Luận văn thạc sĩ Ngôn ngữ học: Investigating oral participation in in-class group work by first-year students at English Department, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi

TONG THI MY LIEN

INVESTIGATING ORAL PARTICIPATION IN

IN-CLASS GROUP WORK BY FIRST-YEAR STUDENTSAT ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF

LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

NGHIEN CUU VIEC THAM GIA NOI TRONG HOAT

DONG NHOM TREN LOP CUA SINH VIEN NAM THU

NHAT TAI KHOA ANH, DAI HỌC NGOẠI NGU

-ĐHQG HA NOI

M.A Combined Program Thesis

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology

Code: 60-14-10

Supervisor: Ms Dinh Hai Yén (M.A.)

HANOI - 2010

OIE GNI? AI ââ SẰ>Ằ>>>>>- 4

1.3 ESL/ EFL students’ participation in group Work - 2s szszz 222 11

1.3.1 The importance of ESL/ EFL students’ participation in group work lãi1.3.2 Patterns of students’ participation in group Work s5 I]

1.3.3 Students’ lack of participation in group WoF - + + scs+z +3 12

1.4 Influential factors on ESL/EFL students’ participation in in-class group work 13

1.4.1 Student-relatedfactors 0 cccccccccceceesseeeeseeeseeeseeesseessessseveserseeses 14

ee 15

1.4.3 Culture-related ƒq€fOF $ - - - 1 3832285882115 221E£22225522155225 524 16

1.5 Teachers’ monitoring strategies to increase students’ participation in group

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODS

acl align cod utxnsnvennsnsorncouerarenenesensaisineverinsvescsesaursusicesee 20

3.1 Students’ perceptions towards group WOFK -:-: :-:-cccc+c->: 263.2 Students’ participation in in-class group Work -:-:-:-:-: 32

3.3 Factors affecting students’ participation in in-class group Work 43

3.4 Teachers’ monitoring strategies during group work 60

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ED: English Department

EFL: English as a Foreign LanguageELT: English Language Teaching

ESL: English as a Second language

ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies

NNS: Non-native English Speaker

NNSs: Non-native English Speakers

NS: Native English Speaker

NSs: Native English Speakers

VNU: Vietnam National University

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Students’ perceptions towards group work

Table 3.2: Students’ participation in in-class group workTable 3.3: Student-related factors

Table 3.4: Pedagogy-related factorsTable 3.5: Culture-related factors

Table 3.6: Teachers’ monitoring strategies during group work — Teacher application

Table 3.7: Teachers’ monitoring strategies during group work — Student preference

Table 3.8: Teachers’ observed monitoring strategies during group work

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Students’ perceptions of group work’s advantages

Figure 3.2: Students’ perceptions of group work’s disadvantagesFigure 3.3: Participation patterns in in-class group work

Figure 3.4: Quality of ideas shared in in-class group work

Figure 3.5: Participation imbalance in in-class group work

Figure 3.6: Number of turns taken by different group members

Figure 3.7: Amount of talking time of different group members

Figure 3.8: Student-related factors

Figure 3.9: Pedagogy-related factors

Figure 3.10: Culture-related factors

1 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RATIONALE

Group work has been widely believed to offer various advantages such as enhancingstudents’ interaction, generating a supportive atmosphere, creating chances to use thetarget language and promoting learner autonomy (Long & Porter, 1985; Brown, 2001).Thus, it has blossomed in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign

Language (EFL) classrooms The emphasis on group activities is particularly noteworthy

in Vietnamese English Language Teaching (ELT) setting where students are EFL learners

and have few opportunities to use English in daily life (Vo, 2004) Nonetheless, theeffectiveness of group work has been reconsidered closely since Tickoo (1991, p.53) leftthe open question “is group work a pedagogic universal or a partial remedy?” after hisexperiment comparing the success of a group-work class with a teacher-directed one Since

then, the need to examine how group-work theory works in practice has rapidly emerged.

Addressing this issue, in the world of language teaching, various studies such as those byJones (1995), Zhenhui (2001), Martine (2003), Yuenfeng (2005), and Chen (2004) were

conducted to discover what actually happened when implementing group activities in

language classrooms However, deep empirical investigations in the sub-area of students’

participation and influential factors on their participation in group work were few in

number — Martine (2003) and Yuenfeng (2005) Pitifully, those merely explored learners’

oral participation level measured by the number of turns taken and the amount of talkingtime Thus, a more comprehensive evaluation of their participation would be highly

appreciated in the research field.

In addition, although Martine (2003) discovered many possible influential elements, it was

targeted at mixed-culture groups of native-English-speaker (NS) and

non-native-English-speaker (NNS) postgraduate students, rather than single-culture groups of tertiary EFIlearners In the meantime, Yuenfeng (2005) examined tertiary EFL learners in single-

culture groups, but it only focused on two factors, namely task types and teacher roles

Furthermore, all of the related studies (Martine, 2003; Yuenfeng, 2005; Melles, 2004;

Jones, 1995) simply based on the qualitative methods Accordingly, in those investigations,

there might be inevitably potential limitations of relying on a single approach (Nunan,

The urgency to do research into the discussed matter becomes significant, when it comes to

the ELT context of University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam NationalUniversity (ULIS, VNU) Although group work is a familiar ELT method at EnglishDepartment (ED), it is considerably new for the majority of freshmen, who have had littleprevious group-learning experience in high school Consequently, it has inevitably posedhuge challenges for both teachers and students at this site.

The study entitled “investigating oral participation in in-class group work by first-year

EFL students at ED, ULIS, VNU” was conducted as an attempt to examine theperceptions of first-year EFL learners at ULIS, VNU towards group work, investigate theirparticipation level and quality in group work, find out possible influential factors on their

participation, and pinpoint teachers’ monitoring strategies to motivate students to

participate in group activities Hopefully, this research, focusing on single-culture groups

of Vietnamese EFL students at tertiary level, could narrow the abovementioned research

gaps and bring new perspectives to the field.

2 AIMS OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to investigate the oral participation of first-year EFI

students at ULIS, VNU in in-class group work Specifically, it addressed the followingresearch questions:

1 What do first-year EFL students at ULIS, VNU think about group work?

2 How are those students’ level and quality of oral participation in in-class group work?

3 What factors affect those students’ oral participation in in-class group work?

4 Which monitoring strategies have EFL teachers at the research site applied to increase

the students’ oral participation in in-class group work? Which ones are preferred by

the students?

From the findings, the researcher would recommend several pedagogical implications to

motivate and balance the oral participation of first-year EFL students at ULIS, VNU ingroup work, eliminate negative influential factors on their participation, and boost positive

3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Due to time constraints, instead of aiming at group activities in general, the study focusedon those conducted within classroom contexts Besides, the study merely examined the oralparticipation of EFL students rather than both verbal and non-verbal aspects Moreover, itwas carried out with just a sample of 100 first-year EFL students and five teachers of

English at ED at ULIS, VNU.

4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Although the study was conducted on a small scale with a particular group of first-year

EFL students at ULIS, VNU, the researcher hoped that its findings could be of greatsignificance Specifically, it would contribute to the existing knowledge in the fieldconcerning group work, students’ participation in group work, influential factors on theirparticipation, and teachers’ strategies to motivate students to participate Moreover, it

could help to raise awareness of first-year EFL students at ULIS, as well as EFL learners,about the problems in the participation of their peers in in-class group work and certain

elements affecting their participation It could also assist teachers of English to recognize

what encourage or discourage a number of their students from participating in group

activities so that they could adjust their teaching methods to motivate their students in

language learning Finally, it would propose several useful recommendations for teachers

to minimize negative impacts of influential factors on students’ participation in group

5 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

The research report consists of three parts The Introduction presents the rationale, aims,

scope, and significance of the study The Development includes three chapters ChapterOne covers an in-depth review of the literature in which relevant theoretical backgroundand reviews of related studies concerning group work, ESL/EFL students’ participation ingroup work, influential factors, and teachers’ monitoring strategies are discussed Chapter

Two continues with the research methods including the participants of the study, the

methods and procedures of data collection and data analysis Chapter Three demonstrates

the findings accompanied by data analysis and interpretation The Conclusion ends the

report with the summary of the findings, pedagogical implications, limitations of the study

and suggestions for further studies.

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter gives an overview of the literature related to the present study In the chapter,definitions of key terms (group work and participation) and selected theoreticalbackground such as group organization, benefits, and problems of group work arepresented Then the review of the areas relevant to the research questions, namely

ESL/EFL students’ participation, influential factors on their participation, and teachers’

monitoring strategies to encourage them to participate in in-class group work, is also

1.1 DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS

1.1.1 GROUP WORK

There is a general consensus among educators about the definition of group work For

example, group work is “a generic term covering a multiplicity of techniques in which two

or more students are assigned a task that involves collaboration and self-initiated language”

(Brown, 2001, p.177) Doff (1998) gives a simpler explanation:

Group work is a process that the teacher divides the class into small groups to worktogether (usually four or five students in each group) and all the groups work at the same

time (p.138).

Vo (2004) also follows Doff's approach as she defines group work as “any classroom

activity in which students perform collaborative tasks with one or more partners” (p.16).

On the whole, it is widely agreed that group work is a process in which two or more

learners work together to do a task which involves cooperation and self-generated

Although applying group work in classroom contexts has been extensively discussed in the

literature, not much has been said about the classification of group activities Johnson and

Smith (1991) are among the few researchers who have touched upon this matter

systematically According to them, basically, there are three main kinds of group work:

informal learning groups, formal learning groups, and study teams First, informal learning

groups are a form of grouping students temporarily within a single class session A class ofany size can be organized into informal groups at any time of the lesson to check students’

understanding of the material, or to provide them with chances to apply what they arelearning (Johnson and Smith, 1991) For instance, teachers may ask those sitting near each

other to work in teams and spend five minutes discussing a topic Second, formal learninggroups are groups which are formed to do a specific task such as delivering a presentation,

or conducting a project (Johnson and Smith, 1991) In these groups, students work togetherin one class session or even for several weeks until they have finished their task, and

teachers will grade their work Finally, study teams are long-term groups with stablemembers which usually exist during a semester The objectives of these teams are to

encourage and support their members in meeting course requirements and doingassignments or to inform those who have missed a lesson about lectures and assignments

(Johnson and Smith, 1991) Due to the small scale of this study, only the type of informal

learning groups within a single class session is discussed.

In general, in this research the term “group work” refers to oral activities done in smallgroups inside the classroom, normally in the form of group discussions.

1.1.2 PARTICIPATION

So far, research has focused greatly on students’ participation in classroom discussions,

concerning both verbal and non-verbal participation (Lee, 2005; Liu, 2001) Verbal

participation means speaking in class, answering and asking questions, giving comments,

and taking part in discussions (Lee, 2005) Those who do not participate in the

aforementioned ways are often regarded as passive learners, and are penalized when

participation is graded On the contrary, non-verbal participation refers to behavioral

responses during the lesson such as head nodding, hand raising, body gestures, and eye

contact (Lee, 2005).

Similarly, students’ participation in group activities can be assessed in terms of verbal and

non-verbal participation as well Nonetheless, evaluating non-verbal participation will take

much time; therefore, due to time constraints, the scope of this study was merely restricted

to investigating students’ verbal participation.

Besides, when investigating oral participation, researchers have just paid attention to the

observable aspects of participation such as the number of turns taken or the amount of

talking time (Martine, 2003) However, the researcher of the present study supposed that

the quality of ideas students give out during the activities should be also judged so that a

more comprehensive evaluation of students’ participation can be made.

To sum up, this study examined students’ oral participation, measured by their number of

turns taken, their amount of talking time, and the quality of their ideas shared during group

work to create a more comprehensive investigation.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF GROUP WORK

1.2.1 GROUP ORGANIZATION

When deciding to use this kind of activity, teachers have to think of group organization,involving two factors: how big a group should be (group size), and how students can be

allocated to groups (group formation).

There are several arguments about group size According to Honeyfield (1991), a team can

contain between five and eight students Meanwhile, Brown (2001) argues that the number

of between two and six learners is appropriate In fact, the size of a group depends oncertain elements such as the number of students in the class, the task itself and the duration

of the activity (Zhenhui, 2001; Chen, 2004) Nevertheless, small groups of four or fiveappear to be the most effective It is likely to create more interesting and challenging tasks

with a variety of opinions shared, and adequate negotiation among members to reachagreement (Honeyfield, 1991) Harmer (2001) also stresses students’ great involvement

and participation that can be generated in such small-group work.

In terms of group formation, a review of the literature shows that teams can be created by

three major ways, namely random grouping, student-selected grouping and formed grouping First, random grouping is the way to divide learners into groups bychance (Chen, 2004; Honeyfield, 1991) Depending on the availability of time and kinds of

instructor-tasks, teachers may either group those sitting near each other or use games or competitionsto form teams Chen (2004) claims that random grouping is by far the most commonly

used in in-class activities for its convenience and readiness Second, student-selected

grouping or free grouping is the most preferred by students (Chen, 2004; Honeyfield,1991) By this way, they have the right to choose their own members Due to its basis onfriendship, it tends to encourage them to take part in the activities actively (David, 1993, ascited in Chen, 2004) Finally, groups might be formed by teachers’ own decisionsconcerning several factors (Chen, 2004) For example, Honeyfield (1991) suggests thatthey can base on learners’ proficiency level to divide teams, specifically same proficiency

level grouping and mixed proficiency level grouping Additionally, they might takestudents’ prior achievements, level of preparation, working habits, or learning preferences

into consideration (Chen, 2004).

In a nutshell, the given discussion on group organization indicates that as there are many

available options to choose from, when deciding on group size and group formation,

teachers have to consider many elements like class size, the duration of the activity,

classroom conditions, or students’ characteristics.

1.2.2 BENEFITS OF GROUP WORK

There is general agreement among scholars that group work brings a variety of advantages,including enhancing students’ interaction, generating a supportive atmosphere, creating

chances to use the target language and promoting learner autonomy.

In the first place, group work contributes to the enhancement of students’ interaction (Long

& Porter, 1985) As it offers them more chances to interact with each other, greater

involvement and accountability can be produced within a group Thanks to this, their

communicative competence, cognitive learning, interactive skills and interpersonal

relationships tend to be promoted (Zhenhui, 2001).

Secondly, a cooperative affective classroom atmosphere is likely to be created throughgroup activities (Zhenhui, 2001; Brown, 2001) According to Gower (1987, as cited in

Yuenfeng, 2005), since the pressure of being listened to by the teacher tends to blur when

working in teams, learners feel more relaxed and more ready to speak Cooperation and

unity among them can be also facilitated (Zhenhui, 2001; Luft, 1984, as cited in Martine,

Another benefit is generating a better environment for students to use the target language(Chen, 2004) Learning in groups, students, especially the poorly motivated ones, havegreater opportunities for active, meaningful and varied use of the target language (Long,1977, as cited in Zhenhui, 2001; Chen, 2004) Such an ideal interactive environment is

essential to communicative language learning.

Furthermore, group activities can promote learner autonomy (Brown, 2001; Bourner et al.,2001, as cited in Yuenfeng, 2005) Because students can make their own decisions without

being told what to do by the teacher, they are likely to be more responsible for their

learning (Harmer, 2001).

Overall, group work is commonly supposed to bring four main advantages such asenhancing students’ interaction, generating a supportive atmosphere, creating chances to

use the target language and promoting learner autonomy However, many researchers still

question whether those benefits of group work really take place in the real educational

setting They have shown that group work displays certain problems, which will be

elaborated in the next section 1.2.3.

1.2.3 PROBLEMS OF GROUP WORK

There is a fair amount of literature on problems of group work Within the scope of this

research, the most common problems in class, namely intolerable noises, overuse of

mother tongue, exposure to imperfect language, and unbalanced participation among group

members, will be reviewed as follows.

First, group work in class inevitably results in a noisy and chaotic classroom Right from

the beginning of a group activity, the organization stage involving grouping students might

cause extensive noises (Harmer, 2001) Moreover, Ngoh (1991) adds that noises can be

easily generated from students’ confusion when not understanding the instructions for the

assigned task at the instruction stage Even worse, as Chen (2004) claims, once learners are

unclear about what they are going to do, they may then fall into mutual arguments orirrelevant chatting conversations.

Moreover, students, especially elementary or even intermediate ones, tend to rely much ontheir native language rather than using the target language (Chen, 2004; Yuenfeng, 2005).This is exactly the distinctive feature of a monolingual class where all share a commonmother tongue (Ngoh, 1991; Brown, 2001) As Ngoh (1991) indicates, when engaged ingroup interaction, those of low linguistic competence often resort to their native language;

teacher insistence on using English to communicate might lead to their complete silence.

In addition, learners are prone to expose themselves to imperfect language Ngoh (1991)raises the question whether they are really learning from each other in the fear that

inaccurate production may allow the fossilization of inaccurate structures As Prabhu(1987, as cited in Tickoo, 1991) further explains, working in groups, students have to

depend on other members for linguistic data while few are known to possess error-free

language Thus, interaction between members in teams certainly causes the great risk of

fossilization; in other words, common errors will gradually take firm roots in theirindividual linguistic systems (Prabhu, 1987, as cited in Tickoo, 1991) This is even moredangerous as the teacher has little chance to make corrections and, accordingly, students

will simply reinforce each other’s errors (Brown, 2001).

Finally, group activities cause unbalanced participation among members (Chen, 2004).

This may be because some may fall into roles that easily become fossilized; consequently,

they turn out to be passive whereas the others might dominate (Harmer, 2001) The lack ofparticipation of some members in groups and many others factors inhibiting students to

participate will be further elaborated in the sections 1.3 and 1.4.

In summary, it is widely agreed that group work might generate many problems such as

intolerable noises, overuse of mother tongue, exposure to imperfect language, and

unbalanced participation among members.

1.3 ESL/EFL STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN GROUP WORK

1.3.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF ESL/ EFL STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION INGROUP WORK

In ESL/ EFL settings, participation in classroom activities is evidently important for

efficient learning to occur since participating actively brings students opportunities to useand practice their linguistic and communicative skills (Gomez, 1995) Furthermore,research has shown that students who participate enthusiastically tend to have betteracademic achievement in comparison with those who do not participate For example,Swain (1993) claims that when producing the language they are studying, students cangradually boost their linguistic fluency.

As regards working in groups, without their active participation, learners might not gainany benefits of group work (see 1.2.2) In that case, applying group activities in classroomcontexts will become a waste of time and effort Therefore, students’ participation is

indispensable in this kind of activity It is part of the learning process, which generates

interaction and initiates the use of the target language among them (MclInnis, 2006).Dynamic participation by all members is one of the qualities of an effective group activity.

Nevertheless, as McInnis (2006) pitifully states, a large number of students are not actually

aware of the role of participation in group work They might not understand whatadvantages group activities can bring to them This leads to their hesitance to contribute,

which will be discussed in section 1.3.3.

1.3.2 PATTERNS OF STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN GROUP WORK

As mentioned earlier, research has concentrated much on students’ participation in the

classroom Liu (2001) is one example In his research, he even points out four classroomparticipation patterns, namely total integration, conditional participation, marginal

interaction, and silent observation.

Firstly, total integration refers to students who actively participate in classroomdiscussions, knowing exactly when to speak up and what to say (Liu, 2001) Visibly, they

display spontaneous, appropriate, and natural participation.

Secondly, conditional participation is constrained by a range of elements such as

socio-cultural, cognitive, affective, linguistic or environmental ones (Liu, 2001) Due to thosefactors, learners’ participation and interaction with others and the teacher are often limited.

Furthermore, during the discussions, they are still confused in finding out when to speak,

what to say, and which behavior to display.

Marginal interaction is characterized by students who are attentive listeners but rarely

speak up (Liu, 2001) Instead of participating actively, they opt for listening or note-taking.Still, when attempting to speak up at times, they are often confident since it is the outcome

of careful thinking and internal rehearsal.

In the final pattern - silent observation, students tend to withdraw from oral classroomparticipation (Liu, 2001) They appear to accept whatever is discussed and say nothing to

respond to their peers.

However, Liu (2001) emphasizes that students do not follow a fixed pattern of

participation at all times Instead, their behaviors may differ in different class sessions,depending on their perceptions which are influenced by complex factors.

In conclusion, there are four participation patterns in the classroom: total integration,

conditional participation, marginal interaction, and silent observation Certainly, thosepatterns can be applied to the case of group activities When students work in teams, they

may also behave in the abovementioned ways.

1.3.3 STUDENTS’ LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN GROUP WORK

Several studies such as Ngoh (1991), Tickoo (1991), Martine (2003) and Yuenfeng (2005)

have demonstrated that working in groups might not be as effective as expected due to

students’ lack of participation.

Learners’ lack of participation visibly happens in group activities For instance, in Jamesand Devlin’s study (2001, as cited in Melles, 2004), a large number of ESL learnersconfessed that they found it hard to participate in group work Ngoh (1991) states that thiseasily occurs at the process stage, where they are involved in oral interaction, or the

presentation stage In fact, it is difficult to get everybody involved actively (Yuenfeng,

2005) It may be because some may fall into roles that easily become fossilized;

consequently, they turn out to be passive whereas the others might dominate (Harmer,2001) Moreover, there are numerous factors lying behind learners’ lack of participation ingroup activities, which will be further discussed in the next section 2.4.

This lack of participation of several members apparently results in unbalanced

participation (Chen, 2004) As Tickoo (1991, p.46) illustrates, “very often one or twogroup members not only steal turns and grab opportunities but very often do almost all thetalking The rest may not even be allowed words in edgeways.” Evidently, an empirical

study on 14 Non-Native English Speakers (NNSs) and four Native English Speakers (NSs)in two MA teacher-training courses at the University of Birmingham revealed a high levelof dominance of NS learners over NNS ones when discussing in groups (Martine, 2003).

This is obvious because NNS students’ language proficiency is known to be much lower

than NS ones However, it is also the case of groups of EFL learners as identified in thecomprehensive study on Chinese first-year students by Yuenfeng (2005) Thus, it can be

concluded that the imbalance in students’ participation is likely to occur in any classroom

In general, to date, previous studies have indicated a serious lack of participation ofESL/EFL learners in group work, which leads to an imbalance of participation among

members of a team The factors lying behind this will be discussed in the next section 1.4.

1.4 INFLUENTIAL FACTORS ON ESL/EFL STUDENTS’

PARTICIPATION IN IN-CLASS GROUP WORK

So far, a number of studies have elaborated various elements either encouraging or

inhibiting ESL/ EFL students from participating in in-class group work Those can be

grouped into three categories, namely student-related, pedagogy-related, and related factors.

culture-1.4.1 STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS

Claims about ESL/EFL students’ lack of participation in group work largely focus on

elements associated with students themselves The first significant factor is languagedifficulties (Baker & Panko, 1998, as cited in Melles, 2004) As a study on groups of NNSand NS learners in a teacher-training context by Martine (2003) revealed, someparticipants in small-group discussions showed their anxiety about their languageproficiency Owing to their poor vocabulary and grammar, they found it hard to expresstheir ideas; consequently, they stayed silent for most of the time.

Secondly, background or subject knowledge is of vital importance (Chong, 1999;Yuenfeng, 2005) As Martine (2003) clarifies, some avoid participating because they do

not know much about the discussed topic, and therefore, have few ideas to share He also

supposes that sometimes, their lack of confidence as being less knowledgeable than the

others can explain for their non-participation.

Martine (2003) also figures out students’ difficulties with some aspects of discourse as an

influential element In his study, many Asian learners expressed their unfamiliarity with

turn taking and uncertainty about the applications of turn taking when working with others.

Specifically, they did not know when and how to take turns.

Besides, acceptance of group work might influence student participation In Martine’s

project (2003), some participants claimed that their positive attitudes toward group work

stimulated them to raise their voice during group discussions with NSs Meanwhile,

according to Ngoh (1991), the inability to perceive the value of group work is detrimentalto students’ contributions Those who believe that group work brings no benefits might

withdraw from the activity, sharing no ideas and giving no responses.

Another element is students’ previous experience with group work The lack of exposure togroup work of the majority of NNS learners was a great hindrance in group participation

(Martine, 2003) Despite their desire to participate, it was difficult for them to do so since

they were not familiar with working in groups, lacking group work or communication

skills to negotiate with others.

Lastly, students’ personalities might determine their participation level in group work (Vo,

2004) Yuenfeng (2005) exemplifies that some might be too shy to contribute; as a result,they stay silent during the activity.

1.4.2 PEDAGOGY-RELATED FACTORS

Pedagogy-related factors refer to the impact of the task, the teacher, and peers on studentsduring group work.

Firstly, the level of difficulty of the task and the level of interest of the topic can affect

students’ participation As shown in the classroom research on a group of Vietnamesesecondary learners by Vo (2004), several participants said nothing when they found thetopic uninteresting or difficult.

Secondly, teacher role plays a part in learners’ participation ratio Vo’s (2004) indicates

that many students are not motivated to join the group activity if the teacher does not set upclear rules for group-work participation Moreover, an experimental study with 30 first-year EFL Chinese students found that the teacher’s clear instructions and his absence

during group interaction encouraged students to speak more and created a more balancedperformance (Yuenfeng, 2005).

Finally, learners are being seriously influenced by peers According to Ohata (2005),

despite their initial intention to participate, students might fee! anxious for fear of negative

evaluation from their peers Meanwhile, Vo (2004) emphasized the influence of commoninterests by pointing out students’ discomfort and boredom when working with those theydislike In other words, the satisfaction level of participation partly depends on group

members’ willingness to cooperate In addition, Martine (2003) states that the lack of

participation of peers has an antagonistic effect on those who participate more, i.e their

compulsion to talk more than they like due to the lack of input from others.

1.4.3 CULTURE-RELATED FACTORS

The lack of participation in group work might be the matter of cultural influences as well

(Ngoh, 1991) A relatively large body of research has reached consensus on the role ofculture in ESL/EFL learner participation in groups due to its effects on their approaches to

group work (Andrews & Dekkers, 1999; Anyanwu, 2000, as cited in Melles, 2004) Chan

(1999, as cited in Melles, 2004) even says that NNS students’ lack of participation issometimes assumed to be a cultural disposition Among the researchers, Martine (2003)goes deep into this issue by giving further clarification about cultural impact, which is

strongly supported by Yuenfeng (2005).

First, cultural factor refers to theories on uncertainty avoidance including the concept of

face and the fear of losing face, which visibly exists in Asian culture (Martine, 2003).

Interestingly, while Martine (2003) draws attention to students’ fear of losing face in front

of their peers, Yuenfeng (2005) states that students will keep silent rather than lose face infront of their teacher Furthermore, the fear of losing face is somehow associated with the

feelings about their language proficiency and confidence (Martine, 2003).

Cultural influences also include the value of silence in certain cultures (Chong, 1999;

Martine, 2003) In Asian culture, silence is considered to be important, which leads to the

common perception of the classroom as a place of quiet learners (Jones, 1995) Forinstance, as it is a Chinese tradition to listen more and speak less, Chinese students get

used to listening carefully (Yuenfeng, 2005) This is also true in the case of Vietnamese

students It is ntoiceable that in Martine’s study (2003), some Asian participants’

non-participation resulted from their unawareness of NS group members’ low appreciation of

silence in conversations.

Thirdly, learners’ views on direct disagreement and co-operation have a significant impact

on their involvement in group work (Martine, 2003) This is closely related to the emphasis

of politeness in Asian culture For instance, Yuenfeng (2005) pinpoints that Chinesestudents tend to consider interrupting as an impolite behavior Moreover, compromising

appears to play an important role in certain societies; thus, learners from those societies try

to avoid arguments by not expressing their opinions in group activities (Martine, 2003)

As seen, no matter what educational context (single-culture or mixed-culture groups)

students belong to, the influence of cultural factors on their participation is still visible.

On the whole, to date, previous researchers have elaborated a variety of factors that might

motivate or inhibit ESL/EFL students’ participation in in-class group work, ranging from

student-related, pedagogy-related to culture-related ones.

1.5 TEACHERS’ MONITORING STRATEGIES TO INCREASESTUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN GROUP WORK

Literature on teachers’ strategies has indicated several basic strategies which teachers can

apply to monitor students to ensure their active participation during group activities.

First, when teams start working, teachers should keep distance from them for a short period

of time so that they are more comfortable to start the activity, working on the task by

themselves (Brown, 2001) They can stand at the front or the side of the class and observe

what is happening.

However, afterwards, teachers’ intervention during group work is absolutely necessary.They should move around to unobtrusively listen and observe and encourage interaction,monitor groups through listening to them, checking whether they are effectivelyperforming their assigned jobs, reminding them to stay focused, remind dominant speakers

to share speaking turns with others, and encourage shy members to present their ideas(Hyland, 1991) This can help to ensure that group members are actively participating In

addition, teachers should assign further tasks for those who have finished earlier (Ngoh,

Moreover, they should provide language help when needed (Ngoh, 1991) Also, common

language errors should be either treated immediately or noted for later correction (Ngoh,

1991) Nevertheless, it is highly suggested that only oral errors that affect intelligibility ofa message should be corrected (Walz, 1982, as cited in Ngoh, 1991) This supports to build

learners’ confidence in learning the language.

Nevertheless, several educators emphasize that it is essential for teachers not to provideexcessive guidance and support for the students For instance, Oakley and Crocker (1977)

argue that when teachers intervene to support teams, even as asked by students, this usually

ends with the teacher giving directions Thus, the intervention produces far more teachertalk than student talk.

In summary, recent research has shown that there are a series of monitoring strategieswhich teachers may apply in group work to stimulate their students to participate moreactively Nonetheless, it largely depends on individual teachers to choose the appropriateones for their own classroom contexts, and determine the sufficient amount of their

interference in students’ performance during the process of each group activity.

1.6 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH

The abovementioned discussion of related studies in the area concerning group work,

students’ participation, influential factors on students’ participation, and teachers’

monitoring strategies serves to demonstrate how the present research could fit into the

existing literature.

In the first place, so far, research has just elaborated on students’ participation in classroom

discussions (Lee, 2005; Liu, 2001; Gomez, 1995; Swain, 1993) There were merely a fewinvestigations into their participation in group activities (Martine, 2003; Yuenfeng, 2005).

Therefore, this study could play an important role in exploring this issue more thoroughly

to enrich the literature.

Moreover, among all the reviewed studies, only two by Martine (2003) and Yuenfeng(2005) were close to the present research Both of those examined students’ oral

participation level and factors affecting their participation in group work Meanwhile, not

only did this study investigate these issues more deeply but it also looked into students’

participation quality, which helped to yield a more comprehensive evaluation of their

participation It even touched upon teachers’ monitoring strategies to motivate their

participation as well Therefore, the present study’s inquiry was relevant and significant in

the research field.

In addition, although Martine (2003) discovered many possible influential elements, it wastargeted at mixed-culture groups of NS and NNS postgraduate students, rather than single-culture groups of EFL tertiary learners In the meantime, Yuenfeng (2005) examined EFL

tertiary learners in single-culture groups, but it only focused on two factors, namely tasktypes and teacher roles Thus, the present research, paying attention to all the factors thatmight affect the participation of single-culture groups of Vietnamese EFL students attertiary level, could bring new perspectives to the field for its broader scope, different

context and participants.

Furthermore, all of the related studies (Martine, 2003; Yuenfeng, 2005; Melles, 2004;

Jones, 1995) simply based on the qualitative methods Accordingly, in those investigations,

there might be inevitably potential limitations of relying on a single approach (Nunan,

1992) Hence, the present study using both qualitative and quantitative data attempted to

address this gap.

Lastly, the issue under investigation was not thoroughly explored in Vietnam The study byVo (2004) only examined the effects of grouping arrangements on student participation.Consequently, this research was an effort to tackle the matter deeply in Vietnamese ELT

monitoring strategies to motivate students’ participation, accompanied by the researcher's

justification for the present study.

The details of the research, including the methodology and the findings, will be described

in the next chapters.

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODS

The chapter provides a description of the research implementation, including the

participants of the study, the methods and procedures of data collection and data analysis

accompanied by the researcher’s justifications.

2.1 PARTICIPANTS

The target sample of the research consisted of 100 first-year EFL students from fiverandomly-chosen classes at ED at ULIS, VNU The main reason for choosing those first-year students was that they had just started their study at university for a short period oftime; as a result, they might not get used to university studying and teaching methods.

Particularly, many of them had had little previous experience with working in groups, and

consequently, might encounter a range of problems when participating in such activities.

Thus, investigating this population could be of great benefit to the students themselves and

the teachers at the research site, where the researcher had been working as a lecturer ofEnglish In addition, the number of 100 participants suited the nature of the study Due toits aim at exploring students’ participation, it required a big sample to ensure its credibility.

The participants were also five teachers of English at ED at ULIS, VNU who were

teaching those five classes This sample was selected in order to support data

triangulation Moreover, the issues could be seen from the teachers’ viewpoints;

accordingly, it would undoubtedly increase the research’s objectivity.

In summary, the choice of the population supported to ensure the validity, reliability and

objectivity of the present study.

2.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS

To address the research questions raised in the introduction, both quantitative and

qualitative approaches were applied in order to reduce potential limitations of relying on a

single approach and enhance confidence in the collected data as recommended by Nunan

(1992) Quantitative method was favored because it could provide objective, quantifiable

and generalized data (Bordens & Abbott, 1999) In the meantime, qualitative method waschosen for its “being close to the insider perspective” and “yielding real, rich and deep

data” (Brown & Rodgers, 2002, p.103) Instead of simply answering how well, how much

or how accurately something is done, qualitative research would bring an in-depth andcomprehensive understanding of the phenomena (Bordens & Abbott, 1999) Hence,quantitative and qualitative methods could supplement each other (Firestone, 1987, as cited

in Burnes, 1999).

The data were collected by three instruments, namely questionnaires, semi-structuredinterviews, and observations This combination of various means of data collectionestablished a triangulation to enhance data reliability and validity through multiple sources(Burns, 1994, as cited in Burnes, 1999) The data collection methods would be described in

details below.

2.2.1 QUESTIONNAIRES

The questionnaire was used for two major advantages First, it helped collect a large

amount of information without consuming too much time (Nunan, 1992) Second, it could

be applied successfully with different people in many situations targeting various topics

(Gillham, 2000, as cited in Brown & Rodgers, 2002) Therefore, it suited the scale of this

research — investigating a large number of participants.

In the study, the questionnaire (see Appendix 9) was targeted at students, and aimed at

collecting statistical data to answer the research questions It included four main parts: thefirst part with eight questions about students’ perceptions of group work, the second part

with nine questions about their oral participation level and quality in group activities, the

third part with 23 questions about factors affecting their participation, and the final partwith 12 questions about teachers’ monitoring strategies applied and preferred during theprocess of group work implementation Most of those were close-ended, commonly in the

form of Likert scale Close-ended questions were favored because they appeared to be eas)for the respondents to answer, convenient for the researcher to collate and analyze

responses and useful to get specific information about the issue examined (Vajendra and

Mallick, 1999) Meanwhile, as open-ended questions could “accurately reflect what the

respondents want to say” (Vajendra and Mallick, 1999, p.143), two open-ended questionswere also included in the questionnaire to minimize any superficiality and ensure datareliability Overall, the two types of questions complemented each other well to yield a

credible source of data.

It is also necessary to note that the design of the questionnaire revealed the exploitation of

clear, concise and natural language and the consideration of avoiding leading,

double-barreled questions, and double negatives as suggested by Nunan (1992).

2.2.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

Semi-structured interviews were employed for several reasons First, they could bring theinterviewer great flexibility to focus more on remarkable points (Nunan, 1992).Furthermore, interactions in a semi-structured interview were “incredibly rich”; thecollected data could be “extraordinary evidence about life” that might not be gained in astructured interview or questionnaire (Nunan, 1992, p 93) Accordingly, they could createrich, thick data for a valid and well-researched study.

In the research, the interviews were used to triangulate and enrich the questionnaire data.

There were four interview schedules, two for the teachers and two for the students Eachschedule included several main questions for the researcher to base on to keep track with

the objectives of the study during the interviews rather than ask random questions, which

may lead her too far from the focus of the investigation However, as the interviews went

along, possible relevant questions would be added to generate more useful details.

In terms of teacher interviews (see Appendix 6), the first schedule with four questions wasintended to collect the same information in the student questionnaire but seen from

teachers’ viewpoints The second schedule with two questions was used to ask teachers torecall about the observed group activities, focusing on students’ oral participation level and

quality in those activities, and teachers’ monitoring strategies applied.

With regard to student interviews (see Appendix 7), the first schedule with three questionscollected the relatively same information in the questionnaire, but was expected to generate

more details The second schedule with two questions was for students to recall about the

observed discussions, focusing on their oral participation level and quality in thoseactivities, and influential factors on their participation.

2.2.3 OBSERVATIONS

Naturalistic observations were ideally exploited since they could create “insight into how

behavior occurs in the real world”, and, therefore, “increase the research’s external

validity” (Bordens & Abbott, 1999, p 107) Also, they would be effective to exploreinteractions inside the classroom (Brown & Rodgers, 2002) As a result, the choice of

observations was appropriate to examine students’ participation in groups and teachers’strategies to boost their participation Moreover, group discussions were chosen to observe

since learners’ oral participation level, regarding the number of turns taken and the amountof talking time, could be shown clearly through this type of group activity (Martine, 2003).

In the study, an observation scheme with two main parts (see Appendix 8) was applied forits convenience in data coding and analysis It was designed to investigate students’

participation level in the observed group discussions, basing on the times of turns taken

and the total amount of talking time of each group member, and discover teachers’ specific

strategies to increase students’ participation during those activities.

2.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

The data were collected during the period of six weeks by the aforementioned instruments.

The data collection procedures would be demonstrated as follows.

First, the first version of the questionnaire was piloted with five first-year EFL students at

ED at ULIS, VNU in order to gain constructive feedback Then, it was carefully revised to

ensure its accuracy, conciseness, comprehensiveness and focus After being piloted and

revised, the questionnaires were directly delivered to 100 first-year EFL students in fiverandom classes at ED at ULIS, VNU in class A short introduction about the study was firstmade together with the researcher’s careful oral instructions to lessen any

misunderstanding and ambiguity Afterwards, during the time of questionnaire filling,

when any confusion emerged, essential help about language or expressions was prov ided

by the researcher As a result, several serious limitations of using questionnaires such asthe simplicity and superficiality of answers or respondents’ literacy problems could be

minimized (Bordens & Abbott, 1999).

Later, five respondents, one in each class, were randomly chosen for the interviews to yield

more interesting points Semi-structured interviews, which based on the first

student-targeted schedule, were administered in Vietnamese with each individual participant Inorder to eliminate any misunderstanding, main questions were given out at the beginningof the interviews Afterwards, the interviews took place in an informal atmosphere tominimize the participants’ anxiety Those interviews were often fifteen to twenty minuteslong Besides, teacher interviews of fifteen to twenty minutes, which used the first teacher-

targeted schedule, were conducted in English with five teachers teaching those students ina relaxing, friendly setting Prepared questions were also distributed beforehand to avoid

any misleading or misinterpretation.

Next, observations were conducted to examine data reliability One observation of a

particular group discussion was carried out in each of the five classes The researcherstrictly followed the observation schemes to take notes and focus on the points

investigated Furthermore, those observations were carefully tape-recorded for later

reference and analysis if necessary.

Immediately after each lesson, a semi-structured interview of five to ten minutes, using the

second student-targeted schedule, was carried out in Vietnamese with one student in theobserved group for data triangulation The teachers were also interviewed right after the

lessons Those interviews in English based on the second teacher-intended schedule, and

lasted approximately ten minutes.

All the interviews were tape-recorded to ensure covering all the essential details Certainly,

tape-recording did not bear any threats to the data reliability due to two reasons First, it

was recorded only when the interviewees willingly agreed to do so Second, those

interviews were carried out in an open, relaxing setting Accordingly, the participantsinterviewed were under no pressure when giving out their answers.

2.4 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS AND PROCEDURES

In terms of the data obtained in the questionnaires, they were condensed, quantified and

analyzed in the form of descriptive statistics (particularly using one measure of centraltendency — the mean) Then, they were illustrated and systematized in charts and tables for

a better demonstration of the findings.

As for the teacher interviews, the recordings were transcribed (see Appendices 4 and 5).

Meanwhile, the student interviews, which were all in Vietnamese, were both transcribed

and translated into English (see Appendices 2 and 3) Afterwards, a color-coding system

(see Appendix 1) was applied to highlight and synthesize those data.

Besides, the first part of observation schemes, namely group work observation, was

analyzed by frequency method combined with duration method recommended by Bordens& Abbott (1999) Later, the data were illustrated in charts With regard to the second part,which focused on teachers’ monitoring strategies, the data were illustrated in a table.

Lastly, all the data collected from the three instruments were grouped under four main

areas (four sub-headings): students’ perceptions of group work, students’ oralparticipation level and quality in group work, factors affecting students’ participation in

group work, and teachers’ monitoring strategies to increase students’ participation, which

served to answer the four research questions.

The chapter has presented the methods of the present study concerning the participants of

the study, the methods and procedures of data collection and data analysis Briefly, the

study was conducted among 100 first-year EFL students and five teachers of English at ED

at ULIS, VNU The data were collected within six weeks by three instruments:

questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations After that, they wereanalyzed and grouped under four main areas to answer the research questions.

The findings will be demonstrated in the following chapter, Chapter Three: Findings and

Discussion.

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents, compares, and contrasts the data from the three different sources.namely questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations under four main areas.These include students’ perceptions towards group work, students’ Participation in in-class

group work, factors affecting students’ participation in in-class group work, and teachers’monitoring strategies during group work, which strictly correspond with the four researchquestions In each section, the discussion of the findings is enclosed to highlight thesimilarities and differences between those of the present study and existing research in the

3.1 STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS GROUP WORK

The first research question: “What do first-year EFL students at ULIS, VNU think about

group work?” was raised as it would be worth investigating whether students’ views ongroup work might somehow influence their participation in this kind of activity The data

would be demonstrated as follows.

3.1.1 DATA FROM THE STUDENT INTERVIEWS

It is noteworthy that all of the interviewees pointed out various benefits which they could

gain through group activities The first substantial mentioned by three out of five wasimproving their language skills For example, “it can help us to enhance our English skills,

especially speaking skills We have chances to reinforce our knowledge through interacting

with each other” (Student four — S4, see Appendix 2) Student 2 (S2) even listed more

specifically: “We will know many more words, widen our vocabulary, know how to make

sentences, and know to make others pay attention to us when we speak” (see Appendix 2).

Interestingly, one of them referred to mutual support among team members in enhancing

their English proficiency: “We can help each other through correcting mistakes” (Student

three — S3, see Appendix 2).

Another major advantage of participating in group work stated by three interviewees was

boosting students’ confidence through interacting with each other: “Participating in groups