelines for small-group operation in order students cooperate and help each other, prepare new material and assignments, and evaluate student performance Davidson, 1990:55. Moreover, Johnson et al. 2000:16-17 describe the role of teacher in applying cooperative learning in more detail: make pre-instructional decisions, explain task and cooperative structure, monitor and intervene and evaluate and process. Cooperative learning is one of teaching approachs which focuces on a student-centred teaching paradigm Dörnyei, 1997: 491. Cooperative learning CL methodology uses small group, therefore students can interact each others to study together. According to Slavin 1980:315 states that the definition of cooperative is that, “the term [CL] refers to classroom techniques in which students’ works on learning activities in small groups and receives rewards and recognition based on their group’s performance.” All activities in cooperative learning use small groups where students help each other in understanding academic material Cooper, 1990; Johnson et al., 1998: 28; Kluge, 1999: 18; Slavin, 1991: 71. The number of small group can be varied from three to seven students in each group. Each small group usually consists of three to four students Rimmerman, 1996 in Homan Poel, 1999: 4 or less than seven Oxford, 1997: 445. Since students work in small group during their study, they have more opportunities to participate actively by asking and answering questions in their groups. All group members have an equal opportunity to do it during the lesson. This develops their communicative competence and provides them with opportunities to use a variety of vocabulary and more accurate grammar. They also can correct each other when they make mistakes in their group Deen, 1991: 177. The use of cooperative learning in the language classroom is very useful. This is because CL techniques supports and helps the English teacher to encourage students use the language in the class. Kagan and McGoarty 1993: 57 state that “cooperative learning provides a means for placing into practice the principles of language acquisition”. Cooperative learning provides students not only individual but also social development. They interact among their group members as much as possible. This is very helpful to motivate students to study more active in using the language. Teachers should understand principles of cooperative learning in order they can implement cooperative learning successfully in their language class. According to Slavin 1981: 659 cooperative learning has four positive characteristics: 1. The cooperation required among students prevents one student from doing most of the work for the others. 2. In spite of the cooperative nature of the groups, each student must learn the material in order to improve his or her own score and the team score. 3. Even low achievers who may not contribute greatly can receive recognition since scores are based on individual improvement, however small, over past performance. 4. Students are motivated to cooperate since 162 they receive not just a grade on a piece of paper, but public recognition from the teacher and the class. However Johnson et al. 1991: 1-2 state the basic elements of cooperative learning as follow: 1. Positive interdependence: students perceive that they need each other in order to complete the group’s task “sink or swim together”. 2. Face-to-face promotive interaction: students promote each other’s learning by helping, sharing and encouraging efforts to learn. Students explain, discuss and teach what they know to classmates. 3. Individual accountability: each student’s performance is frequently assessed and the results are given to the group and the individual. 4. Interpersonal and small group skills: groups cannot function effectively if students do not have and use the needed social skills. 5. Group processing: groups need specific time to discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships among members. Furthermore, Cooper 1990 provides an expanded account of positive independence and individual accountability and adds two other elements. They are appropriate rationale for grouping and structured student interaction. While Oxford 1997: 445 also expanded the principle of cooperative learning with accountability, team formation, team size, cognitive development and social development. Besides teachers should understand the principles of cooperative learning, they also should understand and master some techniques of cooperative learning. Therefore they can choose the best technique which aqppropriate with language materials. There are some techniques of cooperative learning Johnson et al, 2000: 3 as presented in the following table. Table 1. Modern methodologys of cooperative learning Researchers- Developer Date Methodology Johnson Johnson Mid 1960s Learning Together Alone DeVries Edwards Early 1970s Team-Games- Tournaments TGT Sharan Sharan Mid 1970s Group Investigation Johnson Johnson Mid 1970s Constructive Controversy Aronson Associates Late 1970s Jigsaw Procedure Slavin Associates Late 1970s Student Teams Achievement Division STAD Cohen Early 1980s Complex Instruction CI Slavin Associates Early 1980s Team Accelerated Instruction TAI Kagan Mid 1980s Cooperative Learning Structures Stevens, Slavin, Associates Late 1980s Cooperative Integrated Reading Composition CIRC. Based on the table, some of the techniques have similarity in their procedures, such as in learning together, Student Teams Achievement Division STAD and Team-Games- Tournaments TGT. In learning together, a teacher explains the lesson and then students work together in small groups on a single worksheet. In STAD after a teacher explains materials, then each group has to discuss and understand it before they take individual quizzes on the material at the end of the meeting. Furthermore, in TGT the quizzes are replaced by weekly tournaments Slavin, 1981; 1991. In the group investigation GI technique, there is no teacher presentation. Because each group has to do a project and each group has to present the result in the class. While, in the Jigsaw technique each group member has to cooperate with his or her peers 163 to understand the complete materials Aronson, 2002: 215. At the end students take individual quizzes Slavin, 1981: 656; Slavin, 1991: 75. For the technique of constructive controversy, complex instruction, Team Accelerated Instruction TAI, and Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition CIRC has it own procedures. Furthermore, according to Kagan 1989: 14, the variations of CL structures are Roundrobin, Corners, Match Mine, Numbered Heads Together, Color-Coded Co-op Cards, Pairs Check, Three-Step Interview, Think-Pair-Share, Team Word- Webbing, Roundtable, Inside-Outside Circle, Partners, Jigsaw, and Co-op Co-op.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY