穨Review. Pdf

2.8.2.2 Non-verbal Features of Communicative Competence 
Furthermore, the investigation of the non-verbal aspects of communicative 
competence including smile, eye contact, and conversational distance also 
distinguished the present study from previous domestic research that hardly addressed 
the issues of non-verbal aspects of communication. The non-verbal features, 
according to Upshur (1979), could reduce or enhance the effects of verbal 
communication. Upshur (1979) discussed a hypothetical test of two non-native 
speakers of English, whose task was to court an American teenager. One was 
successful; but the other failed. There was no difference in the candidates’ language 
proficiency; it was just that the successful suitor encouraged and allowed the girl to 
talk with smile and sincere look on his face. Upshur (1979) then suggested that 
sensitivity of this kind be measured in a second language performance assessment.
The examination of the non-verbal features of communicative competence was to 
avoid “the danger that non-linguistic variables in performance will mask the 
manifestations of competence (Carroll, 1968, p.50).” As Carroll (1968) argued, the 

---

52
actual manifestation of language performance was affected by a large number of 
non-linguistic variables.
In a study on the influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral 
skills, Patri (2002) also included eye contact and pleasant facial expressions in his 
marking criteria of the participants’ performance. But conversational distance was 
not measured in Patri’s (2002) criterion of non-verbal communication. As far as the 
researcher is concerned, the investigation of conversational distance in EFL learners’ 
oral performance was not available in literature published to date.
The appropriate conversational distance varies from culture to culture.
According to Morrison & Conaway (2000), businesspeople usually stood close 
enough to shake hands, about 60 to 90 centimeters (two to three feet) apart in North 
America and Northern Europe. In parts of Southern Europe and most of Latin 
America, the distance tended to be closer. In the Middle East, it was closer yet, 
sometimes under 30 centimeters (Morrison & Conaway, 2000). According to the 
orientation pamphlet prepared for international students studying at New Jersey 
Institute of Technology to get accustomed to American culture, the authors
4
stated 
that Americans, on average, preferred a distance of about 60 centimeters (two feet) 
between themselves and the person they were talking to. 
Within or beyond this 
distance would be considered too close or too far.
In addition to being cultural specific, conversational distance also varied with 
different situations: intimate conversational distance was 60-90 centimeters, like the 
one in a cocktail party; social, informal conversational distance was 180 to 300 
centimeters (6-10 feet), like the one in the living room; formal, persuasive 
4
This guide was created by Shonell Bacon, David Kary, and Kevin Ryan. All three were graduate 
students at New Jersey Institute of Technology.

---

53
conversational distance was 450-600 centimeters (15-20 feet) or more, like talk given 
in an auditorium (Karlson, 2002). Since the interaction-based oral task in this study 
belonged to the intimate conversation between good friends, the proper conversational 
distance defined in this study was between 60 to 90 centimeters.
2.8.3 Motivation 
In addition to addressing the effects of cooperative learning on the learners’ 
acquisition of communicative competence, the present study also studied the learners’ 
motivational change. There is no denying that achievements and motivation are 
closely correlated. According to Chou (1989), the correlation between motivation 
and English achievement for senior high school students was very high (p < .01).
Hsu (1998) also argued that there was a high correlation between motivation and final 
grades for junior high school students. In similar vein, Huang (1990) pointed out 
that students with high motivation tended to have a better English achievement than 
students with low motivation. Since motivation and academic achievement were so 
closely related, it was worth investigating if cooperative learning could enhance the 
learners’ motivation. In order to investigate further into the effects of cooperative 
learning on EFL learners’ motivation toward learning English as a foreign language, a 
Likert-type questionnaire was designed to evaluate such important factor in language 
learning. 
There were scanty reports on the use of researcher-designed motivational 
questionnaires to examine the EFL learners’ motivational change before and after a 
given study in cooperative learning. As Tsai (1998) suggested, further studies on 
cooperative learning might examine and compare the students’ motivation before and 
after the intervention of cooperative learning because she only compared the