y, and therefore, could promote their second language learning development. The findings of the study also proved that cooperative learning can increase recognition of speech acts of apology and greeting. Therefore, cooperative learning can be considered successful in helping the learners improve their speech act knowledge in the second language.
Based on the literature on cooperative learning and its applications (Basta, 2011; Cohen, 2007; Cohen & Perrault, 1979; Ellis, 1991; Kessler, 1992; Nelson, Gallagher, & Coleman, 1993; Prata, et al, 2012; Slavin, 1995; Tsai, 1998), employing cooperative learning as a combination of classroom techniques could promote second language development in general and second language speech act knowledge, in particular.
5.3 Pedagogical Implications
The present study demonstrated that cooperative learning can influence the EFL learners’ speech act development. EFL learners need to know native like vocabularies, grammatical points, and preferences, dictions, speech acts, functions, and the like for a native-like performance. Therefore, according to the results of the present study, some implications for teaching and learning speech acts through employing cooperative learning can be suggested.
Cooperative learning energized by exchanging strategies and encouraging one another through the presence of peer help among learners could be considered a successful learning theory. In case cooperative learning is employed and encouraged by second language teachers to make the learners more aware of what they are dealing with, it can have fruitful results. The assumption is that participation in a cooperative oriented treatment facilitates learning (Vaughan, 2002), and learners must pay attention to principles of cooperative learning to improve their current state of pragmatic language knowledge. This could be done through a kind of cognitive comparison which has been seen as one of the crucial processes in language acquisition (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011).
Jeong, Lin, and Lee (2009), within the framework of SLA pay attention to the role cooperative learning plays in L2 development.
English teachers and learners could employ cooperative learning to solve the problems ever emerging and impeding one’s learning. To solve the learning problems meaningfully, in variety of cases, the learners are required to develop the sense of cooperation (Jeong, et al, 2009), and forget about competition. This way the classroom interactions could be enriched and would help subsequent L2 development of the learners. Such an environment can pave the way for the emergence of cooperation and necessarily gives little room to competition.
Materials developers in the ELT domain also could employ the findings of the present study and those of the similar ones to present tasks in which learners’ awareness toward learning is enhanced. Such tasks may help the learners move towards cooperative learning.
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research
The findings of the present study have some limitations as mentioned in chapter I, and further research is needed for investigations:
1. Future studies might consider examining the residual effects of cooperative learning activities to explore whether and how long-term these effects actually could be. A semi-longitudinal study of the concept of cooperative learning will reveal if this method energizes “development of speech acts in the learners’ mentality or not.
2. In addition, the present study employed a comparative perspective towards cooperative and competitive learning focusing on just two categories of second language speech acts namely, greetings and apology and their development. Future studies may be needed to replicate the findings with other speech act categories in the process of developing various language skills or components, etc…
3. Further research is recommended to explore the role of cooperative learning, instructed noticing, attention, and awareness in developing speech acts, pragmatic competence, vocabulary development, or any other skill and component of the second language and their relationship together or the probable effect they leave on learner autonomy, self regulatory factors of learning, and learner motivation.
To sum up, a replication of the present study is needed to investigate various impacts of cooperative method of learning and teaching English on the learners’ second language development. Variety of language skills/ sub skills and complements could be studied via cooperative learning/teaching. If the results of this study are supported by further research, then it can safely be argued that cooperative learning method is of great use and importance in the process of learning correct speech acts by EFL learners in the Iranian context. The central aim of the present thesis was to bring cooperative learning awareness to the EFL classroom. The researcher hopes that the results of the present study could shed more lights into this area, and teachers would hopefully take what has been presented here and apply it to their own situations in order to improve learning ability of their students.
* Akinbobala , A. O. (2009). Enhancing student’s attitudes toward Nigerian senior secondary school physics through the use of cooperative competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 1-9.
* Alebiosu, K. A. (1998). Effects of two cooparative learning models on senior secondary school student learning outcomes in chemistry. PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
* -Alcon Soler, E.,& Martinez-Flor,A.(Eds.).(2008). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol; Buffalo;Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
* Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, Oxford university press.
* Aziz. Z., & Hossain, A. (2010). A comparison of cooperative learning and conventional teaching on students’ achievement in secondary mathematics. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 53–62.
* Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Bachman, L. F. (2005). Statistical analysis for language assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge: University Press.
* Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.-
——– (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and Speech Acts. Cambriedge university press, Cambriedge.
* Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
* Bandura, A. (1977).Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
* Bardovi-Harling, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49 (4), 677– 713.
* Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45(1), 4-15.
* Barkley, E.F., Cross, K.P., & Major, C.H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
* Basta, J. (2011). The role of the communicative approach and cooperative learning in higher education. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Linguistics and Literature, 9( 2), 125 – 143. Retrieved from acta.junis.ni.ac.rs/lal/lal201102/lal201102-06.pdf.
* Battistich, V., Solomon, D., & Delucchi, K. (1993).Interaction processes and student outcomes in cooperative learning groups.The
Elementary School Journal, 94, 19-32.
* Bennett, N., & Dunne, E. (1991). The nature and quality of talk in co-operative classroom groups. Learning and Instruction, 1, 103–118.
* Bowe, H. J., & Martin, K. (2007). Communication across cultures: mutual understanding in a global world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
* Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–272). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
* Cohen, P. R., & Perrault, C. R. (1979). Elements of a plan based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3:177-212.Retrieved from www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~nza/G52HPA/articles/Cohen+Perrault:79a.pdf
* Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
* Cohen, A. (2007). The teaching of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 3 (2), 1 – 32.
* Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
* Deutsch, M. (1994). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations,2, 129-152.
* Deutsch, M. (2008). Cooperation and Conflict: A Personal Perspective on the History of the Social Psychological Study of Conflict Resolution, in International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working (eds M. A. West, D. Tjosvold and K. G. Smith), John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.
* Deutsch, M., Colman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C., (2006). The handbook of conflict resolution; Theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
* Doughty, C. (2001).Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Ellis, R. (1991). Grammar teaching practice or consciousness-raising? In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisition and second language pedagogy (pp. 232-241).Cleve don: UK Multilingual Matters.
* Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE. London.
* Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219-236.
* Gass, S. M., & Neu, J. (Eds.). (1995). Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
* Green, M. S. (2010). Speech acts, in a companion to the philosophy of action. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
* Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in classroom based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187–200.
* Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746–757.
* Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, (14) p. 197–213.
* Griffiths, J., & Podirsky, M.(2002). Types of learning. Retrieved from http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/DLiT/2002/environs/scott/learntyp.htm.
* Ho, Y. (2003). Audio taped dialogue journals: an alternative form of speaking
* Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolded scientific competencies within classroom Communities of inquiry. Second Language Learning, 21, 74-107.
* Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J.D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross- cultural pragmatics. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
* Jaramillo, J. (1996). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of constructivist curricula. Education, 117(1), 133-140.
* Jeong, M., Lin, C. Y., & Lee, G. G. (2009). Semi-supervised speech act recognition in emails and forums. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Volume 3-Volume 3 (pp.