穨Review. Pdf

1.5 Organization of the Dissertation 
This dissertation consists of five chapters. Followed by an overall introduction, 
the second chapter reviews relevant literature and provides a theoretical rationale for 
the present study. The third chapter is on methodology and the results ensued are 
presented in Chapter Four. The last chapter of this dissertation contains the 
discussions, conclusions, proposed guidelines of implementation of cooperative 
learning, implications of the present study, and the suggestions for further research.

---

8
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 
In this chapter, relevant literature and theoretical framework of this study are 
presented, which include (1) the communicative language teaching approach, (2) the 
development of communicative competence, (3) the distinction between cooperative 
learning and group learning, (4) the relationship between cooperative learning and 
language acquisition as well as communicative language teaching, (5) the theories, 
elements, methods, and limitations of cooperative learning, and (6) the research 
findings on cooperative learning in EFL teaching in Taiwan. The findings and 
suggestions yielded in the relevant literature rationalize the framework of the present 
study.
2.1 Communicative Approach Revisited in Education Reform 
The communicative approach, or the communicative language teaching, has been 
the major teaching approach advocated in the English program of the NYJC, the 
current wave of educational reform enacted in Taiwan since 2001. The theme of 
communicative competence emerged as the foundation proposed in the Guidelines of 
English Curriculum (MOE, 2000). According to Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei & Thurrell 
(1995), the communicative approach should be based “implicitly or explicitly on 
some models of communicative competence” (p. 5). Therefore, the definitions and 
development of communicative competence would call for detailed discussion since 
communicative approach was based on some models of communicative competence.

---

9
2.1.1 Development of Communicative Competence 
The discussion of communicative competence started as early as almost thirty 
years ago with Hymes’ (1972) creation of the term communicative competence to 
challenge Chomsky’s notion of language competence and performance
1
(Chomsky, 
1965). Hymes pointed out that Chomsky’s competence/performance model did not 
provide an explicit place for sociocultural features in human communication.
Likewise, Halliday (1970, 1978) also rejected the dichotomy of 
competence/performance because “meaning-potential” communication covered both 
knowing and doing.
Hymes (1972) stated that communicative competence referred to the ability to 
use speech appropriately rather than correctly in different social contexts (Savignon, 
1983, 1990; Widdowson, 1978). Being able to produce grammatically correct 
sentences (Chomsky, 1963) did not necessarily ensure the acquisition of 
communicative competence. In similar vein, Widdowson (1978) suggested that an 
utterance with a well-formed grammatical structure might or might not have a 
sufficient value for communication in a given context. Whether an utterance had a 
sufficient communicative value or not was determined in discourse (Widdowson, 
1978). As an addition to Widdowson’s discourse competence, Munby (1978) 
highlighted the importance of sociocultural and sociosemantic orientation in 
communication.
2.1.1.2 Hymes’ Contribution to Communicative Language Teaching 
Hymes made two contributions essential to the foundation of communicative 
1
Chomsky extended his theory in Aspects of a Theory of Syntax (1965), where he formulated the 
"competence-performance distinction." Competence referred to the native speaker's knowledge of the 
grammatical rules used to create and understand utterances (Richards, Platt & Platt, 1992:68).