DEMOCRATICAND POPULAR REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA

MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

UNIVERSITY OF LOUNICI ALI BLIDA2

FACULTY OF ARTS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

INSPECTING EFL STUDENTS AND TEACHERS’ TOWARDS THE

IMPACT OF POLITENESS FORM ON GROUP WORK

The Case Study Of First LMD Students And Teachers At LOUNICI Ali
University

Thesis submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER in Didactics

Submitted by: Supervised by:

Khadidja CHERGUELAINE Mr.AbdELHAK GHIBOUB

Razika HADRI

2016/2017
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1. Background of the study:

As EFL “Licence” students at the department of English LOUNICI Ali (Blida 02) University,

we were required to work in groups to fulfill some assignments in various modules during or

after the sessions either written or orally presented. Due to this fact, group members

encountered different issues in terms of commitment, responsibility, interdependence, and

specifically, interaction and discussions. These behaviors affected the group performance and,

sometimes, the lesson objectives. Accordingly, Brown and Levinson’s considered

communication, which forms a great deal of group work, as antagonistic. Their theory of

politeness strived to avoid, to a certain extent, conflicts. In this respect, Brown and Levinson’s

politeness forms are worth employing in group work. This way, the likelihood of facing

conflicts, which in return may hinder or even stop group work, can be decreased. Hence, the

need is amplified to inspect EFL students and teachers’ attitudes towards the impact of

politeness forms on group work.

2. The research rationale:

The shift towards Learner Centered Classroom has encouraged the incorporation of group work

as a teaching tool to enhance the language learning. Group dynamics in EFL classroom

especially in university classes plays a significant role in the success of group work, which

serves as a preparatory stage for professional life. Many researchers indicated that group work

in university gives students the opportunity to tackle significant projects where each group

1
member is exposed to different ideas and perspectives. Smith (2008) stated, “Within schools

and colleges, working in groups can also be adopted as a means to

2
carry forward curriculum concerns and varying the classroom experience”. Due to the amount

of interaction group work requires, students have the opportunity to be more active and

productive. As Gastil indicated, “The very idea of grouping entails an ongoing pattern of

communication among the group members” (05). Nevertheless, issues between group members

may arise during the group work process affecting its performance. According to Brown and

Levinson communication, which has a great deal of the group work, is seen as potentially

dangerous and antagonistic. Thus, they put forward some strategies to decrease the likelihood

of facing the resulted issues of communication and interaction. This increased the needs to

inspect both EFL students and teachers towards the impact of Brown and Levinson’s (1987)

politeness forms group work in the EFL classroom.

2. The purpose of the study:

Throughout this study, the researchers intend to inspect some EFL university students and

teachers’ attitudes towards the impact of politeness forms on group work. Besides, the

researchers intend to find out the extent to which group members make use of the politeness

forms while interaction with their team members.

3. The Research question:

The current research aims at answering the following research question:

a. Main question:

-What do EFL University students and teachers think of the impact of politeness forms on use

of politeness forms in enhancing group?

b. Sub-question:

- What do EFL University teachers think of the use of politeness forms in enhancing group

work?

3
- What do EFL University students think of the use of politeness forms in enhancing group

work?

- To what extent do EFL group members rely on politeness forms while interacting interacting

with their teammates?

4. The Objective of the Study:

To answer the research questions, the researchers intend to demonstrate the significance of

politeness forms (bald on record, off record as well as positive and negative politeness) as a

factor decreasing the likelihood of facing conflicts. Therefore, facilitating group work inside

the classroom as well as helping students to be efficient group members.

5. Definition of terms:

It is indispensable to define the succeeding terms that will recurrently be used in the current

research paper:

5.1. Group work:

Group work is a face-to-face, student-centered learning process (Smith & MacGregor) that

involves of two or more participants (Dillenbourg, Smith & MacGregor). Group members are

expected to maintain and work towards a common goal (Gillies & Ashman, Johnson &

Johnson) by engaging in a variety of learning activities or tasks that enable them to explore

and/or co-construct knowledge (Dillenbourg, Smith & MacGregor, qtd. in Leung ).

5.2. Group dynamics:

Group dynamics refers here to the learner group’s internal characteristics and its evolution over

time, which affect the learning and teaching process (Dörnyei and Murphy).

5.3. Politeness Forms:

Politeness Forms represent the strategies Brown and Levinson developed to deal or mitigate

face threatening acts (FTAs) in any social interaction. They are used to adjust language to the

circumstances.

4
 a. Face threatening acts: they are acts that intrinsically threaten face wants i.e. verbal,

non-verbal communication and other speech acts.

b. Positive face: it is the positive consistent self-image claimed by interactants.

c. Negative face: it is the intranctants want for freedom of action and freedom from imposition.

d. Positive politeness: it is used to satisfy the addressee’s desire of being liked i.e. to maintain

the addressee’s positive face and offer solidarity.

e. Negative politeness: The addresser satisfies the addressee’s desires of being unimpeded.

f. Bald on record: the speaker perform direct confrontation i.e. there is no regressive action of

the addressee’s face threatening acts.

g. Off record: the speaker has the chance to evade responsibility by claiming that the hearer’s

interpretation of the utterance as a FTA is wrong.

h. Do not do FTAs: the highest degree of politeness strategy when the potential for face loss

is too great leading the speaker to abandon the use of FTA.

6. Layout of Thesis:

The current researchers composed of three interconnected chapters. The first chapter represents

the theoretical part of the study, whereas, the other two chapters are devoted to the practical

phase.

Chapter one sheds light on the literature review regarding group work, group dynamics, as well

as Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory. It presents the definition of group work, its

importance, implementation /incorporation in the EFL classroom alongside the issues

encountering group members, in terms of communication and interaction. It, then, tackles B&L

5
(1987) politeness theory, as well as its forms. In addition, this chapter highlights some studies/

a number of studies investigating the use of politeness forms in the EFL and the academic

context as well.

The second chapter puts forward the research methodology. It tackles the research design, the

research question, as well as the population. In addition, this chapter presents the research

instrument employed in the current study and their aim with a detailed description.

Regarding chapter three, which is entitled data analysis and interpretation, is devised into two

sections. The first section is devoted to the analysis and the discussion of the data collected

from the research instruments (Students’ questionnaire, teachers’ interview, and students’

voice recordings). After that, in the second section, this chapter suggests some

recommendations, which stand upon the obtained findings of the research instruments.

Eventually, some limitations encountered throughout this research are briefly highlighted.

It is worth mentioning that, throughout this research paper in hands, the researchers utilized the

American English. Besides, the past simple was the dominant tense throughout this

dissertation. Last but not least, the term researchers as well as the unity marker “We” were

employed to address the conductors of the study.

6
 CHAPTER ONE: THE LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction:

Group work has been incorporated in the teaching of English as foreign language (TEFL)

since it enhances the language learning as well as social interaction. Different scholars such as

Vygotsky emphasized the effectiveness of the group work as it guarantees social interaction

and increases different skills. The human nature as being social creatures requires working

together from the early stages. Shmuck:

Why have we humans been so successful as a species? We are not strong like tigers,

big like elephants, protectively colored like lizards, or swift like gazelles. We are

intelligent, but an intelligent human alone in the forest would not survive for long. What

has really made us such successful animals is our ability to apply our intelligence to

cooperating with others to accomplish group goals. From the primitive hunting group

to the corporate boardroom, it is those of us, who can solve problems while working

with others, who succeed.

(qtd. in Dunne and Neville)

Brown also stated that, “Members of the community are critically dependent on each

other. No one is an island; no one knows it all; collaborative learning is not just nice, it is

necessary for survival” (10). Consequently, the Task Based Learning considers group work

inside the classroom as a means to carry on tasks, improve communicative competence and

enhance the learning. (Leeming, 148). Furthermore, the quality of interaction process has a

significant impact on the group outcome as Gastil advocated (29). Despite the benefits of group

work in the EFL classroom and its integration in the Algerian classroom, the issues resulted

through communication and interaction between group members made group work

overwhelming. This leaves students struggling in different stages of the group process

7
especially in terms of group interaction. As a result, the gap between the improvement of group

work and the exploitation of the politeness forms to overcome the resulted issues of

communication between group members increased the needs to shed light on the some studies

concerning both group work and the effectiveness of politeness strategies in EFL classroom.

1.1. Group Work:

Group work is a generic term covering a range of techniques in which two or more students

are assigned a task that involves collaboration and self-initiated language (Long and Porter).

Working in groups reduces teacher-talking time, enables learners to be more productive,

flexible, and gives them the opportunity to develop their critical thinking and social skills.

Group work serves as a helpful means to resolve the problem of large size classes and provide

more opportunities for student to speak (Brown, 173). A number of scholars showed both

pedagogical and social gains for most learners working in small groups. Vygotsky mentioned

that group activities provide interaction among group members, which help learners co-

construct, new knowledge. It also helps students in generating new perspectives. According to

Lantolf & Appel, the Vygotskian theory postulates that learning can take place through

interaction between two people, one being the more knowledgeable and the other being the

novice. Learners involved in group work can change the role of expert and novice as they all

have different strengths and weaknesses. In this light, Vygotskian sociocultural theory of mind

serves as the theoretical foundation for the group work. (qtd. in Hassaskhah and Mozaffari).

The main focus of Vygotskian sociocultural theory is the influence of language, society and

culture on the child’s cognitive development. He believed that learning happens on two levels:

first, through interaction either with the teacher or with peers, and then integrated in the child’s

mental structure or internalized. As Vygotsky asserted “Every function in the child’s cultural

development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first,

between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This

8
applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All

the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals.”

Another notion that Vygotsky stressed is that of “Zone of Proximal Development” which

is a task that cannot be fulfilled without the help of others. This zone is already set in the child’s

mind but needs assistance and social interaction to be developed. The teacher or a more

knowledgeable peer can offer the supply and the scaffolding for the child as mentioned in

Dennington’s study of applying Vygotsky sociocultural theory in Art education. This entails

that interaction between group members is a crucial process as it helps teammates to discuss,

negotiate meaning, and learn from each other. It also develops complex skills.

In the fields of human sciences and psycho-pedagogy, group work has been defined

differently. According to Konopka, “group work is a method of social work that is employed

in order to help individuals to enhance their social functioning through purposeful group

experiences and to cope more effectively with their personal, group or community problems”.

(qtd. in Ibnian 194). In the same line, Brown stated that “group work provides a context in

which individuals help each other; it is a method of helping groups as well as helping

individuals” (Ibid: 193). For Luna “working in groups in the classroom opens up

communication channels and at the same time it serves as a concrete and measurable teaching

tool in the middle of that CLT vagueness” (202). She also referred to group work as a

pedagogical effort in which students working in small groups collaborate to attain the task

objectives. This enhances the cooperation and communication processes that are challenging

for both L2 learners and teachers (200). Different researchers claimed that one of the most

promising ways to facilitate second language acquisition, in non-native contexts, is to use small

group work since it encourages interactions among students. (Sugino, 103). Jaques also

defined group work according to some key attributes: (1) Collective perception: it is the shared

awareness between group members of the existence of the group. (2) Needs: it is the recognition

9
that a group will possibly be able to help individuals within the group. (3) Shared aims: the

identification of the common objectives and encouraging features that motivates group

members. (4)Interdependence: it is about how group members’ contributions and behaviors

will affect the relationships between them. (5) Social organization: there is an essential set of

organizational patterns to a group which includes various rules and power relations. (6)

Interaction: it is likely that communication between group members takes place even if the

interactants are not in the same place. (7) Cohesiveness: it is about the group members’ desire

that the group lasts, contribute to its development and benefit from it. (8) Membership: a group

can be described by the extent of the relationships built between its members. (qtd in Davies,

565).

The extent to which group members know each other as well as the relationship between

them has a great impact on the process of the group work. Inside the classroom, the teacher

may divide the students into groups and sometimes they have the opportunity to work with

those whom they already know. The latter helps them to be freer to express their ideas and

opinions as Hendry et al claimed, “Friendship is one of the factors that can be put into

consideration when forming group work. In such groups, students have excellent relationships.

They respect each other and accept criticism from one another and listen to each other” (53).

With the development of the group, members should work hand in hand to attain their

objectives. Nevertheless, conflicts may appear in the early stages of the task, for instance, in

the brainstorming due to various factors. Forsyth pointed out that group members argue, talk,

assist and support one another (ibid: 10). As a result, group dynamics has a significant influence

on the group work process. Toseland and Rivas recognized four dimensions of group

dynamics that help group members understand and work effectively under diverse

circumstances. These dimensions are communication and interaction patterns, cohesion, social

integration and influence as well as group structure. Furthermore, communication and

10
interaction patterns are basic to the formation of all groups. Through communication and

interaction properties, the group as a whole develop and accomplish the work assigned (90).

1.1. Group Dynamics:

Group dynamics is a term coined by Kurt Lewin to describe the process of groups as

well as individuals’ actions and reactions to varying circumstances. (ibid: 16). Later,

Carlwight and Zander defined group dynamics to be “a field of inquiry dedicated to

advancing knowledge about the nature of groups, the laws of their development, and their

interrelations with individuals, other groups, and large institutions”.(ibid: 17). Sommerville

and, Nazzari & Strazzabosco advocated that group dynamics are the result of group members’

interaction in which they contribute in making decisions, sharing ideas about the tasks and

motivating each other. Group dynamics is the product of true group, not merely collections of

individual learners within groups as Ehrman and Dörnyei advocated. Furthermore,

Matsumoto investigated Cooperative learning. She argued that there are considerable

problems with implementing this style of learning in university contexts in Japan, where

students have learnt to be individualistic and competitive during secondary education.

Interaction is another factor that may have impact on group work. The group dynamics,

according to Matsumoto, can exert both positive and negative influence (48). Smith claimed

that group dynamics give the opportunity to gain substantial insights regarding the process and

the functioning of groups. Dörnyei stated that “group dynamics offer a frame work to integrate

diverse classroom variables associated with all the four dimensions and account for situation

specific variance in both learners’ motivation and achievement” (79). Interaction is another

factor that may have impact on group work. According to Kreijin et al and Vinagre, “The

effectiveness of group learning, to a large extent, depends on the appropriate social interaction

that takes place among participants” (qtd. in Lee 02). The way group members interact with

each other and discuss their tasks has a great influence on the ability to collaborate, learn from

11
each other, and realize the group objectives. Dagmara identified that the students’ interaction

is not precise as it is characterized by both positive and negative dynamics (10). The positive

dynamics, according to Heron , contributes to successful group because “it should be task and

process oriented”. She added that the intrapersonal and the interpersonal awareness of group

members lead to a more cohesive group. However, these positive dynamics also have their own

downside influencing the learning process. She mentioned educational and emotional

alienation as well as psychological defensiveness leading to anxiety and group conflict. (ibid:

91).

1.1.1. Advantages of Group Work:

Group work has become a prominent way of teaching in Higher education because of

the variety of advantages that it affords many opportunities for a better learning atmosphere.

As Kumaravadivelu mentioned, group work provides more opportunities for learning, as it is

a powerful tool for teachers to involve their students in the Teaching/Learning process. (qtd in

Pishghadam&Moghaddam; 623) . Montessori stated that “The greatest sign of success for

a teacher is to be able to say, “The children are now working as if I did not exist” (ibid, 623).

This is an implicit rejection of the traditional way of teaching where the teacher was the only

source of knowledge. However, while working in groups, learners are developing a sense of

responsibility of what they are doing; they can make decisions by themselves and communicate

the knowledge gained in the classroom as Açıkgöz claimed. Davies asserted that Group work

is also an efficient means to deal with large classes especially in assessment and marking. He

also claimed that it is a practical way to ensure that learners developed flexible skills for life-

long learning such as leadership, communication skills and collaboration. (564). Brooks and

Ammons suggested that peer groups aid students to discuss and exchange ideas in an informal

environment in a more comfortable and cooperative atmosphere. (qtd. in Davies; 564).

McGraw and Tidwell mentioned that it encourages experiential learning i.e. students will be

12
given the opportunity to experience the knowledge presented and strengthen their learning.

(ibid: 02). Group activities also generate critical thinking skills and helps for retention for long

term-memory as Ellis noted. Group work promotes active rather than passive learning as

Nation stated that it is an approach where everyone involved is “interested, active and

thoughtful”. Nunan added that, “pair work can be used to increase the amount of time that

learners get to speak in the target language during lessons which reflects more language

production (55). (qtd. in Zohairy). Furthermore, Brown argued that Group work helps reduce

anxiety and shyness for weak learners as it gives them the opportunity to express themselves

in front of their peers rather than in front of the whole class as it creates a stress-free

environment (Taqi & Al-Nouh, 53). In addition, it creates a more cooperative learning

environment rather than a competitive one where members are supposed to scaffold and

support each other to attain the task objective as a whole group not as individuals (Jacobs, qtd.

in Ellis;).

1.1.2. Issues Facing the Implementation of Group Work:

Despite all the benefits, not all studies revealed only positive effects of group work.

There are many factors that may hinder the successful implementation of group work in the

classroom. The teacher incompetence to maintain and implement group work is one of the most

hindering factors as Tiberius asserted. Kerr and Bruun, as well as Morgan agreed that

motivation is one of the major issues in group work, arguing that some group members may be

unenthusiastic and uncommitted to the group objectives which lead to the rise of motivational

issues (qtd in Davies, 566). Social loafing and free riding are examples of such kind of issues.

Morris and Hayes defined “free riding” as “The problem of the non-performing group member

who reaps the benefits of the accomplishments of the remaining group members with little or

no cost to him/herself” in other words is getting reward or mark with no efforts. (Davis, 567).

Watkins distinguished Social loafing as the reduction of contribution in the group because of

13
lack of identification or being unnoticeable (ibid, 567). In other words, it is when the group

members cease collaborating in the task because their contribution is not taken into

consideration. Another problem that may lead to the failure of group work is the Sucker effect.

As defined by Kerr it is when the group members react to others’ free riding by free riding

themselves. Once active members feel that they are being sucked, they automatically reduce

their effort/contribution in the group, which will in turn lead to the failure of the whole group.

(ibid, 567) As a solution for this problem, Davies suggested that the teacher should reward the

group as a whole as well as individuals. In the same line, ethnicity in groups may sometimes

cause some problems between group members as Volet and Ang argued that non-English

speaking backgrounds students have less contribution in group work because of the lack of

communication between them and “Local native English students” (Davies, 568). Davies

concluded that this problem of ethnicity leads to the emergence of the Sucker effect and free

riding especially when students are forced to join ethnic groups. Group size is another factor

that influences group work effectiveness as well as the accomplishment of the task. Davies as

well as Bonacich et al agreed that the more groups are large, the less effort is spent and the

more conflicts occur paving the way for social loafing and free riding to arise (537). They

stressed the idea that collaboration between group members decreases because of the large

group size affecting the attainment of the group work objectives and sometimes leading to the

breaking up of the group. Another issue that may hinder the implementation of group work in

classroom is time. Mc Graw & Tidwell stated that time is a barrier for many teachers to

maintain group work complaining that it is time consuming. (Taqi & Al-Nouh, 56)

1.1.3. Studies on Group Work in Academic Context:

As stated earlier, group work has been integrated in the classroom as a facilitating and

helping tool for better learning. Many researchers tackled its implementation in the EFL

classroom and investigated its effects on the learning process and outcomes. For instance,

14
Kwon conducted a study in which he investigated the students’ attitudes toward collaborative

writing and the use of L1 in completing the writing tasks. The participants were four (4) EFL

Thai learners with high intermediate and high beginning English proficiency level (3 females

and 1 male because they were the most accurate participants who responded to the

questionnaire). The study was conducted for three weeks in which the students attended the

class for 90 minutes a day. The research design was based on an action plan. Since the

researcher was responsible for teaching the students. The data collection includes pre and post

questionnaires, students’ reflective journal entries and post interviews with the participants.

The data analysis was through measuring pre and post students’ writing tests with reference to

accuracy, complexity and fluency. The findings revealed that students perceived group work

positively. However, they faced challenges because of difference in proficiency level, problems

in decision making and maintaining relationships between each other. The study suggested

some solutions mainly that the teachers should take into consideration his learners needs and

expectations when implementing collaborative writing tasks. The researcher stated some

limitations of the study, for instance, the small sample size, homogeneity of the group as well

as the low and various proficiency levels of the students.

Similarly, Pishghadam and Moghaddam investigated the attitudes toward group work

among Iranian children in EFL classes to examine its effect on the language performance of

children. This study consisted of two phases: in the first phase, eighteen classes were observed

to reveal the importance of group work and to assess the quality of instruction. In the second

phase, the researchers carried out a class during the term focusing on group work as a key

teaching tool to discover its effects on students’ performance. The sample selection was

random. Ten (10) institutes were selected and in each institute, two teachers were selected to

be observed. The total number of children in these classes was 180 students; their age was

approximately 9 to 10 years old. The experimental group consisted of 10 participants who were

15
taught through cooperative activities to figure out what would be the effects of these activities

on learners’ performance. Data analysis showed that the experimental group benefited from

group work in terms of memorization and learning new vocabularies. As a result, group work

has shown efficiency in teaching children and helps them improve their English language

proficiency.

Taqi and Al-Nouh carried out a study in which they aimed at investigating the

advantages of group work in exams in the English department, in the College of Basic

Education. Participants were 40 (all female) students from two classes of “the Introduction of

Phonetics and Phonology”. They were classified into two groups: one being the experimental

and the other the control group. The subjects performed six tasks pre-, during and post-group

work. These tasks were mainly about phonetic transcription. Data were collected from exams

results and a five-open-questions questionnaire distributed to the participants by the end of the

semester. Data analysis revealed that group work improved communicative skills and

increased motivation. Participants showed positive attitudes toward working in groups as they

formed new friendships and enjoyed the company of other students. One main disadvantage of

group work in this study is the dominance of one member over the others. This was due to the

factor of nationality dominance over others in multi-national groups. This plays a critical role

in the success of group work as it leads to the rise of conflicts among group members especially

through communication and interaction, which are inevitable.

1.2. Group Communication and Interaction:

Communication and interaction are crucial elements during the group work process. As

group members communicate with one another, a reciprocal pattern of interaction emerges.

The interaction patterns that develop can be either beneficial or harmful to the group. Northen

asserted that social interaction leads to the adjustment of the participants’ behavior as it is

16
characterized by an interplay of forces. (qtd. in Toseland and Rivas 65). Dobao and Martinez

advocated that a successful communication requires coordination between the speaker and the

addressees’ individual actions and beliefs in order to build a mutual agreement on the content

of their messages (88). Thus, communication plays a significant role in the group performance

when carrying out a complex task (18). Keyton also indicated that all groups in all contexts

experience various types of communication, interaction, or behaviors resulting to a certain

extent a degree and quality of group member relationships (389). Group work involves face-

to-face communication. Even if the group members are not communicating verbally, their

nonverbal behaviors transfer multiple messages. Body language, gestures, and facial

expressions can provide important clues about how members are reacting to verbal

communications. Forsyth claimed, “group members teach one another new things, they

communicate with one another verbally and nonverbally, and they touch each other literally

and emotionally” (10). Group communication helps learners to develop different skills mainly

communication and thinking skills as revealed in the study of Smith and Bath (qtd. in Bentley

& Warwick). Through interaction, members negotiate tasks, exchange ideas, divide the task

into subtasks to facilitate the group performance; thus a good knowledge of communication

and interaction patterns would be beneficial. Indeed, interaction between group members helps

in longer retention and more learning will be gained as Yu advocated. Group work is

considered among the best ways toimplement classroom interaction as it gives them choice,

freedom and equality.

Sullivan stated that,

“what is embedded in the notion of pair work or group work is the idea of choice

because students have a choice of partners or groups; the idea of freedom because

students in pairs or groups have a right to talk freely and are also free from the teacher’s

17
 control; and the idea of equality because students in groups are equal, and the power of

teacher within groups is also diminished or neutralized”. (qtd. in Yu, 49)

It can be mentioned that when group members are free and express their ideas and concerns at

ease with no fear, although it provides a comfortable atmosphere suitable for work, the risks of

misunderstanding and conflicts among group members are great. This can happen as they can

express themselves in a way, which can be, more or less, wrongly interpreted and have an

undesired force on the addressee due to the failure in getting, correctly, the addressee’s’

intentions . Sometimes, a request can wrongly be interpreted, due to misunderstanding and

wrong interpretations, as an order, especially when all interlocutors care about their freedom

and dislike to be imposed on, leading to conflicts, thus, hindering communication. The latter,

which is the concern of pragmatics, permits addressing communication from a pragmatic side.

1.3. An overview on pragmatics:

Pragmatics draws on what Chomeskian linguistics calls “performance data , which is

the everyday talk of human life”. It emphasizes the significance of the functional analysis of

language. This entails that its main focus is language in use (LoCastro, 05). Linguists have

defined pragmatics according to different perspectives. Crystal stated that pragmatics is “the

study of language from the point of view of the users, especially the choices they make, the

constraints in using language in social interaction and the effects of their use of language on

other participants in the act of communication” (ibid). In other words, the concern of

pragmatics is the speaker intended meaning. To achieve the latter, the hearer needs not only to

identify the meanings of the words (semantics) and how they have been put together to form a

meaningful sentence (syntax). S/he needs also to know the speaker, the context in which s/he

uttered or produced the sentence, in addition to the speaker’s intention (Birner, 01). Hence,

pragmatics strives for comprehending the way humans are able to produce and achieve various

intended meanings in different contexts taking into consideration the way to approach the

18
addressee as well as the possible effects their utterances may have on him/her. To achieve all

these, the addresser’s decision-making encompasses words choice, syntactic structures,

prosodic contours, and constraints. Scholars in the field of pragmatics aim to designate the

principles and theories that cover the way in which interactants yield and interpret utterances.

This led them to address variety of topics in this respect including “speech acts”. In any regular

conversation, the speaker to not only intends to produce grammatical and meaningful

utterances. S/he also depends on those utterances to perform specific actions. According to

Austin, speech act is doing a certain thing by saying a certain word or group of words. It can

be effectively performed when it meets the virtue of social conventions (qtd. in Allott, 10).

Speech acts theory maintains that the utterances have three aspects: locutionary, illocutionary

and perlocutionary acts. Locutionary acts are the basic act of any utterance. It is to produce a

meaningful linguistic expression. The illocutionary acts are the real actions performed by the

utterance, which equals the action. Perlocutionary acts, however, are the effects of the utterance

on the listener, which the speaker wants to exercise over him/her. Speech acts are the means

by which the speaker can threaten the hearer face. In other words, some speech acts are face

heartening such as disagreements or orders. Hence, the speaker relies on some strategies to

overcome the resulted issues of performing face-threatening acts, which is the concern of

politeness theory. Given the fact that “communication is antagonistic”, the speakers, in any

social interaction, tend to perform acts contrary to what the hearers’ wants and expectations.

When performing any speech act it is essential to take into account the speakers’ self-image as

well as freedom of action, which are the basic elements in Brown and Levinson’s (1987)

politeness theory.

19
 1.3.1. Definition of Politeness:

Politeness has been defined differently. Some scholars defined it stressing on the purpose

it serves in communicative interaction. Politeness is considered as a social system aims at

diminishing “the friction inherent” This reveals that communication, though spontaneous, is a

“strategic-conflict avoidance” (Lakoff, qtd. in Lounis). Brown claimed that politeness is seen in

terms of modifying one’s language in a particular way as to consider the feelings other

interlocultors. Hence, the linguistic expression, the speaker uses, takes different forms that one

would produce if he did not consider the addressee’s feelings. To phrase it differently, speakers

adjust their language to their participants or their audience. Politeness is considered, according

to Leech, as a type of behavior that permits participants to be involved in a social interaction in

an atmosphere of relative harmony (104). Hill et al, also, defined politeness as one of the

constraints on human interaction aiming to consider other’s feelings, establish levels of mutual

comfort, and promotes rapport. However, Brown and Levinson defined politeness as a

redressive action taken to counter balance the disruptive effect of face threatening acts (FATs).

It is concluded that politeness aims at avoiding conflicts and seeking rapport among interactants

leading to, more or less, comfortable communication. One of the most influential, detailed and

well-known models of linguistic politeness is that of Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson.

This claim is based on what Fasold said in that “perhaps the most thorough treatment of the

concept of politeness is that of Brown and Levinson”. In this respect, the next section will be

devoted to Brown and Levinson (1987) politeness theory.

1.4. Overview on Politeness Theory:

Politeness theory was first introduced by Brown and Levinson (1978) and reissued in

(1987). They claimed that politeness is crucial for achieving social order by lessening the

potential threat resulted from disagreements and conflicts among speakers. Brown and

20
Levinson sought to set up standards for “talking politely” as well as some universals regarding

the significant phenomenon of language usage. This led them to study thoroughly three distinct

languages and cultures (Tamil, a language spoken in South India; Tzeltl spoken by Mayan

Indians, and English spoken by the British and Americans).In any regular communication

participants, according to Brown and Levinson (1987), are model persons (MPs) who are

endowed with the universal properties, which are Rationality and Face. On the one hand,

rationality is considered the capability to “reason from the ends to the means to achieve those

ends” (Lounis). To phrase it differently, rational interlocutors/speakers have purposeful speech

and they are capable of determining the expression, which aids accomplishing those purposes.

On the other hand, inspired by Goffman’s (1967) concept of face, which is defined as “the

public self-image every member of society wants to claim for himself” (qtd. in Li, 02), in

addition to the English folk term “saving face” and “losing face” (ibid). B&L (1987) politeness

theory is grounded on the notion of face, face-threatening acts and politeness forms. It

proclaims the belief that everyone has both “negative” and “positive” face. Positive face is the

equivalent of self-esteem, whereas negative face represents the individuals autonomy and

freedom of action. Face can be respected, maintained, enhanced, saved, humiliated, or lost (qtd.

in Lounis). Therefore, politeness forms are important for saving both the hearer as well as the

speaker’s face.

1.5. Face and Politeness Forms:

Face is considered to have two functions. It has a social significance emphasis and

stresses individual wants as well. Both Negative and positive faces, which are considered as

the basic wants in any social interaction, are threatened by one another. Positive face is the

positive consistent self-image that people have and their desire to be accepted and approved by

at least some participants of the conversation. It can be threatened via contradiction or

21
expressions of disagreements indicating that the speaker thinks there is something wrong with

an opinion held by the hearer as Fasold (1990) explained. Whereas negative face is the

individual’s freedom of actions and desire for autonomy. It can be threatened by a request or

an order. Here the speaker impede on the hearer by asking him/her not what s/he wants but

rather to do what the speaker wants (qtd. in Longcope )It can be maintained; however, through

“making the addressees feel good about themselves”. In other words, sustaining the hearer’s

self-esteem and providing support. The latter can be illustrated through the examples provided

by Barouni.

 You look so sad. Is there anything I can do?

The negative face ,on the other hand, can be maintained by minimizing imposition especially

when performing requests. The example below illustrates this:

 I just want to ask you if you can lend me your book.

 I know I can trust you to input the data in the computer quickly. (ibid)

Not only can the hearer’s face be threaten but also the speaker’s face. This may occur

in cases of confession, admission of guilt, apologies i.e. when the speaker is not able to meet

the hearer’s expectations.

The significance of the interlocutors’ face in any social interaction involves the

participants’ cooperation to maintain each other’s face and to mitigate the FTAs. Brown and

Levinson indicated that the amount of politeness employed in any interaction is governed by

the social distance between the interlocutors, the power the speaker has over the hearer or the

contrary, as well as the risk of hurting the other persons. They argued that the FTAs are the

result of “an act of verbal or non-verbal communication which runs contrary to the face wants

of the addressee and/or the addresser” (70). They can be mitigated through five politeness

strategies; bald on record, positive and negative politeness, off record and do not do FTAs,

22
which is considered the highest degree of politeness strategy. They may harm or threaten the

positive as well as negative face of the addressee. They are by their nature contrary to the

addressee’s face wants. In other words, it is any act that runs against the addressee’s

expectations or wants threatening his/her public image (positive face).

1. Do the FTAs, on record without redressive action, baldly (bald on record). It occurs in

situations where the speaker does not consider the hearer’s face and freedom of action.

This strategy is used when the speaker wants to do the FTAs directly and does not

intend to reduce the threat to the hearer’s face. Brown and Levinson (1987) indicated

that there are three situations where bald on record strategy occurs: welcoming,

Farewells, and offers. For instance, when speaker uses imperative, which is the most

direct form of performing an order, the hearer considers this speech act as a threat to

his/her negative face. In other words, imposing on the hearer’s or violating his/her

freedom of action. The following represents other ways to perform bald on record

politeness strategy :

 Emergency: Help!

 Task oriented: Give me those!

 Request: Put your jacket away.

 Alerting: Turn your lights on! (while driving)

2. Do the FTA, “on record with redressive action, “positive politeness”. It is performed to

indicate closeness with the hearer. This reveals that both the addressee and the addresser

share the same goal and to establish common ground i.e. there is no violation to the

addressee’s negative face. It is realized by using the personal pronoun “we”.

 Attend to the hearer: You must be hungry; it is a long time since breakfast. How

about some lunch?

23
  Avoid disagreement: A: What is she, small? B: Yes, yes, she is small, smallish,

um, not really small but certainly not very big.

 Assume agreement: So when are we going to meet?

 Hedge opinion: You really should rather try harder.

3. Do the FTA, on record with redressive action, “negative politeness”. It is similar to

everyday life politeness. Speaker rely on this strategy to avoid interfering with the

addressee’s freedom of action. Negative politeness tend to be expressed as “self-

effacement, formality, and restraint”. This can be realized employing impersonalization

mechanisms i.e. passive voice as well as softening mechanisms such as “I think”. This

provides the addressee a “face saving line of escape. In addition, the following

examples illustrate the possible ways to perform negative politeness strategies.

 Be indirect: I'm looking for a pen.

 Request forgiveness: You must forgive me but.... Could I borrow your pen?

 Minimize imposition: I just wanted to ask you if I could use your pen.

 Pluralize the person responsible: We forgot to tell you that you needed to

buy your plane ticket by yesterday.

 Hedging: Er, could you, er, perhaps, close the, um , window?

 Pessimism: I don't suppose you could close the window, could you?

 Indicating deference: Excuse me, sir, Would you mind if I asked you to

close the window?

 Apologizing: I'm terribly sorry to disturb you, but could you close the

window?

 Impersonalizing: The management requires all windows to be closed.

24
 4. Do the FTA, “off record strategy” is the most indirect way of performing an

FTA. It realized using metaphors, irony, rhetorical questions, understatement,

and duplications. The speaker uses all kinds of hints that s/he wants to

communicate without stating it directly making the meaning negotiable i.e. the

hearer have the freedom to interpret the criticism or the disagreement. This can

be achieved through giving hints (It’s a bit cold in here.) or being vague (Perhaps

someone should open the window.). It can also be performed through joking or

being sarcastic (Yeah, it’s really hot here).

5. Do not do the FTA strategy is considered the highest degree of politeness. It

occurs when the speaker is fully aware that the potential for face loss is too great.

As a result, s/he may avoid the FTA completely and say nothing.

Figure 01: Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs

This theory has been criticized for claiming universality. Research such as the one of

Kiesling and Bratt indicated that the premium placed on the individuals’ differ between Anglo-

American society and Chinese as well as Japanese communities (qtd. in. Kasberg 14). Besides,

25
Gu , Mao and Lim argued that “Brown and Levinson assumed an individualistic concept of

face, which is not appropriate to culture with broad value tendencies in emphasizing the

importance of group interest over individual wants” (qtd. in Chang 62). Nevertheless, Kasberg

concluded that Brown and Levinson’s argument of universality for politeness increases with

globalization; yet, the multinational classes create their own variety of politeness to access

power and prestige (23).

1.6. Studies on Brown and Levinson’s politeness in the academic context:

Several studies tackled the issue of the use of politeness in the EFL classroom. Among

them Monsfi and Hadidi who explored the effect of gender and teachers use of politeness

strategies on the patterns of classroom interaction between teacher and students as well as the

learning process in the Iranian EFL classroom. According to the observations and voice

recording of ten teachers, five females and other five male teachers, and questionnaire for both

teachers and students, the researchers found out that there are some differences between the

two genders speech. They use positive politeness strategies to save students’ face in many

ways. The teachers used group identity markers “we” which indicates respect as well as

expressions of sympathy period .Besides, negative politeness strategies were used in making

imperative expressions and creating an impression of option. The bald on record strategy was

applied using direct speech with no intention to decrease the threat to students’ face. This was

resulted in imposition and pressure on the students. Researchers concluded that female teachers

used more positive politeness strategy in their classroom than male ones and there is a direct

relationship between using more polite strategies and learning process as well as teacher

students’ interaction.

Similarly, Peng et al investigated college teachers’ use of politeness strategies in EFL

classroom. This study aimed at revealing the teacher application of politeness strategies

26
through the verbal communication while teaching. The researcher found out that the teacher

mainly adopted two positive strategies. First, address which is determined by the speakers

‘social distance and power to enhance student’s confidence and create a relaxing and friendly

classroom environment adequate for teaching and learning activities. Second, the compliment

encourages interpersonal relationship and raises self-confidence. Through the classroom

observation, the researchers stated, “The teacher is quite aware of students wants”. They added

that the teacher had active attitude toward language teaching and used suitable words as a sign

of respect towards the students and sought to save their positive face. Contrarily, negative

politeness was characterized using hedges and questions to decrease imposition. The

researchers concluded that the use of politeness strategies (positive and negative) were useful

in promoting a comfortable language learning environment.

Behnan and Niroomand adopted a correlation study design to investigate the relationship

between power and politeness in disagreements. The study was based on a survey. The

participants were 40 English major college students (35 females and 5 males) .The data were

collected through fill in Discourse Completion Test (DCT), which is a form of questionnaire

consisting of five scenarios. The participants were expected to disagree with people of different

statuses through writing natural responses for each situation. A proficiency test was

administered to determine the level of the participants. According to the results the participant

were divided into groups representing (20) intermediate and (20) upper intermediate EFL

learners. The questionnaire used in this study included a description of certain situations to set

the setting and social distance. The taxonomy from Muntigl and Turnbull (1998) was applied

when identifying the utterances of disagreement from the responses which were then compared

to Brown and Levinson‘s politeness strategies. The study revealed that the students are more

sensitive to the use of politeness strategies when disagreeing with high status than to low status

people. By the end of the study, the researchers recommended that L2 learners must be aware

27
of second language pragmatics rules and socio-cultural constrains on speech act as well as

grammatical rules as to reach a successful communication.

Li investigated Politeness strategies in wiki-mediated communication of EFL collaborative

writing tasks. She analyzed the wiki-mediated discourse of one collaborative writing group in

a Chinese EFL context. This particular writing group consisted of three EFL college students

at a southwestern university in China. This study examined specifically how this small group

actively engaged in social interaction by adopting politeness strategies during asynchronous

communication in a wiki “Discussion” module (Wiki is a collaborative web that allows users

to freely create and edit the content of the web pages without being bound to specific and

common time and space). The findings revealed that this small group used three types of

politeness strategies, i.e. positive, negative, and bald on record skillfully, to establish

friendship, solidarity and respect while completing their collaborative writing tasks smoothly

and efficiently. In this respect, Li confirmed the value of linguistic politeness strategies in the

analyses of social interaction occurring in computer-mediated discourse. This study merely

examined one small group’s asynchronous messaging in a wiki “Discussion,” Therefore, the

scope of this study is small, and the analysis of more cases in the same context would lead to

“more perspectives and better interpretation of the dynamics of group interaction in terms of

group members’ politeness strategy use”. Although this study investigated the use of

politeness, however, it is different from the study we are conducting. We are targeting group

work inside the classroom where face-to-face communication is crucial in the fulfillment of the

task. Second and for most, we are interested in group work in general. That is to say in any

module as we are intending

Although the aforementioned studies did not investigate politeness in small groups inside

the classroom, when used as an instructional tool, yet they tackled politeness inside the

classroom i.e. in a large group, where there is teachers’ students and students’ students’

28
interaction. With reference to the above-mentioned studies, although tackled politeness forms

in small groups, there was a lack of face-to-face interaction, which is the case of our research.

In the current research, we are targeting group work inside the classroom, where face-to-face

communication is crucial in the fulfillment of the task. Second and for most, we are interested

in group work in general. To put it differently, we are not intending to develop any specific

skill relying on group work; rather we intend to inspect EFL students as well as teachers’

attitudes regarding the use of politeness forms in group work as a factor decreasing those issues

employing politeness forms. Therefore, facilitating group work and make it an effective tool

for teachers to rely on in order to develop other skills. Hence, we are intending to inspect the

effectiveness of politeness forms and how they are perceived by EFL students as a factor

contributing in overcoming communication and interaction issues, thus, facilitating group work

in the classroom and contributing in achieving the lesson objectives.

Conclusion:

The current review of literature has, first, tackled the group work in the classroom from

different perspectives. It also mentioned the different definitions of group work and its

significant role in language learning. Then, it dealt with the politeness theory as well as some

studies done in the academic context. Though the issue of politeness in the EFL classroom has

caught a considerable attention, the lack of studies exploring the role of politeness forms as an

effective tool in enhancing group work has amplified the need to exploit the attitudes of both

EFL teachers and learners’ towards the use of politeness forms in enhancing group work.

29
 CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY
Introduction:
This chapter is devoted to the practical phase of the study where both, methods and

process adopted to collect data are exposed. As previously indicates, the current research strives

hard to investigate the attitudes of both EFL teachers and students toward the use of politeness

forms in enhancing group work. Henceforth, the researchers opted for a triangulation to collect

data. That is to say, a questionnaire for students, an interview with teachers, mainly those who

allow group work in their classroom, as well as voice recordings. The data obtained from the

different research instruments will be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

1. Research Methodology:

The current research is based on one main research question and three sub-questions.

1.1. Research question :

The present research aims to answer two main questions and two sub-questions as well.

a. Main questions:
-What do EFL teachers and students think of the use of politeness forms in
group work?
b. Sub-questions:

- To what extent do EFL group members rely on politeness forms when

interacting with each other?

- What do EFL teachers think of the use of politeness forms in group work?

- What do EFL students think of the use of politeness forms in group work?

1.2. The Research Design:

According to the objective of the study and the research questions, the current study adopts a

descriptive quantitative and qualitative research design. In order to collect reliable data, the

30
researchers relied on a triangulation technique by means of students’ voice recordings while

working in teams inside the classroom, students’ questionnaire, as well as teachers’ interview.

The reliance on the above-mentioned tools is because triangulation provides us with accurate

data collection and allows us to reach both objectivity and reliability in the findings.

Furthermore, relying on both quantitative and qualitative techniques would compensate for the

weaknesses of both of them.

1.3. The Population:

This research is concerned with EFL First year Licence students as well as EFL teachers from

LOUNICI Ali (Blida02) University. Hence, the researchers have designated a sample of (90)

EFL students, who were randomly selected and (07) teachers who rely on group work as an

instructional tool.

1.3.1. Students profile:

The researchers have chosen (90) Algerian EFL students (males and females) for the school

year 2016-2017. The informants are First year students studying at the department of English

at LOUNICI Ali (Blida02) University in Blida, Algeria. The reason behind targeting First year

students is due to their experience with group work as well as their classmates. To phrase it

differently, they are different from second or third year students in terms of exposure to group

work and acquaintance with their classmates. Although they have been exposed to group work,

in the first semester, the likelihood of encountering issues due to communication and

interaction among group members is high. It is important to state that, the participants are all

non-native speakers of English and their first language is Arabic. Their age ranges from 18 to

23.

31
 1.3.2. The teachers’ Profile:

The researchers had chosen five (one male and four females) Algerian EFL teachers at

LOUNICI Ali (Blida02), Algeria. Some of these teachers hold a Magister degree and Master

degree in English, while others are PhD candidates. They are in charge of Licence and Master

Students of English. Two participants are permanent and the rest are substitute teachers. Their

teaching experience varies between three to fifteen years.

The aim behind selecting these EFL teachers is due to their reliance on group work as a method

of instructions. That is to say, using group work inside the classroom to perform various tasks.

According to teachers’ experience with group work, the researchers are able to explore the

teachers’ perspective toward the use politeness forms in group work.

1.4. Instrumentation and Procedures:

The researchers embraced a descriptive research design to inspect both EFL teachers and

students, of the department of English at LOUNICI Ali university (Blida 02), toward the use

of politeness forms in group work. To attain the research purpose and in order to collect

maximum reasonable number of data required for the validity of the current research, the

researchers relied on a questionnaire for students and an interview with teachers. The

researchers also collected voice recordings from First year students while working in groups

during the courses as being elucidated the chart.

32
 Students’
questionnaire

Data
Collection
and

Research Instruments

Teachers’ Students’ voice

interview recordings

Figure 02: Data Collection and Research Instruments

1.4.1. The Questionnaire:

According to different practitioners, questionnaire are the easiest research tool in terms of

administration and data analysis. Questionnaire, according to Mathers, are “a very convenient

way of collecting useful comparable data from a large number of individuals. However,

questionnaires can only produce valid and meaningful results if the questions are clear and

precise…” (19). In the same context, Dornyei claimed that “ the popularity of questionnaire is

due to the fact that they are relatively easy to administer, extremely versatile and uniquely

capable of gathering a large amount of information quickly in a form that is readily

possible”(101).

The questionnaire was designed to elicit the students’ attitudes toward the use of politeness

forms in enhancing group work. As well as to provide a clear picture of students’ perception

regarding the use of politeness forms in enhancing group work.

33
 1.4.1.1. The description of the students’ questionnaire:

The researchers used three types of questions: Likert scale, open-ended questions as well as

multiple-choice items.

a. Likert scale is composed of five choices (agree, disagree, strongly agree, strongly

disagree, neutral) in which the participants are required to tick only one box that

represents their answer.

b. Open-ended questions provide qualitative data and detailed answers. They give the

informants the opportunity to express themselves freely and to share their

perspective. They also give our audience an opportunity to express their opinions

in a free-flowing manner. These questions do not have predetermined set of

responses and the respondent is free to answer whatever he/she feels right. We see

that by including open format questions in our questionnaire, we can get true,

insightful and even unexpected suggestions. (see appendix 1)

c. Multiple-choice items in which the informants are required to select one item

among three propositions, which corresponds best to their perspective. This type

of questions help ascertaining how strongly the respondents agree to various

statement. It also helps assessing how they feel towards the issue under discussion.

The questionnaire is divided into two sections from general to specific. The first one is

concerned with students’ background information (gender and age). The second part is broken

down into three sections.

a. The first section consists of multiple Likert questions table comprised of 12 items.

b. The second part is devoted multiple-choice questions and few open ended items

such as items (13, 14, and 17). Concerned with the participants description of group

34
 work, the issues they encounter when working in groups, as well as the way they

tend to express their concerns directly or indirectly.

c. The last part is devoted to the notion of face (positive and negative face), face

threatening acts (FTAs), and politeness forms. It is divided into two subsections.

The first one targets the notion of positive and negative face. It is composed of

multiple-choice items. The second subsection is related to face threatening acts and

politeness forms (positive and negative politeness, bald on record and off record

politeness). It is composed of multiple choice and yes/no items (14, 27).

The researchers kept some items, which were employed in the pilot study. These items are

spread on the three parts of the questionnaire. They are concerned with the informants’

perception of group work as well as the politeness strategies they rely on while performing

different speech acts, especially when communicating with their teammates.

The researchers utilized a questionnaire, which comprised of 29 items:

o Item 01: aims to find out whether the participants think that group work decreases anxiety.

o Item 02: aims to identify whether the participants hold a negative perspective

concerning the incorporation of group work in the classroom.

o Item 03: aims to check the participants’ perception of group work as a factor

causing a distraction in the classroom.

o Item 04: seeks to check whether paying attention to language use, when interacting with

group members, can decreases conflicts.

o Items 05: aims to detect the impact of communication on group work.

o Item 06: intend to detect the role and the importance of communication during group

work.

35
o Item 07: The objective of this item is to detect the participants’ attitudes concerning the

impact of mutual respect on group members’ performance.

o Item 09: seeks to retrieve the participants’ attitudes regarding the importance of giving

compliments on group members’ motivation to complete the task.

o Item10: aims to retrieve the participants attitudes concerning the impact of the way they

speak on the work process

o Item 11: intends to discover the participants’ attitudes towards the positive impact of

respecting the negative face of group members on group work.

o Item 12: aims to determine the participants’ perspective regarding the reliance on indirect

language and its influence in being understood.

o Item 13: seeks to reveal the participants impression on group work.

o Item 14: intend to reveal the problems the participants encounter while interacting with

their teammates.

o Item 15: aims to identify how the participants deliver their remarks regarding what they

do not find it useful and whether they use bald on record, off record strategy, or they avoid

using the FTAs.

o Item 16: aims to identify how the participants deliver their remarks regarding what they

do not find useful and whether they use bald on record, off record strategy, or they avoid

using the FTAs.

o Item 17: aims to identify the manner group members express their dissatisfaction

regarding the work pace.

o Item 18: aims at revealing which politeness strategies participants use when asking for

their teammates’ help.

o Item 19: intends to extract the politeness strategy used in case of misunderstanding.

36
o Item 20: intends to determine which politeness strategy are used when asking for

feedback.

o Item 21: aims to identify which politeness strategy is relied on when suggesting an

alternative solution to their teammates.

o Item 22: aims to identify the politeness the participants’ use when they disagree or when

they have different perspective.

o Item 23: It intends to the participants’ reaction when their teammates impose on their
negative face
(Freedom of action).

o Item 24: intends to reveal the politeness strategy/ies the participants make use of when

interacting with their teammates.

o Item 25: aims at revealing the importance of the participants’ positive face in case they

cause problems to their team as well as identifying the role of positive face when being

responsible on causing a problem to/with group members.

o Item 26: aims to find out which politeness forms participants’ rely on when their

teammates make decisions about the work process.

o Item 27: aims to identify the manner in which group members address their teammates in

cased of failure.

o Item 28: This question’s intent is to retrieve which politeness form participants’ use when

delivering a criticism to their team members.

o Item 29: strives to discover the politeness form the participants rely on in case of

misunderstanding.

1.4.1.2. The Administration of the Questionnaire:

The sample of the current study consists of (90) First year students of the department of English

at LOUNICI Ali (Blida02) University. The questionnaire was administered during the second

37
week of April (2017). After they accepted to answer the questionnaire, the students were given

full clarification about its objective and what they were required to do. Besides, the researchers

informed the participants that the questionnaire is part of a research work aims at inspecting

their attitudes toward the use of politeness forms in enhancing group work. Furthermore, the

participants were informed that the information, which they shared, would be kept anonymous

and the answer they provide d are highly recommended for the validity and reliability of the

research. The questionnaire was administered in good conditions as we approached the teachers

and asked them to provide us with 10 minutes from their session, as we already know those

teachers and two of them already taught us. Hence, they agreed to collaborate. We also

approached some participants and settled the time and place so to administer the questionnaire

during their free time in the department of English. The researchers were present to explain

what was confusing, and in some cases translated some terms to their L1.

1.4.2. Teachers’ interview:

The interview is the second research instrument. The researchers interviewed five English

teachers, who use group in their classroom as an instruction tool, from the department of

English at LOUNICI Ali (Blida02) university during the academic year 2016-2017. These

teachers were addressed to share their experience and with group work, their perception

regarding the issues of group work, as well as their attitudes toward the use of politeness in

enhancing group work. The teachers were asked about their teaching experience with group

work, the difficulties group members encounter during teamwork, and their perspective

regarding the utilization of politeness forms in enhancing group work. Furthermore, the

researchers ask the teachers whether the politeness forms would improve group communication

and interaction; thus, facilitating group work or not (see appendix 02). The interview also aims

at retrieving teachers’ background knowledge concerning the use of politeness forms.

38
The interview consists of 19 items:

o Item 01: it is concerned with the extent to which teachers rely on group work as an

instructional tool.

o Item 02: it is concerned with the period teachers have incorporating group work inside

their classroom.

o Item 03: aims at demonstrating students’ performance while working in teams.

o Item 04: aims to identify the process of group formation.

o Item 05: aims to identify the benefits of group work to students.

o Item 06: aims at revealing the issues that students may encounter while working in teams.

o Item 07: aims at revealing the effects of the issues group members encounter on the

objectives of the lesson.

o Item 08: aims at revealing teachers use of strategies or techniques, if any, to help solving

the issues group members face.

o Item 09: intends to identify the impact of group communication on the group work

process.

o Item 10: aims at identifying the influence of group behaviors on the group work process.

o Item 11: aims to identify whether the way group members address each other influence

their performance.

o Item 12: aim to find out whether the relationship between group members influence their

performance.

o Item 13: aims to find out the impact of communicative skills on the group performance

o Item 14: aims to identify the role of respect among group members in improving group

work.

o Item 15: aims to reveal the role of polite discourse in decreasing conflicts between group

members.

39
o Item 16: aims to discover the impact of the imposition on the negative face on the group

work process.

o Item 17: aims at finding the role of group members’ reliance on consensus in enhancing

group work.

o Item 18: aims to find out the significance of the use of unity markers on the enhancement

of group work.

o Item 19: aim to find out the teachers’ perspective on the impact of politeness on enhancing

group work.

o Item 20: aims to identify the impact of students’ awareness regarding the use of politeness

forms on group work success.

1.4.2.1. Launching the interview:

The researchers have met the teachers to ask for settling a meeting for the interview as most of

the teachers were running out of time. Thus, after the teachers accepted to participate in the

current research, the interview took place between April 12th and April 16th. . As some teachers

were very busy and did not have time, the researchers gave them the form of the interview

instead of interviewing them face to face. Although the researcher offered to rely on Skype to

interview them, the fact that they did not have internet access at home was an obstacle to

interview them. Thus, they were given the written form of the interview.

1.4.3. Voice Recordings:

Different studies about politeness, as mentioned in the literature review, relied video or voice

recordings so to analyze the students’ conversations while working in teams and to detect the

politeness forms employed, if any, among group members. They are, to a great extent, helpful

as they provide a source of data that cannot be retrieved using other research tools. They helped

the researchers to collect data from different teams at the same time. They are also more

40
practical as they helped saving time and energy. Thus, the researchers approached students,

whom their teachers’ utilized group work in their sessions and asked them kindly to record

themselves (mainly their conversation) while working in teams. We also explained for them

to talk freely without taking into account the recorder. Although we explained the aim of our

study, some students said and I quote” shall we record our conflicts because we only dispute”

and others indirectly refuse claiming that some of their teammates may refuse. Due to this fact,

many of the students did not want to collaborate. For this reason, we addressed many students

and we could gather (number) form different groups.

The voice recordings were collected from first year students. The researchers asked for the

teachers’ permission to talk to the students in order to record themselves while working in

teams inside the classroom. The teachers, who have already taught the researcher, were very

helpful and tried to convince students to collaborate. Some student, though the researchers

explained for them the aim of the research, they refused to record themselves claiming that the

only thing they would record is their dispute. After explaining for them that the dispute is part

of our research, they accepted to help yet some refused. Thanks to other researchers, who were

collecting recordings from teams for the sake of their research and who accepted to share the

data they collected, we could have enough voice recordings for the current study. The

researchers analyzed the recordings to extract the recurrent politeness forms group members

rely on in different situation. Alongside politeness forms, the recordings also provided data

concerning the face threatening acts and the notion of positive and negative face.

Conclusion:

This chapter shed light on the research instruments utilized in the current research. To achieve

the objective of the present study, the researchers relied on a questionnaire addressed to (90)

first year English student, an interview with (07) English teachers (mainly those who rely on

41
group work as an instructional technique), as well as voice recordings of first year students

while performing different tasks in groups inside the classroom. Furthermore, this chapter

provided a detailed explanation about the participants and the procedures embraced in the study

as well as the analysis of the collected data.

42
CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND PEDAGOGICAL
IMPLICATIONS

43
INTRODUCTION:

This study seeks to investigate both EFL students and teachers’ attitudes towards

the use of politeness forms in enhancing group work. Formerly, the researchers, in

chapter two, have presented the research methodology embraced in the current research,

indicating the research design as well. Accordingly, the present chapter, which is

divided into two sections, deals with the data analysis and interpretation as well as some

pedagogical implications. In the first section, according to the research questions, the

data collected are examined both quantitatively and qualitatively. Furthermore, the

second section aims to propose pedagogical recommendations that serves to raise

students’ and teachers’ awareness regarding the usefulness of politeness forms in

enhancing group work through overcoming issues resulted from communication and

interaction among group members. By the end, this chapter sheds light on the limitations

of the study.

Section One: Data Analysis and Interpretation:

The first section in chapter three is concerned with data analysis, interpretation and

discussion of the questionnaire results.

2.1. General Information:

The first item is concerned with the participants’ gender and age.

44
Participants’ Gender:

Partcipants' Gender

Males, 21, 23%

Females, 69, 77%

Males Females

Figure 03: Participants’ Gender

The table above demonstrates that (77%) of the population are females whereas the other (23%)

are males representing first year students of LOUNICI Ali (Blida02) University.

Part One: Table Questions (TQ)

1. Group work decreases anxiety.

50
Agree, 44
45
40
35
30
25
20 Neutral, 18
St. Agree, 13 Disagree, 14
15
10
5 No Answer, 1
0
Paticipants(N)

St. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St. Agree2 No Answer

Figure 04: Answers of TQ 01

45
 This item aims to find out whether the participants think that group work decreases

anxiety. As displayed in figure02, around (63.33%) of the gathered answers, showed an

agreement on the table question (TQ ) 02 (13 St. agree and 44 agree). However, more

than ⅓ of the participants’ answers varied from neutral (n=18; 20%), “disagree” (n=14;

15.55%) to no stance (n=01; 1.11%). According to participants’ answers, it is deduced

that more than half of the population consider working in groups as a factor decreasing

anxiety. To put it differently, group work provides an atmosphere, more or less, free

from anxiety and suitable for work.

2. Group work is a waste of learning time.

45
Disagree, 41
40

35

30

25
Neutral, 21
20
Agree, 15
15 St. Disagree, 13

10

0
Paticipants(N)

St. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St. Disagree No answer

Figure 05: Answers for TQ 02

The purpose of this item is to identify whether the participants hold a negative

perspective concerning the incorporation of group work in the classroom. The majority

46
of the participants (60%) showed their objection to TQ3: 41 of the participants (45.55%)

disagreed and other 13 participants (45.55%) strongly disagreed with the statement that

says group work is a waste of the learning time. While 15 participants (16.66%) agreed

with the statement, 21 participants (23.33%) remained neutral. These answers entail that

group work is widely accepted by students in the classroom. It can be concluded that

the participants have a positive attitude towards group work.

3. Group work causes distraction in the classroom.

45
Disagree, 40
40

35

30

Neutral, 24
25

20
Agree, 15
15

St. Agree, 9
10

5 St. Disagree, 2

0
Participants (N)

St. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St. Disagree No Answer

Figure 06: Answers for TQ 03

This item aims to check the participants’ perception of group work as a factor causing

a distraction in the classroom. The above figure04 represents the informants’

perspective regarding the statement (TQ4) advocating that group work is a source of

distraction in the classroom. The majority of the answers entail that the informants

showed a disagreement with the statement: 40 informants (44.44%) disagreed and 02

47
others (02.22%) strongly disagreed”. Although 09 informants (10%) strongly agreed

and 15 others (16.66%) agreed, 24 of the informants (26.66%) opted for neutral as an

answer. It can be concluded from the results of this item that, despite that 26.66% think

that group work causes distraction in the classroom; the majority of the answers were

in favor of group work inside the classroom. This also proves that students welcome

greatly the incorporation of group work inside the classroom.

4. Paying attention to the language use when interacting with your teammates can
decrease conflicts.

45

Agree, 39
40

35

30

25
Neutral, 20
Disagree, 19
20

15

10 St. Agree, 8

St. Disagree,4
5

0
Participants (N)
St. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St. Disagree

Figure07: Answers for TQ 04

This item seeks to check whether paying attention to language use, when interacting

with group members, can decrease conflicts. According to the figure above, we

recorded that more than half (n=47; 52.22%) the participants agreed with TQ5.

More precisely, 39 of the participants (43.33%) agreed and 08 others (08.88%)

48
strongly agrees. 20 participants (22.22%) opted for “neutral” as an answer while 19

participants (21.11%) disagreed and 04 others (04.44%) strongly disagreed. It is

concluded that the number of the participants who agreed outnumbered the ones

who opposed. This is, maybe, due to their awareness of the weight of words and

the effect they may have on the addressee.

5. Group communication influences group work.

60
Agree, 55

50

40

30

St. Agree, 19
20
Neutral, 13

10

Disagree, 2 St.Disagree, 1
0
Participants (N)
St. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St. Disagree

Figure 08: Answers for TQ 05

The aim of this item is to detect the impact of communication on group work. A

great majority of the participants, a total of 75 participant (83.33%), agreed with

the statement: 55 participant (61.11%) agreed and 19 others (21.11%) strongly

agreed. Only 03 participants (3.33%) disagreed with this perspective: 02

participants (02.22%) disagreed and 01 other (01.11%) strongly disagreed while 13

49
 participant (14.44%) opted for neutral. Hence, it is noticed, according to the

majority of the answers, that the participants are aware of the impact that

communication has on group work. This will be explored through the students’

voice recordings while working in groups inside the classroom.

6. Group work enables you to enhance some skills unlike individual work.

60

Agree, 49
50

40

30

20 St.Agree, 18

Neutral, 10 Disagree, 10
10
St. Disagree, 3

0
Participants(n)

St.Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St. Disagree

Figure 09: Answers for TQ 06

Regarding the results presented in the above figure, the majority of the recorded answers

(74.44%) reveal that the respondents agreed with statement “group work enables you to

enhance some skills which individual work does not”. 49 of the respondents (54.44%)

and 18 others (20%) strongly agreed. While 10 participants (11.11%) showed no stance,

we recorded a minority of the answers contradicting with the statement: 10 respondents

(11.11%) disagreed and only 03 others (03.33%), which form 03.33% of the

respondents, strongly disagreed. It can be deduced from the answers that the majority

50
of the respondents consider group work to be helpful in enhancing different skills unlike

individual work.

7. Mutual respect among group members enhances their performance.

60 Agree, 57

50

40

30
St. Agree, 23

20

10 Neutral, 6
Disagree, 4
St.Disagree, 1
0
participants(N)

St. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St.Disagree

Figure10: Answers for TQ

The objective of this item is to detect the participants’ attitudes concerning the impact

of mutual respect on group members’ performance. The results reported in the above

figure indicate the majority of the informants (n=80; 88.88%) agreed with the statement

“mutual respect among group members enhances their performance”. 57 of the

participants (63.33%) agreed and 23 others (25.55%) strongly agreed. In the contrary,

only 06 participants (06.66%) disagreed and 06 others remained neutral. Accordingly,

51
the recorded answers entails that the participants are aware of the importance of mutual

respect between group members, which contributes largely in answering the research

question.

8. Giving compliments during the work process contributes in boosting your

teammates’ motivation to complete the task.

60
Agree, 56

50

40

30

20
St. Agree, 13 Neutral, 12
Disagree, 9
10

0
Participants (N)

St. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St. Disagree

Figure 11: Answers for TQ 08

This item aims to retrieve the participants’ attitudes regarding the importance of giving

compliments on group members’ motivation work. The figure above demonstrates the results

of TQ9. The result clearly show that the majority informants (76.66%) agreed with the

statement “giving compliments during the work process contributes in boosting your

teammates’ motivation to complete the task”. 56 of the informants (62.22%) agreed and 13

others (14.44%) strongly agreed. While 12 informants (13.33%) showed no stance, only 09

52
informants (10%) displayed their disagreement to the statement. It is apparent that most of the

informants believe that giving compliments has a positive impact on the group members’

performance. Therefore, the majority of the respondents considered giving compliments as a

positive factor contributing in enhancing group members’ performance.

9. Paying attention to word choice, voice and tone decrease misunderstanding and
conflicts among group members.

60
Agree, 56

50

40

30

20
St. Agree, 13 Neutral, 12
Disagree, 9
10

0
Participants (N)

St. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St. Disagree

Figure 12: Answers for TQ 10

As presented in the above figure, a great majority of the participants (76.66%) expressed

their accordance with the statement “paying attention to word choice, voice and tone

decrease misunderstanding and conflicts among group members”. 56 of the participants

(62.22%) ticked “agree” and 13 others (14.44%) strongly agreed. On the contrary, only

09 participants (10%) ticked “disagree” while the rest of the participants (n=12;

13.33%) opted for “neutral” as a response. Thus, the majority of the participants seem

53
to be aware of the role of word choice plays in overcoming misunderstanding and

conflicts.

10. Respecting each other’s wants helps establishing a comfortable atmosphere for
work.

45
Agree, 41
40
St. Agree, 35
35

30

25

20

15

10 Neutral, 8
St. Agree, 4
5 Disagree, 2

0
participants (N)

St. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St. Agree2

Figure 13: Answers for TQ 10

The objective of this item is to find out the participants’ perspective concerning the positive

impact of respecting the negative face of group members on group work. According to the

answers displayed in the above figure, 76 informant (84.44%), representing the majority of the

informants, showed a positive reaction toward the statement “respecting each other’s wants

helps establishing a comfortable atmosphere for work”. 41 informant (45.55%) agreed and 35

others (35.88%) strongly agreed with TQ11. Conversely, a weak minority (06.66%) expressed

disagreement: only 02 informants (02.22%) disagreed and 04 others (04.44%) strongly

disagreed. Whereas 08 informants (08.88%) revealed no stance. It is inferred that the

informants are aware, although unconsciously, of maintaining the negative face of their

teammates and its impact on the work process.

54
 11. Relying on indirect language and giving hints, while interacting with your
teammates, lead to ambiguity and message loss thus your teammates will not get
your concern.

45
Agree, 40
40

35

30

25 Neutral, 23

20 Disagree, 17

15

10 St. Agree, 7

5 St. Disagree, 3

0
Participants (N)

St. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree St. Disagree

Figure 14: Answers for TQ 11

The aim behind asking this question is to determine the participants’ perspective regarding the

reliance on indirect language and its influence in being understood. As reported in the above

figure, more than half of the participants (52%) agreed with the statement. 40 participants

(44.44%) and 07 others (07.77%) ticked agree and strongly agree respectively. On the contrary,

17 participant (18.88%) disagreed with statement and only 03 others (03.33%), representing a

weak minority, strongly disagreed. Whereas 23 of the participants (25.55%) remained

indecisive. It can be deduced, according the TQ12 results that the majority of the participants

believed that indirect language i.e. off record politeness form, while expressing their concerns,

leads to ambiguity. This also entails that they consider indirect language as a factor hindering

group communication and interaction.

55
Item 12: Describe your general impression toward group work.

60
55

50

40

30

20
15 14

10

0
Participants (N)

Positive Attitude Negative attitude No answer

Figure 15: Participants’ general impression towards group work

The reason behind asking this question is to give students the opportunity to give

their general impression, whether positive or negative, about working in groups. The

participants’ answers were divided into two sections in addition to those who did not

answer the Question.

The majority of the participants gave a positive impression about group work

(n=55; 61.11%). They argued that group work is very helpful and beneficial as it helps

them develop different skills (social, communicative …etc.), learn new vocabulary and

improve their language level. They went even further, arguing that group work makes

learning very enjoyable, joyful and entertaining. Furthermore, participants asserted that

group work decreases anxiety, shyness and helps them express themselves freely.

Regarding the task achievement, participants advocated that group work helps them get

a good and refined work as they exchange and discuss ideas and divide the task among

the teammates to facilitate the work process.

56
 Despite all the positive attitudes mentioned above, some participants on the other

hand (n=15; 16.66%) provided a negative impression about working in groups. They

advocated that it is time and effort consuming. They felt also uncomfortable because of

noise. In addition to that, participants said that group work is useless as it creates

conflicts, misunderstanding, disagreement and reliance on one member over the

others.14 participants out of 90 did not answer this question. They represent 15.55% of

the participants. The fact that they did not answer the question is, may be, because they

were unaware of the impact of group work on their learning or they are field

independent learners.

Item 13: Do you encounter issues while working in groups? If yes, what are these issues?

60

50 No, 48

40
Yes, 34

30

20

10 Not Answered , 7

0
Participants (N)

Yes No Not Answered

Figure 16: Answers for Item 13

The figure above displayed the findings obtained by the researchers while inquiring

about the likelihood of facing issues while working in groups. According to the participants’

responses, there is a likelihood of facing some issues (n=34, 37.77%). However, 48 participants

(53.33%) claimed the opposite. The rest did not answer this question (n=07, 07.77%). The

57
participants who responded “No” were more than the half of the participants. Participants who

answered “Yes” argued that most issues that they face are misunderstanding, disagreement,

distraction, noise, reliance, disrespect, procrastination and communication issues. In further

explanation, participants claimed that these issues lead to the task failure as well as the creation

of more conflicts between group members. Only 03 participants (03.33%) did not answer this

question maybe due to their short experience with group work. Thus, they may not encounter

issues while working in group work as their teammates are their friends. According to the

participants’ responses, it is noticed that there is a likelihood of facing some issues

during group work.

Item 14: In case you do not like the work process. Do you tend to express it directly or
you give hints? Why?

40
Directly, 35
35
Not Answerd , 31
30

25

20
Indirectly , 14
15

10

0
The participants (N)

Directly Indirectly Not Answerd

Figure17: The manner in which the participants express their concern regarding the
work process.

The purpose behind this question is to determine whether the participants tend to

address their concern regarding what they do not like about the group work process and

the reason behind the manner they shed light on such problems. As presented in the

figure above, 35 participants (38.88%) asserted that they express their concern about

58
the group work process “directly”. They argued that this way they are more clear and

honest. Indeed, they said that it is better to express their concerns directly since it helps

them to resolute the problem quickly. Thus, the work becomes more serious and

successful. Other participants stated that hints might cause conflicts and

misunderstanding. 14 participants (15.55%) preferred “the indirect” way as they

claimed it is more efficient and it helps shy students expressing themselves easily. They

added that they use hints to avoid conflicts and misunderstanding. Furthermore, they

advocated that the indirect way helps them to keep respect among group members so

that they do not be as they avoid being rude or impolite. Some participants explained

that they use the indirect way because they do not want to hurt or embarrass their

teammates. 31 informants (34.44%) did not answer the question, among them 08

participants (08.88%) misunderstood the question; thus, the answer did not correspond

to the question.

Item 15: In case one of your teammates suggests an idea, which you find useless,
how would you deliver your remark?

a. You would say it directly.

b. You try to ask for another suggestion.

c. You try to ask for clarification to avoid misunderstanding.

59
 40

B,34
35
C,30
30

25 A, 13

20

15

10

5 Not Answered, 3

0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 18: The manner in which the participants deliver their remarks regarding
useless ideas
This item intends to identify how the participants deliver their remarks regarding what

they do not find useful and whether they use bald on record, off record strategy, or they

avoid using the FTAs. According to the above figure, the results indicate that almost

the same number of the participants (b= 34; 37.77%, c=30; 33.33%) opted for b and c

as answers respectively. Only 13 participants (14.44%) selected “a” while 03

participants (03.33%) showed “no stance”. Regarding the participants answers, it is

apparent that the almost the same number of the participants preferred to rely on off

record politeness form and avoid using the FTAs (b and c respectively ) while a minority

preferred the bald on record politeness form. This entails that the participants awareness

of the impact of language use, when contradicting the positive face of the team

members, can contribute in avoiding conflicts, thus, facilitates group work.

60
Item 16: In case one you are not satisfied with the work pace, would you express your

concern directly or indirectly? Why?

60
Directly, 54

50

40

30

Indirectly, 20
20
No Answer, 12
10
Others, 4

0
Participants (N)

Directly Indirectly No Answer Others

Figure19: the manner the participants show their disappointment regarding the work

pace

According to the findings, the majority of the participants used the direct way to express

their dissatisfaction about the work pace (n=46, 51.11%). Participants who preferred the direct

way argued that it is a good way to avoid conflicts, misunderstanding, and in order not to waste

more time explaining their point of view and progress in the work and fulfill the task. They

also mentioned that they are working with their friends, thus they accept everything from each

other but they will say their concerns politely in order to avoid conflicts. Conversely, 19

participants (21.11%) preferred to express their concern indirectly. This preference is due to

shyness or because they do not focus about this detail. The participants who preferred the

indirect way advocated that it is better because they work with their friends so they do not want

to hurt their feelings and in order not to violate their freedom of action as everyone should be

respected and should collaborate in the work success. They also stated that they do not want

61
conflicts to arise and it will affect the quality of the work, thus leading to the splitting of the

group. One student said that she is a shy person; giving hints will help her express herself

without being embarrassed. The researchers recorded no answer from 12 participants (13.33%).

This is due to, perhaps, they do not like group work or they do not collaborate in the teamwork.

04 participants (04.44%) gave different answers. Two participants stated that he does not know

which method he would use. Another one said that it depends on the relationship between him

and his teammates while another stated that it is good to share thoughts but he did not say

whether he would do it directly or indirectly. It can be because he did not comprehend the

question.

Item 17: In case you need your teammates’ help which of the following expressions you

tend to use most?

a. I need your help. b. Can you help me? Would you help me? c. If it is not too much trouble
…

45 B, 41
40 A, 37
35
30
25
20
15
C, 10
10
5 Not Answered, 2
0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 20: The manner in which the participants ask their teammates help

This item aims at revealing which politeness strategies participants use when asking for their

teammates’ help. The above figure reveals participants choice regarding the use of the

62
appropriate politeness form when demanding help. Almost equal answers went for “a” and

“b”. The results indicate that nearly the half of the participants (n=41; 45.55%) selected “b”

as an answer i.e. they tend to rely on request when asking for help. This entails that they do not

to impose on their teammates’ negative face. 37 participant (41.11%) opted for “a” i.e. they

prefer to ask for help directly. This choice maybe the result of the degree group members know

each other. 10 participants (11.11%) chose “c”. This indicates that they do not impose on their

teammates’ negative face. To put it differently, they respect their teammates’ freedom of action

through avoiding FTAs. Only 02 participants (2.22%) were undecided.

Item 18: In case one of your group members misunderstood you, what would you do?

a. You reformulate your sentence. b. You explain your point of view.

c. You do not take into account his/her point of view.

80
b, 73
70

60

50

40

30

20
a, 13
10
Not Answered, 3
c, 1
0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 21: The participants’ reaction when being misunderstood

The purpose of this item is to extract the politeness strategy used in case of

misunderstanding. As displayed in figure 16 above, the great majority of participants

63
(n=73; 81.11%) tend to explain their point of view in case they are misunderstood while

13 participants (14.44%) rather reformulate their sentence. Only 01 participant does not

take into accounting his/her teammates when being misunderstood. 03 participants out

of 90 did not answer. This reveals that the majority of the participants favor explaining

their point of view in case they are misunderstood.

Item 19: When you intend to ask for feedback, which form of the following to tend to

use most?

a. Can you give me your opinion, please? b. What do you think? c. Give me your

opinion.

50
B, 45
45

40
A, 36
35

30

25

20

15

10
Not Answered, 6
5 C, 3

0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 22: The manner in which the participants ask their teammates’ feedback

This item intends to determine which of the politeness form the participants tend to use

most when asking for feedback. The results reported in the figure above demonstrate

that half of the participants (n=45; 50%) tend to ask for feedback relying on the

expression “what do you think”. This direct expression gives the addressee that chance

64
to state freely his/her opinion. In parallel, 36 participant (40%) relying on request while

asking for feedback. In this way the addressee have the choice to accept to give feedback

or just deny the request. A weak minority (n=03; 3.33%), in comparison to the majority

of the participants, tend to ask for feedback in form of, more or less, an order while 06

other (06.66%) did not answer. It can be concluded that the majority of the participants

tend to take the negative face i.e. freedom of action into account while asking for

feedback.

Item 20: In case you suggest an alternative solution, how would deliver it?

a. You impose it on your teammates.

b. You justify your choice and give your teammates options.

c. You give it indirectly to not influence their choice.

70

B, 60
60

50

40

30

20 A, 15

10 C, 7 Not Answered, 8

0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 23: The manner the participants deliver alternative solutions

This item seeks to retrieve the politeness strategy the participants rely on when suggesting an

alternative solution to their teammates. As it is presented in the above figure, the great majority

of the respondents (n=60; 66.66%) tend to justify their choice, in case of alternative solution,

65
and give their teammates options. This entails that these participants tend to respect their

teammates freedom of action i.e. the negative face. 15 respondent (16.66%) tend to impose

their alternative solution on their teammates. This can be due to the degree they know their

teammates or the extent to which they believe their solution to be efficient. Regarding option

“c”, we have recorded a weak minority (n=7; 07.77%) which prefers to state their opposing

suggestions in an indirect way. It is noticed that, although a number of participants preferred

to impose their suggestion on their teammates, the majority of the participant tend to avoid

imposing their ideas on their teammates.

Item 21: When your perspective is different from the majority of your team members,

what would you do?

a. You do not care. b. You state it indirectly. c. You explain your point of

view.

70
C, 64

60

50

40

30

20 B, 16
Not Answered, 6
10
A, 4

0
Participants(N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 24: The participants’ reaction in case of opposition

The objective of this item is to find out the politeness participants’ use when they

disagree or when they have different perspective. As presented in the above figure, the

majority of the participants (n=64; 71.11%) seem to avoid misunderstanding as they

66
selected option “c”: you explain your point of view. While 16 participants (17.77%)

tend to express their opposing views indirectly, only 04 participants (04.44%) do not

care about having an opposing perspective. We also recorded 6participants (6.66%) out

of 90 who did not share their perspective regarding this item. For the results of item 22,

we deduce that a great number of the participants prefer to explain their opposing views;

therefore, avoiding conflicts or misunderstanding.

Item 22: In case your teammate/ s impose/s on you a task or an idea. What do you do?

a. You refuse. b. You justify your stance. c. You satisfy your teammate/s wants

60 B, 56

50

40

30

20

10 A, 7
Not Answered, 4
C, 2
0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 25: The participants’ reaction in case of imposition

This item intends to extract the participants’ reaction when their teammates impose on their

negative face (Freedom of action). The majority of the participants (n=56; 62.22%), as

presented in figure 20: answers for item 23, ticked “b” tend to not accepted being imposed on

yet they justify their stance. This reaction may have, more or less, a positive impact on the

67
group work process. While 07 participants (07.77%) refuse to be imposed on, 02 others

(02.22%) satisfy their teammates’ wants. 04 participants (04.44%) out of 90 expressed no view.

It can be concluded that the majority of the participants care about their negative face i.e. they

do not like to be imposed on, yet they justify their stance. This contributes, largely, in avoiding

some of the conflicts.

Item 23: Which of the following you tend to use with your teammates while interacting.

a. Criticism, b. Orders and warnings, c. Seeking agreement

60

50 C, 48

40

30 A, 28

20

10 B, 8
Not Answered, 6

0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 26: The speech acts participants rely on when interacting with their teammates

The purpose of this item is to reveal the politeness strategy/ies the participants make use of

when interacting with their teammates. The majority participants (n=48; 53.33%), as shown in

figure 21, prefer to seek agreement when interacting with their teammates. 28 participants

(31.11%) criticize their teammates, which, in fact, can lead to some conflicts as the majority

of the participants tend to preserve their negative face, while 08 others (08.88%) tend to order

and warn their teammates. The later can entail that these participants may be the leaders of the

group, which gives them more privilege than the rest of the participants. 06 participants

68
(06.66%) did not express their perspective regarding this item. This clearly shows that the

participants avoid imposition thus respecting their teammates’ negative face.

Item 24: What do you do you in case you cause/have problems to /with your teammates?

a. You do nothing b. assume responsibility c. apologize

50
C, 46
45

40

35 B, 32
30

25

20

15

10 A, 8
Not Answered, 4
5

0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 27: The manner in which the participants react when they cause or have
problems

This item aims at revealing the importance of the participants’ positive face in case they cause

problems to their team as well as identifying the role of positive face when being responsible

on causing a problem to/with group members. Half of the participants (n=46; 51.11%) indicated

that they apologize in case of they have or cause a problem while 32 others (35.55 %) assume

responsibility.

08 participants (08.88%) mentioned that they do nothing. Only 04 participants (04.44%) did

not answer this item. These answers reveal that, although the majority of participants like to

have their freedom of action as mentioned in previous items. Nevertheless, they are responsible

69
and aware of their actions. This can have, to a great extent, a positive impact on both group

members and the group work process.

Item 25: When you teammates want the team to work in a particular way, how do you
tend to react?
a. You refuse b. You agree c. You compromise
60 B, 57

50

40

30
C, 24

20

10 A, 7
Not Answered, 2
0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure28: The manner in which the participants react to their teammates wants.

The endeavor of this question is to find out which politeness forms participants’ rely on when

their teammates make decisions about the work process. According to results displayed in the

above figure, a strong majority of the participants (n=57; 63.33%) tend to “agree” when their

teammates give them directions concerning the work process. While 24 participant (26.66%)

tend to compromise, instead of just accepting, 07 other participants (07.77%) tend to object.

To phrase it differently, the participants who select the answer “b” tend to rely on positive

politeness form i.e. they tend to satisfy their teammates wants. This can have, more or less, a

positive impact on the group work process. Regarding those who opted for “c” as answer, they

tend to avoid face threatening acts i.e. the highest form of politeness as previously mentioned

in the literature review. As for the ones who chose “a”, it is clear that they like to have their

70
freedom of action. This, as mentioned by one of the teachers when interviewed, freedom of

action can have a negative impact on the work process in case it threatens the work process. 02

participants (02.22%) out of 90 did not share their perspective.

Item 26: In case of group failure, which of the identity markers you rely on when
discussing the issue?

a. We, Our, Us b. You, Your c. You use impersonalization

80
A, 71
70

60

50

40

30

20
B, 9
10 C, 6
Not Answered, 4

0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 29: The identity markers the participants employ in case of croup failure

This item is designated to reveal which politeness strategy the informants make use of in

case of failure. As demonstrated in the figure above, the great majority of the informants (n=71;

78.88%) are likely to use the unity markers (we, us, our), as they opted for “a” as an answer,

in case of failure. This entails that the majority of the informants avoid the use of FTAs as they

show that the responsibility is shared. However, a weak minority (n=09; 10%) of the

informants, in comparison with majority, selected “b”. This tendency entails that this category

of the participants rely on “bald on record” politeness form. It can be said that this attitude may

have a negative impact on the group process because they tend to distance themselves from

responsibility by blaming their teammates. It can also be noted that, this will increase the

71
likelihood of facing conflicts instead of reaching a common ground among group members

thus facilitating the work process. However, 06 informants (06.66%) decided on the choice”

c”. This choice indicates that these informants rely on “off record” politeness form as they tend

to use impersonalization. It can be deduced that their reliance on impersonlization help

establishing a safe ground, in which no one is directly pointe to or blamed. Therefore, the

chances of facing conflicts with group members is largely decreased. 04 participants

representing 04.44% of the whole population skipped answering this item.

Item 27: When you criticize your team, which of the followings you rely on?

a. You state it directly, b. You give hints, c. You state it indirectly

45
A, 39
40

35

30
B, 26
25
C, 21
20

15

10
Not Answered, 4
5

0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 30: The manner in which the participants deliver their criticism

This question’s intent is to retrieve which politeness form participants’ use when delivering a

criticism to their team. The above figure reveals that the participants’ attitudes towards this

item vary. The majority of the participants (n=39; 43.33%) mentioned that they deliver their

criticism indirectly. To put it differently, this category relies on “bald on record” politeness

form. 26 participant (40%) tend to give hints “b”. This choice designates their dependence, in

such case, on “negative politeness” form and 21 others (28.88%) revealed that they convey

72
their criticism indirectly. This means they count on off record politeness form. Only 04

participants (04.44%) showed no stance.

Item 28: What do you do when you do not understand something related to the task or

the work process?

a. You state your concern directly. b. You state your concern indirectly .c. You rely on yourself

50
A, 44
45

40

35

30 C, 27
25

20 B, 18

15

10

5
Not Answered, 1
0
Participants (N)

A B C Not Answered

Figure 31: The manner in which the participants they express their lack of info
regarding the work process
This item strives to discover the politeness form the participants rely on in case of

misunderstanding. As shown in the above figure, the answers gathered varied. The majority of

the participants (n=44; 48.44%), in case they need their teammates help, tend to state it directly.

This category, in other words, tend to rely on “bald on record” politeness form. This tendency

is because their teammates are their friends. While 27 participant (30%) mentioned that they

tend to rely on themselves solving the issue, which indicates that they avoid performing FTAs,

18 others (20%) have a tendency to ask for help indirectly. This designates that they rely on

“negative politeness”. Only 01 participant among 90 did not answer this item.

73
 3. 2. Teachers’ Interview Results Analysis:

The researchers selected seven university teachers for the interview mainly those who

incorporate group work in their classroom as an instructional tool. The teachers’ responses

were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively respectively.

Part one: general information:

The first part of the interview questions, as any questionnaire, was devoted to the participants

general information particularly their gender.

a. Teachers’ gender:

Participants (N)
7
Females, 6
6

2
Males, 1
1

0
Males Females

igure 32: Teachers’ gender

The figure above displays that there were more female participants than males. It is

shown that six (85.71%) were females out of seven teachers. Besides, one male teacher

participated in the present study.

74
 b. Teaching experience:

Participants(N)
3.5
3
3 3

2.5

1.5
1
1

0.5

0
1_5 5_10 10_15

Figure 33: Teachers’ seniority

According to the figure above, one teacher has from 1-5 years teaching experience, 03

teachers have from 5-10 years teaching experience and 03 others have been teaching English

for 10-15 years. The teaching experience may affect the teachers’ perception of the effect of

the use of politeness forms in enhancing group work. This teaching experience helps teachers

in managing the classroom especially when employing group work.

Item 1: The extent to which is group work used in classroom:

Partcipants (N)
3.5
3 3
3

2.5

1.5
1
1

0.5
0
0
A lot Often Sometimes Rarely

Figure 34: The amount of group work used in classroom

75
 This question aims at identifying the extent to which teachers rely on group work as an

instructional tool in their classrooms. The findings, as demonstrated in the figure above,

indicate that most teachers (n=3, 42.85 %) reported that group work is “sometimes” used in

their classes. Three other teachers (42.85%) declared that they use group work “a lot” in their

sessions. Only one teacher (14.28%), remarkably, asserted that group work is “often” used in

the classroom. Finally, we recorded no response regarding the option “rarely”.

Item 2: The period teachers have been incorporating group work in their classroom:

Participants (N)
3.5

3 3
3

2.5

1.5

1
1

0.5

0
More than 3 years 2 years Since the beginning of the teaching
career

Figure35: The period teachers have been incorporating group work

The aim of asking this question is to reveal the period teachers have been incorporating group

work as an instructional tool in their classes. 03 teachers stated that they have been using group

work since their beginning in teaching in university. 02 other teachers mentioned that they have

been using group work for more than 3 years. 02 teacher asserted that they have been using

group work for 2 years. No teacher mentioned that he never uses group work in his/her

classroom. The period of group work incorporation helps to determine the importance of group

76
work as a teaching tool in EFL classroom as well as teachers’ experience and knowledge

regarding facing the implementation of group work. Besides, the recurrent issues group

members encounter.

Item 3: students’ performance while working in teams.

Participants (N)
7
6
6

2
1
1

0
Positive effect No effect

Figure 36: The effect of group work on students’ performance

The main objective of this question is to identify the effects of group work on students’

performance in classroom. According to the figure above, the majority of the participants

(n=06; 85.71%) showed that group work has a positive effect on students’ performance in

classroom. The teachers agreed that group work makes learners more confident, motivated and

committed to the work. They also added group work reduces anxiety and maximizes learning.

Only one teacher (14.28%) stated that group work has no effect on learners since the same

responsible and motivated learners do the task while the other members just watch.

77
Item 4: The process of Group formation:

Participants (N)
7
6
6

2
1
1

0
The teacher forms the groups The students select their teammates

Figure 37: The process of group formation

This question aims at revealing the process of group formation. In other words, whether the

teachers are the responsible on forming groups or they allow their students to choose whom

they want to work with. According to the figure above, the majority of teachers (n=06; 85.71%)

agreed that they give the students the freedom to choose their groups arguing that it helps

students feel at ease, work in a friendly and a more comfortable atmosphere. One teacher

(14.28%) identified that it is important to let students choose their partners because it is

stimulating and motivating. Only one teacher stated that he sometimes form the groups

intending to group weak learners with strong ones so that the weak learners benefit from the

strong ones. Another teacher mentioned that she gives the students the opportunity to change

the group if they cannot work together.

78
Item 5: The benefits of group work:

The sole objective of this question is to identify the benefits that students gain from working

in groups according to teachers’ perspectives. All teachers (07) have given all the possible

benefits that their students might acquire through working in groups. The answers provided by

the subjects are stated under the following points:

1- Group work builds more responsibility, solidarity and self-confidence as well as

learning discipline and respecting the deadlines (01 teacher)

2- It helps students to know how to talk to people and learn to work with others. (03

teachers)

3- It makes students able to communicate and avoid conflicts. (06 teachers)

4- It encourages students to develop problem-solving skills. (03 teachers)

5- It enhances their interpersonal skills. (02 teachers)

6- It allows students practice more the English language, learn more of what is taught and

retain it longer.(03 teachers)

7- It teaches students to be patient and to wait and listen to other ideas even if they think

they are useless. (03 teachers)

8- It engages more students and motivate them. (05 teachers)

9- It helps students develop new insights and ways of thinking.(04 teachers)

Item 6: Issues encountered during the group work process:

In fact, this question intends to reveal the issues that students may face while working in groups.

The majority of teachers stated that students face many problems when working in groups

among them communication issues and others related to the lack of skills. They mentioned that

students tend to disagree and misunderstand each other leading to conflicts. They also agreed

that students rely on each other to do the task; they lack coordination, motivation, seriousness,

79
interest and time management skills, which, in return, will affect the progress of the work and

their learning in the same time. One teacher asserted that impatience is also a recurrent problem

that students face while working in groups especially fast learners who cannot wait for the

others. It is difficult to convince others with ideas group members believe especially with

opinionated members. This, in many cases, leads to the splitting of groups. He also declared

that space between groups is another problem that students may face because while interacting

they make noise which will disturb the other students.

Item 7: what effects do these issues have on the lesson’ objective:

Participants (N)
6
5
5

3
2
2

0
Yes No

Figure 38: The effect of issues encountered during group work on lesson objectives.

The figure above exhibits that the majority of teachers (n=05; 71.42%) asserted that the issues

that students encounter when working in groups has no effect on the lessons’ objectives.

Because they have control over the session time. They added that these issues might have

effects on the process of group work, the quality of students work and their understanding.

Only two (n=02; 28.57%) teachers mentioned that these issues have an effect on the lesson

objectives, claiming that it depends on how important is the aim of the group work for the

80
lesson outcome. Besides, these issues will slow down the process of group work what will lead

in failure of both the task fulfillment and failure of the course. Stating that It slows down the

progress of the courses “conflicts arise, work is slow, something that has to be done in one

class will require 2 or 3 classes i.e. teamwork is part of the lesson it will affect the next lessons

as it is part of the lesson”.

Item 8: The strategies teachers use to solve these issues:

Paticipants (N)
7
6
6

2
1
1

0
Solve the issue group members encounter Somehow

Figure 39: The strategies teachers use to solve these issues

The ultimate objective of this question is to reveal the strategies or techniques teachers use to

solve the issues group members face during group work process. 06 teachers (85.71%)

mentioned that their role is mainly to motivate the students and make them aware of the benefits

of collaborative learning while one teacher (14.28%) declared that the extent of interference

depends on the situation. One of the teachers added that she tries to give some hints and advice

to come to an agreement that satisfies all the group members. While another teacher stated that,

she tries to make sure all students are comfortable working in groups and they are enjoying it.

Another teacher advocated that it is hard to intervene because of lack of time. He also put

81
forward that the teacher is there to” help them when they cannot help themselves”. This way

the students are trained to count on themselves and they are then practicing problem solving.

Thus, these issues are part of the training. This teacher added that it is important to encourage

the students solve their problems by themselves and ensure them you will help them in case

they cannot reach a solution. Besides, it is necessary to introduce the students to some problem

solving strategies as well as sensitizing them about the benefits of group work thus preparing

a ground for a successful teamwork.

Item 9: The impact of group communication on the group work process:

This question intends to identify the impact that group communication has on the group work

process. All teachers (07) agreed that communication and interaction are crucial in teamwork

arguing that through communication things become clearer, misunderstanding and conflicts

can be avoided or the contrary. They also indicated that it helps both teachers and students to

achieve, successfully, the purpose of group work tasks. Besides, sharing and interacting means

that all members are interested, different perspectives appear, thus, the likelihood of having a

perfect work will increase on one hand. However, on the other hand, using inappropriate tone

may create a negative atmosphere that discourages teammates thus slowing down the work

process.

Item 10: The influence of group behavior on group work process:

The purpose of this item is identify the influence of group behaviors on the group work process

according to teachers’ perspective. Two teachers (28.57%) stated that group behavior might

influence group work process negatively especially if the students are noisy. It also minimizes

group members’ dignity as they always laugh on each other’s mistakes. The other five teachers

(71.42%) asserted that it can affect group work both positively, by behaving appropriately

according to what is accepted in the classroom as an academic setting which is necessary for a

82
successful team work, and negatively when behaving inappropriately which will lead to

creating conflicts and sometimes to splitting the groups.

Item 11: the influence of the relationship between group members on their performance:

This objective of this question is to reveal the influence group members relationship on their

performance during group work According to the teachers’ perspectives. All the seven teachers

(100%) agreed on the importance of the relationship between group members as being

prominent in group work process. They advocated that closeness and friendship between group

members help them establish harmony, which will make the work more enjoyable and

comfortable. One teacher indicated that when students know each other, they would know what

is the appropriate behavior and language to be used when addressing their teammates, and how

they react to negative feedback or criticism. Thus, it facilitates communication and it enables

group members to be more independent while expressing themselves.

Item 12: The effect of the manner group members address each other on group
members’ performance.

This question is designed to find out the impact of communicative skills on the group

performance. All teachers (n=07; 100%) agreed that the way students address each other have

both positive and negative effects on their performance. Communicative skills can enhance the

members’ confidence and trust between members thus enhancing their performance and

increasing the likelihood of success considerably as advocated by the participants. However,

inappropriate language use will reduce respect and break group members’ cohesiveness; thus,

decreasing the quality of the work. One of the teachers indicated that people react, especially

in the Algerian context, emotionally. In the same time, they may say things, although correct,

in a critical way provoking emotions. Furthermore, through politeness we may influence others

83
opinion indirectly. One of the teachers added that the best possible way to say things is through

politeness.

Item 13: The role of respect on improving the group work process

Regarding the teachers’ point of view on respect and its effects on group performance, all

teachers (07) agreed that respect has a positive effect on group work process. They maintained

that respect is fundamental in group work as it guarantees an appropriate and formal

atmosphere for group work. They also advocated that students will perform better and they will

accomplish their tasks more successfully. One teacher stated that the word choice affects

communication, thus students must be selective while addressing their teammates so to keep

respect between them. Another teacher mentioned “Give respect, gain respect” which entails

that respect should be mutual in order to avoid conflicts and misunderstanding.

Item 14: The teachers’ perspectives regarding the use of polite discourse during

interaction in group work

This question aims at retrieving the teachers’ perspective regarding the impact of the use of

politeness forms on group work process. The majority of teachers (n=06; 85.71%) agreed that

polite discourse enhances communication and interaction between group members. One of the

teachers stated that using politeness group members would function “very well” yet it is not

the only way. They advocated that politeness sustains respect, makes the exchange of ideas

smoother and more formal. One teacher emphasizes the importance of polite discourse as it is

“a necessary helping factor” to avoid conflicts between group members as they may stop, kill,

or hinder group work especially nowadays as people are more sensitive. As a result, “Polite

tone prevents most negative reaction”. He added that politeness is” magic” as it prevents any

kind of misunderstanding or conflict to arise, thus it is so important in communication which

without ” there will be no group work”. However, one teacher stated that students do not rely

84
on polite discourse while interacting claiming that the group members are, most of the time,

friends and they do know each other; hence, they accept everything from their friends. This, in

return, in return may affect the extent to which group members employ politeness strategies

and which strategy they rely on most of the time.

Item 15: The benefits of polite discourse on decreasing conflicts between group members:

This core aim of this question is to find out the role of polite discourse on decreasing conflicts

between group members. Thus, the teachers were invited to express their attitudes regarding

the statement “do you think that group members dependence on avoiding making assumptions,

apologizing, as well as friendly language while interacting with each other will decrease the

likelihood of facing conflicts”. All teachers (07) agreed that these politeness forms have

positive effects on minimizing the possibility of raising conflicts. One teacher stated that the

students will not feel attacked and their self-esteem will not be shaken so that they do not feel

a psychological threat when they address each other in a polite manner. Another teacher

avowed that resisting assumptions through finding excuses and managing the reaction or even

avoid assumption would help the work to progress. Apologizing as well alleviates the negative

effects of mistakes as people are doomed to commit mistakes. Apology maintains a good

relationship between group members. He added that a more relaxed friendly language among

peers creates a comfortable atmosphere suitable for communication.

Item 16: The impact of the imposition on the negative face on the group work process:

The researchers asked this question to uncover the problems that might occur due to the

group members’ violation of freedom of action. According to the teachers’ point of view,

violation of freedom of action has a negative impact on the work process as well as on group

members. Two teachers stated that it leads to disrespect and quarrel between group members.

Hence, group members’ willingness to do the tasks will decrease. Another teacher advocated

85
that when some members feel superior to the others, they prevent other members from

expressing their ideas. These latter will hate the group work, which leads them to fail in the

task and split the group. In similar vein, another teacher stressed the idea that the freedom of

action ceases once a person accepts to work in a group stating, “You do not do what you want

to do rather you do what the team wants to do”. In other words, all members have to adapt their

freedom of action to the needs of the team. He also added that every member in a team has the

freedom to express his/her ideas to collaborate in the work progress without imposition. It can

be deduced from these answers that negative face or freedom of action is, to a certain extent,

lost and it cannot be maintained in all situations. Therefore, maintaining the group members’

negative face can be a two-sided weapon.

Item 17: The impact of consensus on the group work process.

This question aims at finding the role of group members’ reliance on consensus in enhancing

group work. All seven teachers agreed on the idea that consensus have a positive impact on

group work. One teacher argued that consensus improves the work conditions and relationship

between group members, which will affect positively the outcome. Another teacher stated that

consensus is vital in group work as it is the basis of group work” there is no group work without

consensus”. Consensus is as important to the success of group work as respect and politeness.

Therefore, the reliance on consensus, generally, increases the reliance on politeness strategies.

Item 18: The significance of the use of unity markers on the enhancement of group work:

The goal of this question is to retrieve teachers’ opinions on the impact of the use of unity

markers on enhancing group work. All teachers (07) had a positive attitude toward the use of

unity markers in group work giving the argument that it gives a sense of belonging and

responsibility. One teacher stated that unity markers entail sharing the work success and failure.

The language of inclusion strengthens the sense of belonging to the group. Furthermore,

86
another teacher emphasized the benefit of the sense of belonging to the group for students who

feel less confident and less motivated as it helps them feel more valued and embraced in the

group.

Item 19: Teachers’ perspective toward politeness as a factor enhancing group work:

This question inquires about the teachers’ perspective regarding politeness as a factor

enhancing group work. Almost the majority of teachers (n=5; 71.42%) declared that they

considered politeness as a factor enhancing group work arguing that it plays a significant role

in making people accept working in teams. One teacher (01) stated that politeness is a key

factor in communication in the group as it reduces the possibility of raising conflicts between

group members. Two (02) other teachers (14.28%) asserted that they did not think of politeness

as factor that improves group work. While only one teacher mentioned that although she asks

her students to be polite with each other in order to avoid anything that might interrupt the

course, she was not aware of the importance of politeness as a factor that enhances group work

in particular. Another teacher stated that politeness does exist unconsciously and it does not

depend only on the language group members use.

Item 20: The impact of students’ awareness about the use of politeness forms on the

success of group work:

The ultimate aim of this question is to find out to what extent does the students’

awareness about the use of politeness forms contribute to the success of group work. All

teachers (07) reported that students’ awareness would facilitate the group work as it enhances

respect, makes the communication easier, conflicts will be avoided and better achievement of

the tasks. One teacher mentioned that awareness about these politeness forms is the first step

to decide the appropriate language that a person will use when addressing his teammates which

87
contributes in avoiding the possible threat provoking emotions and conflicts. Another teacher

mentioned that it a part of our daily life and it happens unconsciously.

3.3 . Voice Recording Results Analysis:

The voice recordings were collected from EFL first year students in the department of English

LOUNICI Ali (Blida 02) University. The objective behind employing this instrument was to

attain direct information regarding the group members’ use of politeness strategies while

communicating and interacting to perform a given task inside the classroom. The voice

recordings were collected from first year students in two modules (Study skills and writing).

Some recordings we not useful to the current study due to the lack of interaction and

communication among group members as the task was about summarizing a text; thus, they

were just reading. Nevertheless, we could collect very useful recordings, in which we could

extract the politeness strategies group members used while performing different speech acts.

The voice recordings were collected from different teams during the second semester. These

teams belonged to different groups. It is significant to mention that the students who provided

the researchers with the voice recordings also answered the questionnaire.

After listening to more than 10 voice recordings. We could identify that group members

were all acquainted to each other. This latter may justify the reliance on direct language and

orders most of the time. We noticed that the majority of group members expressed themselves

freely with no boundaries without the reliance on off-record politeness strategy, which

contradicted students’ answers to the items where they showed a preference towards delivering

their comments or concerns indirectly relying on hints. Many group members, on the other

hand, relied on positive politeness in cases of agreement, which was observed in the majority

of the recordings. This was characterize using “yes, exactly, yeah, I agree, that’s what I wanted

to say, I support you” and sometimes they counted on literal emphasis “yes, yes”.

88
 In cases of disagreement, the majority of group members expressed their opposition

directly (“I disagree with you”,). In other cases, the group members justified the reason behind

their opposition through explaining their point of view (“I am with you in this idea” but

………..). One of the group members, although disagreed, asked her group member to

convince her stating: “give me one argument that can change my opinion”. We found that in

case of opposition , one of the group members relied on bald on record politeness strategy

stating “you are a cave man” to another teammate. Besides, another group member stated, “you

are living in a dream” because they had two completely different perspectives. Unlike the group

members who baldly opposed, the reliance on this strategy contributed in avoiding conflicts

among group members.

It is worth mentioning that the majority of group members avoided imposition on their

teammates by opening the flour for discussion and listening to each other’s opinions. This was

realized through the recurrent use of the expressions such as “What do you think?” and “Are

you with or against?”

We also noticed that some group members tend to ask for clarification. In this way, they

avoided misunderstandings and assumptions, which, in the majority of cases, lead to conflicts.

They decreased the likelihood of encountering conflicts. To achieve the latter, they tend to ask

for clarifications using expressions such as” what do you mean?” and “I didn’t get you” and

“Why?”

When group members did not know something related to the work process, they expressed

their confusion directly. They also asked their teammates baldy to translate some words,

expressions, and even synonyms. This strategy was recurrently used in case a member is being

misunderstood (No, this is not what I meant). It also appeared when rejecting an idea

considered useless, wrong or irrelevant. This was realized using “No”. Group members also

89
expressed their concerns regarding the work process directly employing unity marker “We”

such as “we are not going to end this debate”.

3.1.4. Data Discussion and Interpretation of the Results:

The data of the students’ questionnaire, teachers’ interview, as well as the voice recordings

were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Accordingly, this part is devoted to discuss

and interpret the findings based on the research:

- What do EFL students and teachers think of the use of politeness forms in group work?

- To what extent do EFL group members rely on politeness forms when interacting with each

other?

The current research investigate the attitudes of both EFL students and teachers towards the

use of politeness forms in group. In the Algerian context, this study is the first to investigate

the attitudes of both EFL students and teachers towards the use of Brown and Levinson

politeness forms in group work when used as an instruction tool inside the classroom. It is

worth mentioning that this study has tackled, unlike the studies previously highlighted in the

literature review, Brown and Levinson (1987) politeness forms in group work through

inspecting both EFL students and teachers’ attitudes towards this phenomenon, relying, largely,

on similar research tools.

What do EFL students and teachers think of the impact of politeness forms on group

work?

To reach an answer to the above question, the researchers relied on a questionnaire for

students, an interview with teachers and students voice recordings while working in groups.

90
 3.1.4.1. Students Questionnaire:

Concerning the benefits of group work, three statements have been devised: “I developed many

skills through working in groups”, “group work decreases anxiety” and “group work enables

you to enhance some skills which individual work does not”. The majority of students showed

positive attitudes toward these three statements. As for the first statement (77.77%) of the

students showed agreement with it. For the second statement (63.333%) of the students

expressed their agreement with it. Besides, for the third statement (74.44%) ticked the agree

column. According to these results, we can say that the majority of students conceive group

work as helpful in developing different skills and decreases anxiety. As noted in the literature

review that group work enables students to develop flexible skills for life -long learning such

as communicative skills and collaboration (Davies) and reduces anxiety and shyness (Brown),

this study confirmed these stances.

As for the negative effects that group work might have, the researchers devoted two

statements “Group work is a waste of time” and “group work causes distraction in the

classroom”. The majority of the participants (60%) showed their disagreement with the first

statement. In addition, (44.44%) of the participants expressed their disagreement with the

second statement. These findings help one deduce that the majority of the students held no

negative beliefs toward group work; in fact, we can state that they had positive attitudes towards

the implementation of group work in the classroom.

From the standpoint of the students about the impact of paying attention to the language

they use while interacting with group members on reducing conflicts, the results has shown

that the majority of the subjects (52.22%) agreed with this statement. This entails that word

choice and the use of appropriate language during communication helps decreasing the

likelihood of facing conflicts with group members.

91
 As for the influence of group communication on group work, students were asked to

show their agreement/disagreement with the statement “Group communication influences

group work”. A great majority of the participants (83.33%) showed their agreement with the

statement. According to the findings, it is noticed that the majority of the students are aware of

the impact that communication has on group work. This confirms the idea that entails that

communication plays a significant role in the group performance when carrying out a complex

task (Dobao and Martinez).

It is clear from the results that the majority of the students (88.88%) believed that

mutual respect among group members enhances their performance. Accordingly, one can state

that students’ awareness of the importance of mutual respect among teammates has a positive

impact on their performance as a group.

According to the results retrieved from the subject concerning the idea that says,

“Giving compliments during the work process contributes in boosting your teammates’

motivation to complete the task”, the majority of the informants (76.66%) held a positive

attitude toward the use of compliments as a motivational booster for the group members to

complete the task. Hence, it is noticeable that students are aware of the positive effects of giving

compliments on the group performance.

Regarding for the role of word choice, voice and tone as well as their impact on

decreasing conflicts and misunderstanding among group members, the students were asked to

show their agreement/disagreement with the statement that says “Paying attention to word

choice, voice and tone decreases misunderstanding and conflicts among group members”. A

strong majority (76.66%) showed their accordance with it. Thus, entailing that students are

aware of the positive role word choice plays in reducing the likelihood of facing conflicts and

decreasing misunderstanding among group members.

92
 Not only respect and word choice but also respecting the negative face of group

members have positive impact on group work process. Therefore, the majority of the

participants (84.44%) showed their agreement with the statement “Respecting each other’s

wants help establishing a comfortable atmosphere for work” It is inferred that the informants

are aware, although unconsciously, of maintaining the negative face of their teammates and its

impact on the work process.

Regarding the reliance on indirect language and its influence in being understood, the

participants were asked to show their stance toward the statement “Relying on indirect

language and giving hints, while interacting with your teammates lead to ambiguity and loss

of message thus your teammates will not get your concern”. More than the half of the

participants (52%) agreed with the statement. Noticeably, the students believe that the indirect

language causes misunderstanding and thus hindering the group performance.

As for the students’ impression about group work, the majority of the students

expressed a positive stance toward implementing group work in the classroom. They argued

that it help them develop different skills, more learning is guaranteed and creates a more

friendly and joyful atmosphere for learning. They also advocated that group work help them

achieve a better and refined work. Through these arguments, one can assert that group is

positively perceived by students and considered as a helpful way for effective learning.

Concerning the likelihood of facing issues while working in groups, the participants

were asked to answer this question: “Do you encounter issues while working in groups? If yes,

what are these issues? ”. According to the findings, the majority of the students (53.33%)

claimed that they do not face issues when working in groups. The rest of the participants

(37.77%) asserted that they face some issues during group work. They stated that the main

issues they encounter are communication issues, misunderstanding, distraction and

93
procrastination arguing that these issues influence the task accomplishment as well as the

communication process negatively resulting in more conflicts leading to the splitting of the

group. Accordingly, the issues that students may face during the group work process have

merely a negative influence on the work process as well as on the students’ performance.

As for the question that inquires the way students tend to express their concerns

regarding what do they do not like about the work process, 35 students (38.88%) stated that

they prefer the direct way. They argued that it helps them be more clear and honest, besides it

reduces the likelihood of facing conflicts and misunderstanding as well as not wasting time

explaining. Yet, 14 participants (15.55%) preferred the indirect way as it helps shy members

to express themselves freely. Moreover, they assumed that it helps maintaining respect among

group members, as they do not want to hurt their teammates’ feelings. According to the results,

it is noted that students are aware that the direct method suits the group needs as their arguments

were mainly to guarantee the progress of the work.

In order to identify how do students deliver their disagreement with an idea that they

may find useless and whether they rely on bald on record, off record strategy or they avoid

using the FTAs, they were asked to answer this question. Almost the same number of students

(b= 34; 37.77%, c=30; 33.33%) ticked the b and c column, which entails that they mostly rely

on off record politeness form and avoid using the FTAs. Accordingly, we can postulate that

students are aware of the impact that language use have on avoiding conflicts and the work

progress as well.

According to the findings, the majority of the participants (n=46, 51.11%) used the

direct way to express their dissatisfaction with the work pace, arguing that it is time saving and

helps them t fulfill the task quickly. Besides, it helps them avoid conflicts and

misunderstanding which may influence the work process negatively. However, (21.11%) of

94
the participants preferred to use the indirect way, giving the argument that it helps shy learners

to collaborate, as well as reduces the likelihood of facing conflicts which will in turn affect the

quality of the work. Noticeably, students’ awareness about the language use when addressing

their teammates is stressed since they can adapt it to ensure the accomplishment of the task as

well as a better atmosphere for the group work.

As for the appropriate politeness strategy students tend to use when asking for their

teammates’ help, the findings revealed that the majority of the participants (n=41; 45.55%)

selected “b” as an answer i.e. they tend to rely on request mostly. This entails that they do not

impose on their teammates’ negative face. In other words, students tend to respect their

teammates’ freedom of action during the group work process.

In case of misunderstanding, the majority of the participants (n=73; 81.11%) tend to

explain their point of view to their teammates. this entails that they are aware of the positive

impact of explanation on the work process as it helps establishing agreement among the group

members for a better environment for the work.

In fact, it is obvious through the findings, that the majority of the participants (n=45;

50%) tend to ask for feedback relying on the expression “what do you think”. This entails that

they take into account the addressee’s freedom to express their opinion. Hence, we can assume

that students tend to take the negative face i.e. freedom of action into account while asking for

feedback.

In order to identify which politeness strategy is used when suggesting an alternative

solution, the participants were asked to answer this question. Results showed that the majority

of the students tend to justify their choice and give their teammates options. This entails that

these students tend to avoid imposition on their teammates, but rather they respect their

teammates’ freedom of action i.e. their negative face.

95
 As for the scenario of misunderstanding, the majority if the informants (n=64; 71.11%)

tend to explain their point of view in case they had different perspective about a given idea.

This entails that students are aware of the negative effects of misunderstanding and conflicts

on the work process.

In order to retrieve the participants’ reaction when their teammates impose on their

negative face, the participants were asked to answer this question. Results demonstrate that the

majority of the participants (n=56; 62.22%) do not accept being imposed on, yet they justify

their stance. This entails that imposition on each other’s negative face is rejected. This

contributes largely in avoiding conflicts within the group.

As for the politeness strategy/ies used during interaction, the majority of the participants

(n=48; 53.33%) tend to seek agreement when addressing their teammates. this postulates that

the students are aware of the importance of interaction in group work as well as its impact on

avoiding the likelihood of facing conflicts.

As for the role of the positive face when being responsible on causing a problem to/with

group members and its effects on the group work process, the participants were asked to answer

this question. Half of the informants (n=46; 51.11%) asserted that they apologize, while (35.55

%) of them assume responsibility. This can help, largely, in creating a better relationship among

group members as well as improving the work conditions.

Concerning the politeness forms participants rely on when their teammates make

decisions about the work process, more than the half of the participants (n= 57; 63.33%) agreed

to accept their teammates decisions. This entails that even if they refuse that their freedom of

action to be violated, they can adapt it to the team wants and needs relying on positive

politeness. While (26.66%) of the participants advocated that they compromise with the

teammates relying on avoiding Face threatening acts, which is considered the highest form of

96
politeness. According to these results, we can state that students are using these politeness

forms, even unconsciously, in order to make the work better and to maintain an appropriate

atmosphere for group work.

In order to identify which form of politeness students tend to use in case of group failure,

the students were asked to answer this question. The great majority (n= 71; 78.88%) tend to

use unity markers relying on avoiding the use of face threatening acts thus assuming

responsibility of failure as a whole group. Accordingly, we can deduce that their reliance on

impersonalization help establishing a positive atmosphere free from conflicts, thus enhancing

the group performance.

As for the politeness forms used by the participants in case they do not understand

something related to the task, the majority of the students (n=44; 48.44%) stated that they rely

on the direct way to ask for their teammates’ help. This entails that they rely on bald on record

politeness form since they have the tendency to work with their friends. While (30%) of the

participants advocated that they rely on themselves to solve the problem, relying on avoiding

maintaining FTAs.

To sum up, from the results obtained, one can postulate that students’ reliance on the use

of politeness forms is significantly observed. Though unconsciously used, their awareness of

the benefits of being polite and respectful to each other, helps establishing a good atmosphere

for group work as well as improving the quality of the outcome. Thus, we can say that students

have positive attitudes towards the use of politeness forms in enhancing group work.

3.2.1.2. Teachers Interviews:

In order to answer the following research question “What do EFL teachers and students

think of the use of politeness forms to enhance group work?” the researchers opted for an

97
interview for teachers to retrieve their insights regarding the effect of the use of politeness

forms in enhancing group work.

The findings reveals that the majority of teachers (n= 6, 85.7%) asserted that group

work has a positive effect on students’ performance as it increases motivation, commitment,

reduces anxiety and maximizes learning. This confirms Brown’s idea suggested in the literature

review above, that group work reduces anxiety and shyness. In same line, Ellis assumed that

group activities help for retention for long-term memory. Meanwhile, one teacher (14.28%)

stated that group work has no effect on students’ performance since the same responsible

motivated students do the task while the other members do not collaborate in accomplishing

the task.

As for the group formation, the researchers asked teachers whether they are responsible

on assigning students to groups or they give the opportunity to students to decide with whom

they would like to work. The majority of teachers (n=6; 85.7%) agreed that they give the

students the opportunity to choose their groups arguing that it helps establishing a friendly

atmosphere among group members. The latter validated the belief of Hendry et al which states

that friendship is one of the main factors that has to be taken into account during the process

of group formation as it helps creating a mutual respect among group members. Thus, it leads

to accept criticism from each other and listening to each other’s ideas.

As was mentioned in the literature review above, group work has many advantages

lying in the fact that it gives more opportunities for learning, develops more communicative

skills, collaboration, generates critical thinking skills, involves students in the teaching–

learning process as well as reducing anxiety and shyness, giving the students more chances to

express and exchange their ideas. Furthermore, group work gives the students the ground to

practice the target language in an EFL context, which entails more language production. The

98
findings of this study supported these ideas referring to the teachers’ agreement (n=7; 100%)

on the idea that students gain many benefits through group work and they supported their stance

with different arguments which validated the ones cited in the review of the literature.

As the group develops, students may face different issues that may influence their

performance. In this context, all teachers (100%) advocated that students face several problems

during group work process mainly communication issues such as disagreement and

misunderstanding. Besides, the lack of motivation and commitment, which confirms the idea

that group member’s absence of enthusiasm and commitment leads to motivational issues as

stated by Kerr and Brunn and Morgan. Moreover, teachers stated that students might count on

each other to do the task. This can strengthen the idea of sucker effect which is as defined by

Kerr as the reaction of group members free riding by free riding themselves influencing

negatively the group objectives as well the accomplishment of the task. Going a step further,

two teachers (n=02; 28.57%) stated that these issues might have an influence on the lessons’

objectives as it slows down the task accomplishment and the course as well. Thus, teachers’

role is to help students solve these problems as part of the group work process in order to reduce

its negative effects on the students’ performance as well as the course success.

Concerning the influence of group behavior and relationship between group members

on group performance, two teachers (n=02; 28.57%) claimed that group behavior will influence

the group negatively. This occurs when students behave inappropriately, that’s why the

remaining five teachers (n=05, 71.42%) emphasized the importance of the relationship between

group members as being one of the major dynamics in a group arguing that it helps them know

the appropriate behavior and language they opt to use when addressing their teammates. In

other words, closeness and friendship among group members facilitates group communication.

99
 Communication plays a significant role in the group performance when carrying out a

complex task. This statement was strengthened by the agreement of all teachers (n=7, 100%)

arguing that thanks to appropriate communication misunderstanding and conflicts will be

avoided and the course objectives will be successfully achieved. In addition, it enhances group

members’ confidence and trust; therefore, enhancing the quality of the performance.

Nevertheless, the inappropriate tone or language use will definitely discourage students; hence,

affecting the work process negatively.

Not only communication and group behavior but also respect has a positive effect group

performance. All the seven teachers (n=07, 100%) stressed the importance of respect as being

fundamental among group members as it facilities communication and helps in creating a

formal environment for group work as well as increasing the opportunities of having an

excellent work.

All the seven teachers (100%) agreed on the idea that the use of polite discourse has a

positive effect on interaction between group members arguing that it enhances respect among

them, reduces the likelihood of facing conflicts and facilitates communication as suggested in

the studies aforementioned in the literature review. The importance of politeness was stressed

by all teachers as it helps in reducing the negative effects of conflicts between group members.

The use of politeness forms entails the use of a more relaxed and friendly language among

group members, hence creating an appropriate and a better atmosphere for group work. Yet,

the idea of friendship disconfirmed the former, as was stated by one teacher (14.28%) that

group members who know each other tend not to use politeness forms with their friends

advocating that they accept everything from each other. In other words, closeness and intimacy

between group members reduces the use of polite discourse.

100
 Concerning the effects that violation of freedom of action has on the group work

process, all teachers (100%) showed a negative attitude toward this issue. They emphasized

that every member in the group has the right to express his ideas in order to contribute to the

task accomplishment. However, they stated that this freedom has to be adapted to the group

needs and wants without imposition. The imposition on one’s negative face will decrease group

members’ engagement affecting students’ performance as well as the quality of the outcome.

From the perspective of teachers toward the role of consensus and unity markers in

enhancing group work, the results clearly showed that all teachers (n=07; 100%) had positive

attitudes towards the role of consensus on group work as it improves the work conditions and

the relationship between group members. Through consensus, every member is involved in the

group work leading to a sense of collaboration and unity. This latter creates a sense of

belonging and responsibility among group members and can be reinforced using a certain type

of language that reflects inclusion and solidarity, hence all group members will feel confident

and motivated to collaborate in the work progress.

According to the findings, it was clear that almost the majority of teachers (n=05;

71.42%) considered politeness as a factor that enhances group work. They asserted that it is

essential in facilitating communication between group members as it reduces the likelihood of

facing conflicts. Two teachers (28.57%) asserted that they did not think of politeness as a factor

influencing group work, they said that is spontaneous and unconscious feature in

communication.

Lastly, teachers were asked to give their opinions about the impact of students’ awareness about

the use of politeness forms on the success of group work. All teachers (100%) stated that it

has a positive effect on students’ performance as it enhances communication between group

members as well as enhancing respect among teammates. students’ awareness about the use of

101
polite discourse will help them recognize the appropriate behavior and language that can be

used when addressing their teammates, hence ensuring a better atmosphere for group work.

What do EFL students think of the impact of politeness forms in group work?

Through the questionnaire results, we noticed that students showed a preference to use

politeness strategies while performing different speech acts such as orders, requests and

disagreements. Though the students’ answers varied, the majority of the students favored the

use of politeness forms avoiding face threatening acts as well as maintaining other’s face and

avoiding imposition on their teammates’ negative face through seeking agreements i.e. positive

performance. They also tend to preserve their negative face.

To what extent do EFL students use politeness forms when interacting with their

teammates?

In short, the results obtained from both students’ questionnaire and voice recordings we, to a

small extent, contradictory. To put it differently, the students’ questionnaire findings revealed

that students were biased to the perfect answer, which in fact was a reality. This was realized

in cases where a number of students preferred the use of off-record politeness strategy and

avoidance of direct language. Students showed a preference towards politeness forms.

However, through students’ voice recordings, there was a clear dominated excessive preference

to bald on record politeness strategy. There was also a remarkable use of positive politeness

and a humble use of negative as well as off-record politeness strategies. Thus according to the

second research question, students’ questionnaire results proved that they tend to depend on

politeness strategies. The students’ voice recordings confirmed these answers students as tend

to rely greatly on “Bald on record” politeness strategy and negative as well as positive

politeness. To sum up, from the results obtained from the teachers’ interview one can easily

assert that there was an agreement as far as the role of politeness in enhancing group work

102
process is concerned. Furthermore, communication and interaction were emphasized in the

teachers’ answers as being crucial in group work. In addition, respect and consensus were

among the helping factors that help establishing an appropriate atmosphere for group work thus

leading to a better performance influencing the learning outcome positively. Consequently, and

according to the findings we can conclude that EFL teachers’ attitudes toward the use of

politeness forms in enhancing group work were significantly positive.

3.2. Section Two: Recommendations and Limitations:

According to the findings we reached some recommendations to make an effective use of

politeness forms during communication and interaction among group members.

3.2.1. Pedagogical Recommendation:

It is essential for teachers to be aware of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness strategies.

Besides, teachers need to acquire a full understanding of the notion of face, face threatening

acts, as well as politeness strategies and their effectiveness in any social interaction and their

role in avoiding conflicts and breakdown of any interaction. While interviewing teachers, we

concluded that most teachers did not know about Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness

strategies. They only know the plain meaning of politeness.

As one of the aims of group work incorporation in the classroom is to train students for

professional life. It is essential to train students for professional life. As one of the teachers

stated: “we are preparing them to be teachers, a job which require a lot of interaction with

others such as coworkers and students.

Many teachers, who participated in this research, did not think about politeness as a factor

enhancing group work, as they tend only to make their students aware about the importance of

being polite with each other. Nevertheless, they did not insist on them to employ it during

103
interaction. This can be related to teachers’ humble knowledge regarding politeness forms. It

depends on the individuals’ education, as one the interviewee advocated. However, it is never

too late to teach them how ask questions appropriately as well as raise their awareness

regarding the risks that can be encountered in any interaction due to some speech acts. This can

be realized through the module of speaking. Workshops for both teachers and students would

also be helpful in achieving the preceding. Teaching or at least raising the awareness about

these strategies will develop individuals who are capable to communicate, more or less,

efficiently. Therefore, when these individuals, who have already grasped and internalized these

strategies, work in teams, they can make use of these strategies. These individuals can make

use of these strategies not only in group work but also in any social interaction outside the

classroom setting.

Politeness strategies are effective and essential in communication and interaction according to

teachers’ perception throughout this study. “Polite people are more desirable to work with and

the use of politeness enhances both communication and reduces the likelihood of facing

conflicts; thus, facilitating group members’ performance and the work process as well. Brown

and Levinson’s (1987) politeness strategies should be taught from early stages so to have

communicatively skilled individuals especially “in the Algerian context, where people are

sensitive to criticism and freedom of action as advocated by one of the interviewees.

3.2.2. Limitations of the study:

Similar to any research, it is worth mentioning that the current study has some limitations.

Among the first things that faced the researchers while conducting this research is determining

the population. The researchers intended to address both Licence and Master EFL students.

However, due to, more or less, the lack of reliance on group work inside the classroom as an

instructional tool, we eliminated Master students. The main reason behind this decision is due

104
to the impossibility to collect voice recordings from this population. Regarding Licence

students, it was very difficult to collect them from both second and third year. This was due to

the lack of group work inside the classroom and many students refused, while an insufficient

number of them accepted to collaborate to record themselves while working in groups.

Although we explained to them the aim of the research and the recordings would be kept

confidential. Regarding the questionnaire, many students showed no interest in answering and

they directly refused to participate mainly second and third year students during the pilot study.

Hence, our participants shrunk to cover only first year students who showed willingness to

collaborate. Nevertheless, collecting data from both Licence and MA students would diverse

insights and more reliable data regarding their perspective in relation to the use of politeness

in group work as their experience with group work also defers, which can be , in return, a

factor influencing their perspective.

As we relied only on first year students, their perception of politeness forms can be

shallow if compared to other levels. Thus, the researchers encountered some obstacles

facilitating the questionnaire items in order to be easily understood. However, many items were

left unanswered.

Furthermore, we intended to interview as many teachers as possible; however, the lack of

teachers in the department of English at LOUNICI Ali university, who rely on group work as

an instructional tool inside the classroom, and some teachers refused to collaborate, even when

we suggested to give them the written form of the interview. While others could not participate

because they were busy with the tests and their classes. Consequently, we could only interview

seven EFL teachers. A larger number would help obtaining different perspectives due to the

teachers’ experience with group work as well as their views regarding the use of politeness

forms in group work.

105
 Last of all, the above mentioned limitations as the reliance on a case study decreases

the exhaustiveness of the suggested recommendations.

Another limitation worth mentioning is group members already know each other and in

some cases they were friends. This can affect, largely, the reliance on politeness strategies

especially in the Algerian context, where intimacy between people lead to imposition on face

wants and the recurrent dependence on bald on record politeness strategy.

Conclusion:

This chapter is devoted to the results obtained through students’ questionnaire, teachers’

interview as well as students’ voice recordings. Regarding students’ questionnaire, the data

were obtained relying on Likert scale, open ended and multiple-choice items. All items were

analyzed and the results were displayed in figures. The researchers relied on figure for the sake

of better demonstration of the statistics. It is worth mentioning that some of the open-ended

items were analyzed qualitatively. In similar vein, the voice recordings were also analyzed

qualitatively. Besides, this chapter presented a number of suggested recommendations.

According to results of the research tool employed in the current study, it significant to state

making use of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness strategies contributes, largely, in

decreasing the chances of encountering conflicts during group communication and interaction

, which can, in return, hinder or stop group work; therefore, wasting the learning time. Besides,

the majority of teachers agreed on the positive effect of the use of politeness strategies on group

work, though they were not, previously, familiar with the strategies. This agreement was

supported by students’ voice recordings, which demonstrated that group members who relied

on these strategies could stop and, in some cases, avoid conflicts through the avoidance of face

threatening acts as well as consensus. Therefore, they could finish the task assigned quickly in

comparison to those who relied most of the time on bald on record politeness strategy as well

106
as disagreements. Raising students’ awareness about the existence of these strategies will give

them the opportunity to express themselves in a more appropriate and less threatening way,

especially when working with different personalities. Generally, the results obtained provided

answers to the research questions. To phrase it differently, both EFL students and teachers

welcomed the used of politeness forms in group work. Students’ answers were strengthened

through the voice recordings, which demonstrated the extent they employed politeness forms

in different situations while interacting with their teammates.

107
 GENERAL CONCLUSION
Group work has been incorporated in the EFL context as it helps students develop various skills

such as problem solving and critical thinking. It is also, as postulated by teachers of the

department of English LOUNICI Ali (Blida 02) University as well as Smith (2008), a

preparatory stage for professional life. Through working in groups, students are in constant

contact with their teammates as they communicate, share ideas, and, in many cases, argue. The

latter affects, alongside with other factors, the process of the group work as the group members

tend to argue which increases the likelihood of facing conflicts. Inappropriate word choice,

voice, tone as well as imposition, misunderstanding, and assumptions, all together, cannot be

avoided when working with others. Communication, which forms a great deal of group work

is considered to be “antagonistic”, is the concern of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness

theory as indicated in chapter two. Therefore, this research intended to contribute to the

literature regarding Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness forms in group work. That being

the case, the main concern focus of the current research is to inspect EFL students and teachers’

attitudes towards the use of politeness forms in group work at LOUNICI Ali ( Blida02)

University, Algeria.

The present research highlighted, briefly, the importance of group work as well as its

incorporation in the classroom. It also shed light on the benefits and the challenges facing

teachers implementing group work in their classroom as well as team members in terms of

communication, which causes various issues due to the speaker’s voice and tone, as well as the

words and the weight they carry on. At the top of that, chapter two covered, concisely,

pragmatics and exposed thoroughly Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory alongside

with some studies in the academic context.

108
Regarding the methodology, the researchers relied on a case. This study is based on three

research instrument, a questionnaire for students, students’ voice recording while working in

groups and teachers’ interview mainly those who rely on group work as an instructional tool,

in order to collect reliable and accurate data. The questionnaire is built upon Likert scale, open-

ended and multiple-choice items. Students’ voice recordings were collected from first year

students belonging to different groups. As for the teachers’ interview, it was based mainly on

open-ended items. The sample of the current research is 90 first year students and 07 teachers

from at LOUNICI Ali (Blida 02) University, Algeria.

The outcomes attained from the students’ questionnaire as well as the voice recordings,

noticeably, revealed that though the majority of the students preferred to rely on specific

politeness forms such as off record and negative politeness forms. Nevertheless, the voice

recordings proved that the students relied, in different occasions on bald on record politeness

form. The latter can be due to the team members’ acquaintance and familiarity. Concerning the

teachers’ interview, the majority of the participants, although did not know about Brown and

Levinson (1987) politeness theory, held a positive attitude towards politeness forms and

believed that it is a factor, alongside with others, contributing in the group work success.

Consequently, a number of recommendations were suggested based on the findings.

The current study targeted only the EFL students and teacher’s attitudes towards the use of

politeness forms in group work, globally, without specifying the politeness forms. Due to the

weight of politeness theory, there are various dimensions to be concern of further research in

the academic field and not only in group work.

In conclusion, it is challenging to find an intensive use of politeness forms among group

members as they know each other especially in the Algerian context. However, it is

109
recommended to consider these strategies as an effective factor enhancing any interaction not

only in group work

This will, therefore, enhance communication and facilitate group work. The current study,

however, tackled politeness forms only in group work due to the preexisting literature on the

use of politeness forms in the teaching learning process. Politeness forms have been regarded

a factor enhancing any interaction, which forms a great deal of group work. It has been

postulated that people tend to prefer working with polite individuals as politeness is inevitable

and provides privilege and a good reputation to some people over others.

110
 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

- Behnam, B. and M. Niroomand, , An Investigation of Iranian EFL learners’ Use of Politeness

Strategies and Power Relations in Disagreement across Different Proficiency Levels. English
Language Teaching Vol. 4, No. 4. (2011): 1-10.

-Brown, A.L. The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, Vol. 23 N.8.(1994): 4–

12.

-Brown, A. Group Work 3rd Edition Great Yarmouth. Ashgate Publishing, (1994).

-Brown Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. Universals in language usage: politeness

phenomena. Question and politeness, ed. by Esther N. Goody. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. (1978).

-Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1987).

-Dagmara G. Teacher’s Action Zone in Facilitating Group Dynamics. Lingvarvm Arena Vol.
3, (2012): 89 –-101.

-Dobao A. M. F. and Martínez I. M. P. Negotiating meaning in interaction between English

and Spanish speakers via communicative strategies. Atlantis, Vol.29 N.1, (2007): 87-105.

-Dörnyei, Z. Malderez, A. Group dynamics and foreign language teaching. Elsevier Science
Ltd .Vol, 25, No. 1. (1997):65-81.

-Dörnyei, Z.; Ehrman, M. E. Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Language Education: The

Visible and Invisible Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (1998).

-Dörnyei, Z.; Murphey, T. Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press (2003).

- Forsyth D. R. Group dynamics, 4ed, Tomson Wadsworth, (2006).

- Fasold, R. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and

Research Press and Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000.

-Gu, Y. Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14, (1990):237-257.

-Heron, J. 2006. The Complete Facilitator’s Handbook. London: Kogan Page. (2006). 14

111
-Ibnian K. Group Work and Attitudes of non-English Major Students towards Learning EFL.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. Vol.2, N.4 (2012):192-199

-Kasberg H. Politeness Strategies: A Theoretical Framework, Sociolinguistic Observations of

Politeness. (2012)

-Keyton, J. Introduction: The relational side of groups. Small Group Research, 31, (2000): 387-
396.

-Kiesling, S. F. and B. C. Paulston. Intercultural Discourse and Communication. The Essential

Readings, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. (2007).

-Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., Jochems, W. et al. Determining sociability, social space, and social
presence in a synchronous collaborative group. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, Vol. 7N. 2,
(2004):155–172.

-Konopka. G. Social Group Work: A Helping Process. England Cliffs, N.J. Practice Hall.
(1963).

-Langcope, P. The Universality of Face in Brown and Levinson’s Politeness theory: A Japanese
Perspective. Universality of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Education Linguistics, Vol 01,
N 01, (1995):69-79.

-Lee Hassel, S. The relationship between communication and team performance: testing
moderators and identifying communication profiles in established work teams. Doctoral thesis,
Faculty of Business, School of management. Queensland University of technology, Brisbane,
Australia. (2009).

-Leeming, P. Group Dynamics and SLA: A Review of the Literature. Humanities review, Vol.
16, (2011):147-155.

-Li, M. Politeness Strategies in Wiki-Mediated Communication of EFL Collaborative Writing

Tasks. The IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technology, Vol.42, N.2, (2012):1-26.

-Liu Peng and Fang Xie ,A Case Study of College Teacher's Politeness Strategy in EFL
Classroom .Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, (2014): 109-125.

-Monsefi M. and Hadidi, Y. Male and Female EFL Teachers’ Politeness Strategies in Oral
Discourse and their Effects on the Learning Process and Teacher-Student Interaction

112
,International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Vol. 3, Issue
2, (2015): 1-13.

- Munoz Luna R. From Communication to Collaboration InTEFL: Group Work Task Proposal
For The Teaching Of Business English,Anmal electronica 34, (2013): 200-217.

-Smith, Mark K. (2008). Group Work. www.infed.org/mobi/groupwork.

-Toseland Ronald. W. and Robert. F. Rivas. An Introduction to Group Writing Practice.

Chapter 3: Understanding Group Work, (2005).

-Vinagre, M. Politeness strategies in collaborative e-mail exchanges. Computers & Education

50, (2008) 1022-1036.

-Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (1978)-

- Taqi¹ H.A. & Al-Nouh. N.A. Effect of Group Work on EFL Students’ Attitudes and
Learning in Higher Education. Journal of Education and Learning; Vol. 3, No. 2; 2014. .
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jel.v3n2p52

-Hadi. J. Theories in Developing Oral Communication for Specific Learner Group. Mataram
Nahdlatul Wathan University. 2016.

-Soboroff. D. Group Size and the Trust, Cohesion, and Commitment of Group Members. The
Graduate College of the University of Iowa. 2016.

-Toseland. R & Rivas. F. An Introduction to Group Work Practice ; chapter 3. 2005.

-Pishghadam. R & Moghaddam. M. Group Work in EFL Children’s Classes: A Qualitative

Study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 622-629, June 2011.

-Sommerville, I. Software Engineering. Harlow, England. Addison Wesley, 2001.

-Nazzari A.-M. and J. Strazzabosco, “Group Dynamics and Team Building,”

DEVELOPMENT, no. 4, 2009.

-Yu. R. Interaction in EFL Classes. Asian Social Sciences. Vol.4, No.4; 2008 .

113
-Jaimini. N. Group Dynamics in Collaborative Learning: Contextual Issues and
Considerations. International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature. Vol. 2,
Issue 2, Feb 2014.

-Davies. W. M. Group Work as a Form of Assessment: Common Problems and Recommended

Solutions. Springer Science & Business Media. 2009.

114
 Appendix A

Dear Student,

This questionnaire is part of an MA research work. Gathering information from students is a

vital part of the process of teaching and learning programs improvement. You are kindly
invited to answer this questionnaire. Your answers are important to the validity of this
research.
N.B. Be sure that the information you provide will be anonymous.
Gender: Male Female

Age: 17-21 Se 22-24 More than that

Section One : Put a tick (√ ) in the space provided corresponding to your answer. There is
only one possible answer for each question.
Items Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
1. I developed many skills through working in
groups.
2.Group work decreases anxiety.
3.Group work is a waste of learning time.
4.Group work causes distraction in the classroom.
5.Paying attention to the language use when
interacting with your teammates can decrease
conflicts.
6.Group communication influences group work.

7.Group work enables you to enhance some skills

which individual work does not.
8.Mutual respect among group members enhances
their performance
9.Giving compliments during the work process
contributes in boosting your teammates’
10. Paying attention to word choice, voice and tone
decreases misunderstanding and conflicts
among group members.
11. Respecting each other’s wants helps
establishing a comfortable atmosphere for
work.
12. Relying on indirect language and giving hints,
while interacting with your teammates lead to
ambiguity and message loss thus your
teammates will not get your concern.

115
Section Two:

13. Describe your general impression toward group work.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

14. Do you encounter issues while working in groups?

Yes No

If yes, what are these issues?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
15. Do you tend to say what you do not like about the process of group work directly or
you give hints? why?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

16. In case one of your teammates suggested an idea, which you find useless, how
would you deliver your remark?
a. You would say it directly.
b. You try to ask for another suggestion.
c. You try to ask for clarification to avoid misunderstanding

17. In case one you are not satisfied with the work pace, would you express your
concern directly or indirectly? Why?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
18. In case you need your teammates’ help which of the following expressions you tend
to use most?
a. I need your help
b. Can you help me? Would you help me?
c. If it is not too much trouble …

116
19. In case one of your group members misunderstood you, what would you do?
a. You reformulate your sentence
b. You explain your point of view
c. You don’t take into account his/her point of view

20. When you intend to ask for feedback, which form of the following to tend to use
most?
a. Can you give me your opinion, please?
b. What do you think?
c. Give me your opinion
d.
21. In case you suggest an alternative solution, how would deliver it?
a. You impose it on your teammates.
b. You justify your choice and give your teammates options.
c. You give it indirectly to not influence their choice.

22. When your perspective is different from the majority of your team members, what
would you do?
a. You do not care.
b. You state it indirectly.
c. You explain your point of view.

23. In case your teammate/ s impose/s on you a task or an idea. What do you do?
a. You refuse
b. You ask them to justify your stance
c. You satisfy your teammate/s wants

24. Which of the following you tend to use with your teammates while interacting.?

a. Criticism
b. Orders and warnings
c. Seeking agreement

117
25. What do you do you in case you cause/have problems with your teammates?

a. you do nothing,
b. assume responsibility
c. apologize

26. When you teammates want the team to work in a particular way, how do you tend to
react?
b. You refuse
c. You agree
d. You compromise

27. In case of group failure, which of the identity markers you rely on when discussing
the issue?
b. We , Our , Us
c. You, Your
d. You use impersonalization
28. When you criticize your team, which of the followings you rely on?
a. You state it directly
b. You give hints
c. You state it indirectly
29. When you do not understand something related to the task or the work process.
a. You state your concern directly
b. You give hints
c. You rely on yourself

118
 Appendix B

Dear teacher,

We would very much appreciate if you could take the time and the energy to share your
experience by answering the questions below. Our research is interested in the significance of the
use of politeness forms in enhancing group work. Your answers are very important and of a great
help for conducting this work.

Gender:
Male Female
Teaching experience:
1-5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years
1. To what extent group work is used in your classroom.

A lot
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
2. How long have you been incorporating group work in you classroom?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

3. How do you describe the students’ performance when working in-groups?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Do you form the groups or you give the students the opportunity to choose their partners?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………................................................................................................................................
5. What do you think your students gain from working in groups?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
….……………..……………………………………………………………………………

119
6. According to your experience, what kind of problems students face during the group work
process?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
7. Do these problems affect the lesson objectives? If yes How?
Yes No
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. How do you tend to solve these issues?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
9. Do you think that group communication has a great impact on the group work process?
How and Why?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
10. How does group behavior affect the group work process?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………….…………………………………………………………………………………
………
11. Do you think that the extent to which group members know each other can affect their
work? Why?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……
12. Do you believe that the way group members address each other when working affect the
group members’ performance? If yes how?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……
13. If group members show respect to each other, how would this improve the group work?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

120
14. How would the group members function and interact if they make use of polite discourse?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

15. Do you think that group members’ dependence on avoiding assumptions, apologizing, as
well as the use of friendly language while interacting with will decrease each other the
likelihood of facing conflicts. Why?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

16. What are the problems that can occur due to group members’ violation of freedom of
actions?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

17. How group members’ dependence on consensus has an impact group work?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
18. What impact does group members’ use of unity markers such as “we, us, our” have on the
work process?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
19. Have you thought about politeness as factor enhancing group work?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
20. How does students’ awareness about the use of politeness forms contribute to the success
of group work?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

121