Effectiveness of jigsaw, think-pair-share and numbered heads together on students' oral participation in speaking lessons Nghiên cứu hiệu quả của các hoạt

However, the number of students who speak in speaking lessons and the frequency they have oral participation in speaking classes are still limited.. Accordingly, she decides to conduct a

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES ANS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

-  -

NGUYỄN THỊ THU THỦY

EFFECTIVENESS OF JIGSAW, THINK-PAIR-SHARE AND NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER ON STUDENTS’ ORAL

PARTICIPATION IN SPEAKING LESSONS

NGHIÊN CỨU HIỆU QUẢ CỦA CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG JIGSAW, THINK-PAIR-SHARE VÀ NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER ĐỐI VỚI SỰ THAM GIA CỦA SINH VIÊN TRONG GIỜ HỌC NÓI

M.A MINOR THESIS

MAJOR: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY CODE: 601410

HANOI-2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

Table of content iv

List of abbreviation viii

List of graphs, figures and tables ix

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale and statement of the problem 1

2 Aims of the study 3

3 Research question 3

4 Scope of the study 3

5 Research method 4

6 Design of the study 4

PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT 6

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

1.1 Teaching and learning speaking as a language skill 6

1.1.1 English speaking teaching 6

1.1.2 English speaking learning 7

1.1.3 What make a good speaking lesson? 7

1.2 Participation 8

1.2.1 Participation in class 8

1.2.2 Factors affecting students‟ participation in class 9

1.2.3 What can be done to get students to speak more in speaking classes? 9

1.3 Cooperative learning 9

1.3.1 Cooperative learning and its techniques 9

1.3.2 Key components of cooperative learning 11

1.3.3 Advantages of cooperative learning 12

1.4 Previous studies 12

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 14

2.0 Research question 14

2.1 Research method 14

2.2 Research context 16

2.3 Participants 17

2.4 Instruments 18

2.4.1 Survey questionnaire 18

2.4.2 Classroom observation 18

2.4.3 Students‟ self-reports 19

2.5 Action research procedure 20

2.5.1 Phase 1 20

2.5.1.1 Problem identification 20

2.5.1.2 Initial data collection 20

2.5.1.3 Generating hypothesis 21

3.5.2 Phase 2 21

2.5.2.1 Planning action 21

2.5.2.2 Intervention 22

2.6 Data analysis 23

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS 24

3.1 Results from Phase 1 24

3.1.1 Factors affecting students‟ oral participation 24

3.1.2 Results from class observation: Students' on-task behavior 27

3.1.3 Resutls from students‟ self-report: Interaction in CL group-work 28

3.2 Results from Phase 2 29

3.2.1 Results from class observation: Students‟ on-task behavior 29

3.2.2 Results from students‟ self-report: Interaction in CL group work 30

3.2.3 Results from Questionnaire 2: Students‟ opinions and self-evaluation 33

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION 35

4.1 What are the factors causing students‟ poor participation? 35

4.2 To what extent can Jigsaw, Think-Pair-Share and Numbered-Heads-Together improve students‟ oral participation? 36

4.2.1 Students' on-task behavior from lesson 3 to lesson 12 37

4.2.2 Students' interaction in CL groupwork from lesson 3 to lesson 12 38

4.2.3 Students' opinions and self-evaluation on the effectiveness of Jigsaw, Think-pair-share, and Numbered Heads Together 39

PART THREE: CONCLUSION 41

1 Conclusion of the study 41

2 Recommendation 41

3 Limitations and suggestions for further study 43

REFERENCES 45

APPENDICE I

Appendix 1: Questionnaire 1 I

Appendix 2: Questionnaire 2 III

Appendix 3: Class observation sheet IV

Appendix 4: Students‟ self-report V

Appendix 5: Speaking lesson plan (Pre-action stage) – Lesson 3 VI

Appendix 6: Speaking lesson plan (Action stage) – Lesson 7 XXII

Appendix 7: Speaking lesson plan (Action stage) – Lesson 8 XIX

Appendix 8: Speaking lesson plan (Action stage) – Lesson 10 XXVII

LIST OF ABBRIVIATION

EFL: English as a foreign language

ESL: English as a second language

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

CL: Cooperative Learning

HPU2: Hanoi Pedagogical University No.2

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND GRAPHS

Figure1: Action research cycle 15

Table 1: Speaking term 2 17

Table 2: Students‟ interaction in lesson 3 28

Table 3: Students‟ interaction in lesson 7 30

Table 4: Students‟ interaction in lesson 8 31

Table 5: Students‟ interaction in lesson 9 31

Table 6: Students‟ interaction in lesson 10 31

Table 7: Students‟ interaction in lesson 11 32

Table 8: Students‟ interaction in lesson 12 32

Graph 1: Students‟ on-task behavior 37

Graph 2: Students‟ interaction in CL group-work 38

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale and statement of the problem

In learning any foreign languages, speaking is a vital tool for students to express their thoughts, ideas and feelings, and to have successful social communication Unlike ESL learners who have more frequent use of the target language, EFL learners have few opportunities to use English in daily life In some big cities in Vietnam, EFL learners may enjoy more favorable learning conditions with the support of modern technology, online classes, and more chance to communicate in English In contrast, EFL learners in the countryside and mountainous areas of Vietnam have many difficulties in learning English, especially the lack of exposure

to English To them, speaking classes appears to be the only place where they can freely speak and interact in English It is one of the reasons why students are always expected to raise their voice in English speaking classes Having to deal with silent speaking class is a big concern of almost all ESL and EFL teachers, especially in a non-native language environment As a teacher of speaking, the present researcher has been facing with the same situation She noticed that when she raises a question

to the class, they rarely volunteer to answer the questions They even refuse to answer the question by keeping standing and saying nothing Saying “Sorry, I can‟t” seems very difficult to them A great number of techniques have been used to encourage students to feel free to speak in class such as simplifying the difficult topics, giving positive feedbacks, using funny games, delivering lecture with videos, using group-work etc However, the number of students who speak in speaking lessons and the frequency they have oral participation in speaking classes are still limited Meanwhile previous studies proved a positive relationship between students‟ oral participation and their studying result “When students participate actively in class, their academic achievement seems to be higher than that of those who are passive in class” (Bailey, 2005) Thus, the current situation needs to be changed for students‟ improvement in speaking skills and the success of speaking

lessons As suggested in other studies, students‟ poor participation can be caused by

a variety of factors including cultural, pedagogical, psychological, cognitive, and/or linguistic factors, of which teacher‟s careless or poor choice of teaching techniques may lead to students' reluctance in taking any parts of a lesson Researchers have worked out a great number of ways and strategies to promote students‟ oral participation in language class In her capacity as a teacher, within this minor thesis, the researcher would like to touch upon teaching technique as the main cause of students‟ poor participation, then base on that to find out ways to treat the problem

It can be considered the most feasible solution in her current teaching situation while other problems related to materials, syllabus, students‟ personality, learning and teaching equipments are almost time-consuming and beyond the teacher‟s power of control

Regarding how to have an effective speaking lesson, Kayi (2006) pointed out that teachers should:

- maximum opportunity to students to speak the target language by providing a rich environment that contains collaborative work, authentic materials and tasks, and shared knowledge

- try to involve each student in every speaking activity; for this aim, practice different ways of student participation

- reduce teacher speaking time in class while increasing student speaking time

CL can be considered as an ideal tool for teacher to follow the above listed recommendations Richards & Rodger (2001) stated that CL “has been embraced as

a way of promoting communicative interaction in the classroom and is seen as an extension of the principles of CLT” As cited in Richards & Rodger (2001, p.195), one of the advantages of CL for ESL students is that it can enhance frequency of second language practice through different types of interaction (Mac Groarty, 1989) It can be implicated that CL creates maximum and equal chance for students

to interact because they have to work together, cooperate, and depend on each other

to complete certain task CL offers teachers a wide range of cooperative structures

or techniques However, the researcher would just like to focus on three cooperative techniques which are among the most suitable to her teaching context and this small-scale study Accordingly, she decides to conduct an action research on the

effectiveness of three cooperative techniques: Jigsaw, Numbered heads together

and Think-pair-share on students‟ participation in speaking class with further desire

to improve students‟ English speaking proficiency

2 Aims of the study

The study is aimed at finding feasible ways to enhance the first year English major students‟ oral participation in English speaking classes at Hanoi Pedagogical University No.2 - an intermediate step to improve the students‟ English proficiency

To gain that aim, the study investigates the causes of students‟ poor participation in

speaking lessons and proposes three cooperative techniques including Jigsaw,

Numbered heads together and Think-pair-share as the treatment Therefore, the

effectiveness of those three techniques on students‟ participation is the main variable under examination

3 Research questions

The aim of the study can be presented in forms of the following questions:

1 What are the factors causing students‟ poor oral participation in English speaking lessons?

2 To what extent can the use of Jigsaw, Numbered heads together and

Think-pair-share increase students‟ oral participation in speaking activities?

4 Scope of the study

With regards to the time and thesis limitation, among the many causes of students' low participation in English speaking lessons, the study just focuses on teaching techniques as at the micro level the teacher can quickly intervene to improve the

situation Thus, some changes in teaching techniques were made with the use of

three CL structures: Jigsaw, Numbered Heads Together and Think-Pair-Share to

improve the first year English major students‟ oral participation in English speaking lessons at HPU2 The „participation‟ examined is limited to the amount of time the students have on-task participation The form of participation under investigation includes any verbal behaviors such as asking questions to the lecturers, asking questions to other students, responding to peers, giving opinions, comments (Sayadi, 2007), asking for help/advice, taking a stand, group management (Lotfy, 2012), and contributing ideas during group discussion Other forms of participation like responding with nods and shakes of the head, showing interest or paying attention through listening, reading or speaking in Vietnamese were not examined

in this study

5 Research method

To conduct the study, an action research was used with the support of questionnaires, class observation and students‟ self-reports as the main data collection instruments The aim of the study was to solve the problem the teacher has to face in her real teaching context, so the choice of an action research appears

to meet the researcher‟s desire to know and understand more about her real practice, then outline a specific plan for action to improve the situation

6 Design of the study

The study is divided in to three partsfive chapters as followed:

Part one, Introduction, provides an overview of the study including statement of

the problem, the aims, scope of the study, research questions, and brief introduction

to research method

Part two, Development, consists of the following four chapters:

- Chapter 1, Literature review, presents the theoretical background of the

studies with key relevant concepts clarified and previous related studies reviewed

- Chapter 2, Methodology, describes the methods of the study The research

context, participants, data collection instruments, research procedure and data analysis are all mentioned in this chapter

- Chapter 3, Results, presents the findings of the study

- Chapter 4, Discussion discusses the finding of the research

Part three, Conclusion, concludes the action research It also presents the

recommendations, limitations of the study, and suggestions for further study in the same field

PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Teaching and learning speaking as a language skill

Speaking, is a productive micro skill is “the process of building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, in a variety of contexts" (Chaney, 1998, p 13 as cited in Kayi, 2006) According to Bailey (2005) “speaking consist of producing systematic verbal utterance to convey meaning” Speaking skill requires so many micro-skills for a learner to become a good speaker such as: producing the sounds, stress patterns, rhythmic structures and intonations of the language; using grammar structures accurately; using body languages; selecting understandable and appropriate vocabulary, paying attention to the success of the interaction and adjusting components of speech, etc (Brown, 1994)

1.1.1 English speaking teaching

Teaching English speaking means teaching students how to organize their idea and adapt their speeches and informal talks so as to communicate information and correspond to the intended audience in English Teaching students how to speak is not an easy job, but a complicated process which requires teachers to wisely involve all of other micro-skills to help students develops communicative competence linguistic competence, fluency, and accuracy (Bailey, 2005)

There has developed a variety of methods of teaching speaking in the past sixty years, including Grammar-Translation method, Direct method and Audiolingualism, CLT and CL (sometimes subsumed under CLT) The appearance of CLT and CL as

an approach of teaching has provided students more opportunity to learn language

by interacting and communicating in the target language, English in most cases These methods are typically featured by such activities as information gap task, pair-work and group-work Then teachers‟ teaching techniques are also very important in gaining the lesson‟s objectives as well as creating opportunities for students to practice speaking English

1.1.2 English speaking learning

Spoken language involves a number of issues that students need to master to speak fluently such as: clustering, reduced forms, colloquial language, stress, rhythm and intonation, affective factors and interactions (Brown (1994:256) The fact is that not all students gain the same level of proficiency in learning a foreign language in general and in speaking skill in particular Both Brown (2007) and Lightbrown & Spada (1999) agreed that it is “a long and complex undertaking” which can be affected by such variables as learner characteristics (intelligence, aptitude, personality, motivation and attitudes, learner preferences, learner belief, age of acquisition), linguistic factors, learning process, instructional variables, context and purpose of learning, learning strategies, teacher and teaching process Besides Hedge (2000) touched upon four areas which pointed out how students learn a language He focused on the nature of input, the process of intake, the role of error and the role of oral participation in the classroom Learning the skill of English speaking also shares these variables

1.1.3 What makes a good speaking lesson?

We base on a number of criteria to evaluate a lesson to be successful The success

of a speaking class is not just limited to how attentive the class is, how well and appropriately the teacher deploys the selected activities and how much students understand the lesson As it is defined to be “a process of producing verbal utterance to convey meaning” (Bailey, 2005), speaking class should be the place where students are given maximum opportunity to speak, have the need to speak or communicate, and really get involved in speaking activities Students‟ class interaction or oral participation is accordingly one of the keys for an effective speaking lesson It would be an ideal speaking class if all students have something

to speak, know how to speak and speak without hesitation However, it seems impossible for this to happen especially in EFL classes Thus, how to increase students‟ interaction in class is among all teachers‟ fundamental concerns

1.2 Participation

1.2.1 Participation in English speaking classes

“Participation involves taking the roles of both speaker and listener at some points during the conversation” (Hudson & Bruckman, 2004) Then in class it can be referred to as class discussion However, participation can also include short exchanges or interaction between teacher and students, or within small groups of students To show their participation students can do many things like giving opinion, asking question, responding to teacher or other students, contributing ideas

in group discussion, listening, taking notes, showing interest etc (Sayadi, 2007) According to Lotfy (2012), students‟ participation falls into two main categories: on-task and off-task participation On-task participation includes: (1) Asking other for help/advice; (2) Offering opinion/expert advice; (3) Taking a stand; (4) Group management; (5) silent on-task participation (reading material, writing, looking up new words) Whereas off-task participation includes: (1) Chatting with friends on topic not related to the activity; (2) Doing things not contributing to class (using cell-phone for example)

Among discussed forms of participation, oral participation has been proved in previous studies as an important factor affecting students‟ achievement It is also seen as part of the learning process and the key for evaluating students‟ involvement

in class Obviously, the more they participate, the more they learn, and the better the class discussion is done (Davis, 1993) It is emphasized in Sayadi (2007) that

“classroom participation provides the opportunity for students to use and practice their linguistics and communicative skills By having oral participation in class, students can quickly improve their language competence, gain fluency (Swan, 1993) and promote accuracy (Swan, 1997), thus improve their speaking skill (Khadija, 2010) For EFL learners who learn English in a non-English speaking setting, oral participation in class is necessary and useful in improving their learning (Khadidja, 2010)

1.2.2 Possible factors affecting students’ participation

Students‟ participation in class is affected by many complicated factors Previous researches showed that the main causes of poor participation in class include cultural, psychological, pedagogical, cognitive, affective and/ or linguistic factors These could be student personality types, class management (Lee, 2005), knowledge of and interest in topic, teacher‟s feedback, class size, class procedure, lack of confidence and motivation, being prepared for class, fear of negative evaluation, personality factors, learning styles (Green, 2008), students‟ fear of the lecturers, criticism towards their responses, anxiety, perception of the lecturers as the authority, reluctance to criticize their peers‟ opinions, fear of the lecturers,

possibility of asking for elaboration, learning strategies (Nor & Choo, 2010)

1.2.3 What can be done to get students to speak in speaking classes?

If seeing students actively speak in class is all teachers‟ happiness, getting them to speak in class is among their most challenging tasks The reasons for students‟ poor participation in class vary, so teachers need to plan carefully to touch upon the right reasons and have feasible solutions The followings are some suggestions for getting students to speak in class:

- Provide something for students to talk about

- Manipulate physical arrangements to promote speaking practice

- Create opportunities for students to interact by group-work or pair-work (Bailey, 2005)

Regarding these recommendations, CL with its undeniable benefits would be a good choice

1.3 Cooperative learning

1.3.1 Cooperative Learning and its techniques

CL is a teaching approach which “makes use of cooperative activities involving pairs and small groups of learners in the classroom” As mentioned in Lacina

(2001), the idea of CL began with John Dewey's ideas of group activities Then it was developed and popularized by many authors like Slavin, David and Johnson, Kagan and so on Slavin (1987) considered cooperative learning as “set of instructional methods in which students work in small, mix-ability learning groups”

to accomplish shared goal As cited in Garfield (1993), it is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other‟s learning” (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991) CL is closely related to group-work, but it does not stop there because Ledlow, S (1999) affirmed that “CL is more than simply asking student to get in a group and work on an assignment together” Accordingly, a heavy responsibility rests upon teachers who are expected to carefully design suitable lessons and activities so that CL lessons can work effectively To sum up, CL is an interactive procedure in which students work and interact together in small groups to complete a certain task, usually academic tasks There are a number of different structures/techniques of CL and their variations which serve in different situation with different purposes and functions The following are some common structures of cooperative learning adapted from Kagan

S (1989: 14)

Jigsaw: Each students on the team become an “expert” on one topic by working

with members from other teams assigned the corresponding expert topic Upon returning to their teams, each one in turn teaches the group; and students are all

assessed on all aspects of the topic It is implicated from Kagan (1989) that Jigsaw

is a good way to deal with new knowledge which is one of the main reasons for students‟ poor oral participation in class and provide equal chance to students to speak The nature of Jigsaw is giving each team member something to learn to become an expert on, so each will be equipped with necessary knowledge related to the topics which are advanced or strange to them With this technique, students not only have something to speak but also must speak as a mission

Numbered Heads Together: The teacher asks a question, students consult to make

sure everyone knows the answer, then one student is called upon to answer This

technique ensures that each member knows the answer to questions asked by the teacher After a question is posed, each team member is supported by the group to find the answer, which provides opportunities for students to interact And because

no one knows which number will be called, all team members must be prepared Although this technique is not ideal for seeking students‟ volunteer participation, it can help in getting students to speak and to become more competitive in class

Think-Pair-Share: Students think to themselves on a topic provided by the teacher,

they pair up with other students to discuss it; they then share their thoughts with the class Think-Pair-Share gives students a little time to brainstorm and prepare themselves before joining pair or group discussion This technique enables students

to construct their knowledge through individual thinking Students often like to talk about topics closely related to their life but they need time to think and organize their idea before speaking and sharing In this case, the technique can become a promising solution to get students‟ oral participation

1.3.2 What makes Cooperative Learning different?

Like CLT pair-work and group-work are the key forms of every CL activity However, having students working in pairs or groups is not really CL Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1994) worked out five essential components of CL: (1) positive interdependence (group members perceive that they are linked with each

other so that one cannot succeed unless everyone succeeds), (2) promotive

interaction (discussing and solving problem face-to-face), (3) individual accountability (students learn together so they can subsequently perform better as individuals), (4) interpersonal and small-group skills (social skills) and (5) group

processing (group members discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships). Understanding five components of CL

and structure them well in each lesson is considered the key step for it to become successful According to Johnson and Johnson (1989), “Real expertise in using CL

is gained by learning how to structure the five essential components into instructional activities” (as cited in Johnson, Johnson & Holubec 1994)

1.3.3 Advantages of Cooperative Learning

The use of CL in teaching language over the past 40 years has proved its importance and effectiveness It has gained considerable achievements including academic achievements, skill communication and psychological health which were examined

in a great number of researches such as Macpherson (2000), Slavin (1990), and Davis (1999) Closely-related to students‟ oral participation, CL has been proved extremely beneficial in providing students with equal and maximum opportunity to speak, enhancing students‟ interaction skill and improving students‟ confidence and autonomy which are among very essential affective factors which could motivate or demotivate students to speak in classes

1.4 Previous studies

Over the past 20 years hundreds of researches have conducted to find out how to improve students‟ participation namely Davis (1999), Snell (1999), Lacina (2001), Huson & Bruckman (2004), Sayadi (2007), Green (2008) etc Tsou (2005) looks into the use of PI (Instruction about classroom participation) to increase students‟ oral participation Nguyen Minh Hue (2010) suggested a number of strategies to change students‟ attitudes, so they can feel free to speak They can be “changing students‟ negative beliefs and attitudes towards mistakes”, “boost students‟ self-confidence, lower students‟ anxiety in the classroom”, etc Other techniques recommended in Kayi (2006) include Role play, discussion, information gap, brainstorming, picture describing, etc Nguyen Thi Phuong Lan (2007) looked into large class management as a solution to students‟ poor participation

There has also been a considerable quantity of research concerning CL and the effects of CL techniques on students‟ achievement namely Bossert, 1988/1989; Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1995, Slavin, 1987;

Kagan S 1995 Researches into CL across a wide range of academic subject areas and age groups suggests that the use of CL may be associated with gains on such variables as: time on-task (Cohen & Benton, 1988 as cited in Yahya and Huie 2002), students‟ engagement in class (Slattery, 2010; and Garfield, 1993), self-esteem and enjoyment (as cited in Tan, Patrick, Jacobs & Lee, 1999), students‟ interaction (Dycus, 1996; and Tatsuki, 1998) Lan (2005) with an action research into the use of cooperative learning to improve students‟ speaking skill at Vinh University implicates that cooperative learning could reduce teacher talking time and increase student talking time in speaking lessons Thuy (2006) also finds out that CL helps encourage students‟ participation as it makes all members have opportunities to take part in group and no one attempts to avoid these opportunities The success and positive findings of previous studies have encouraged the researcher to work on the current study An investigation into the effectiveness of three CL techniques: Jigsaw, Think-Pair-Share, and Numbered Heads Together on students‟ participation in English speaking classes is a gap for the researcher to fill The next chapter reports the investigation

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 2.0 Research questions

The study attempts to answer two questions:

1 What are the factors causing students‟ poor oral participation in speaking lessons?

2 To what extent can the use of Jigsaw, Numbered heads together and

Think-pair-share increase students‟ oral participation in speaking activities?

2.1 Research method

Action research is concerned with trying to improve one specific point in a teacher's technique in a particular classroom using empirical measurement Action research is different from other kinds of research in that “it nearly always arises from some specific problem or issue arising out of our professional practice” (Wallace,1998) Snell (1999) claims that “it typically involves small-scale investigate projects in the teacher‟s own classroom” According to Mettetal (2002-2003), classroom action research “is designed to help a teacher find out what is happening in his or her

classroom, and to use that information to make wise decisions for the future”

Action research involves a number of phases which are commonly structured in routines: Identification of problem area – Collection and organization of data – Interpretation of data – Action based on data – Reflection (Ferrance, 2000) According to McBride and Schostak (2002), the process of action research involves the following steps:

Figure 1:Action Research cycles

(adapted from Somekh in McBride (1989))

The first step is identifying the problem The second step is collecting data, which can be carried out through a variety of instruments such as questionnaires, students‟ self-report, interview, teaching diary, etc Then in the next step collected data is analyzed to develop research questions After defining the problem, it is the researcher‟s main duty to make an action plan for some changes and apply those changes in real context Collecting data again and analyzing those data are carried out right after the intervention to work out the findings and evaluate whether the intervention works well on the problem Last but not least, the researcher needs to consider another method to solve the problem if the intervention carried out does not show much effectiveness

To conduct this study, the researcher, also a teacher applied an action research because of the above advantages In addition, it is suitable to the research context, the researcher‟s situation and the aim of the study An action research offers the teacher chance to look into a specific problem, i.e students' low participation in English speaking lessons leading poor results, and solve it with specific solution,

i.e using the three techniques An action research makes it easier for the researcher

to use a mixed research method, which allows the researcher to have a deep understanding of her current teaching situation and actively take action to improve

it Within this action research, the researcher addresses the current problem she has

to face, that is, the students are silent and unwilling to speak in speaking lessons She then suggests the solution based on literature review and preference from students, and put them into practice to investigate whether they can help her improve the current problem

2.2 Research context

The study was conducted in classrooms within the second semester of the first academic year on 30 first year English major students in Group 1, course 37 at Foreign Languages Faculty, HPU2 Students of English are trained with a curriculum emphasizing on four basic language skills including listening, speaking, reading, and writing and other subjects related to English theoretical background They have to complete total 12 credits of speaking over the 6 semesters, each of which lasts 15 weeks The current materials used to teach speaking skill to the first year students of English called Speaking 1 and Speaking 2 Speaking 2 is for the second semester, consisting of total 11 topics, each of which is covered in one 90-minute period per week The following table presents specific syllabus of speaking term 2:

Table 1: Speaking term 2

Week 7 Mid-term review lesson

Week 14, 15 Review lessons

2.3 Participants

The study was conducted on 30 first year English major students who were directly taught by the researcher at the time of conducting the research The majority was female (29 out of 30) They were all at the same age of 18, and their English proficiency is not much different Their average speaking score at the previous semester is 6.5/10 Besides it is worth mentioning that 90% of the students come from the countryside and mountainous areas Their English speaking ability is

accordingly quite limited According to the researcher‟s observation during the first semester of teaching them, they are very shy and rarely speak in speaking lessons When she asks them to answer questions or invites them to say something, they

often keep silent and have no response

2.4 Instruments

The study used survey questionnaires, students‟ self-report, and observations to collect both qualitative and quantitative data The combination of methods for data collection allows us to gather data through multiple sources, and thus enhances the

data‟s validity

2.4.1 Questionnaire

There were two student questionnaires

Questionnaire 1 (See Appendix 1) was designed to find out the reason for students‟

poor participation in class It consist of 10 questions examining students‟ speaking level (1), students‟ attitude to current teaching materials (2,3), students‟ problems in learning English speaking (4), how students learn in speaking class (5), students‟ participation frequency in speaking class (6), reasons for students‟ poor participation (7), students‟ evaluation of speaking lessons (8), students‟ attitude to the importance of participation in class and preference for better speaking and more frequent participation in class (9,10)

Questionnaire 2 (See Appendix 2) consisting of 9 questions was distributed after

six weeks of implementation stage to examine the effectiveness of Jigsaw,

Think-pair-share, and Numbered Heads Together from students‟ perspectives

2.4.2 Class observation

Class observation techniques are proved to be an effective tool to observe students: the way they work, the way they interact, the way they respond to teaching, their

on-task and off-task behavior, and so on This technique also provides direct information on students‟ performance in class Accordingly, class observation was selected as the main data collection instrument in this study

Class observation sheet

To record the frequency of students‟ participation, the researcher used the observation sheet adapted from Hopkins (1985) which was used in Peacook, M (1998), Lan (2007) and Tra (2009) This observation sheet was used to record individual student‟s on-task behavior as well as the overall student engagement for

8 times, two times at pre-action stage to find out the students‟ poor participation in real teaching situation and six times at the action stage when some changes in teaching technique were adapted (See Appendix 3)

The observers

The non-participant observers are three teachers who have been teaching English in HPU2 No.2 for more than one year and the researcher All three observers were given training on observing and recording data using the observation sheet in English speaking lessons, for example where to sit to have best observation, how to tick on the observation sheet, when and how to scan students when they were on task

Each observer observed 10 students by coded name when they officially work in groups which were carried out in While-speaking stage of the lesson plan (See Appendix 5, 6, 7, and 8) The observation sheet was only used to observe the students‟ on-time participation Other elements of silent participation such as listening, reading, showing interest or using body language were not included Moreover, the length and the quality of students‟ speaking were not examined because it required more advantageous conditions

2.4.3 Students’ self-reports

As defined by Wallace (2000), “self-report is the process in by which we report to others how we go about learning and teaching” In this study the use of Students‟ self-report helps ensure the reliability of the data collected from Observation sheet After each lesson, the student subjects were asked to fill a form (See Appendix 4) in which they self reported the number of time they interact when working in groups

2.5 Action research procedure

This study applied the action research with steps adapted from Somekh in McBride (1989) The research lasted for 15 weeks divided in two phases:

2.5.1 Phase One: Problem identification and hypothesis generation

Phase One lasted 5 first weeks in the second semester and includes the following such specific steps as identifying the problem, collecting initial data, generating hypothesis

2.5.1.1 Problem identification

The first two weeks of the second semester together with 15 weeks of previous semester were enough for the research to define the problem she wanted to solve The problem perceived in the study was students‟ poor participation in speaking

class, which formed the first questions of the study: What are the factors causing

students’ poor oral participation in English speaking lessons? Thus, the first

questionnaire was administered in this stage to find out the causes of students‟ poor oral participation (Weeks 1-2)

2.5.1.2 Initial data collection

In the next two week, the researcher reviewed the data on the factors affecting

students‟ participation in speaking lessons and carried out initial data collecting on students‟ oral participation in class with the use of current teaching technique To have it done, the researchers used observation sheet to record students‟ on-task

behavior in group-work and students‟ self-reports in which they self-reflected their involvement in speaking lessons (Weeks 3-4)

2.5.1.3 Generating hypothesis

By this time the problem that was student‟s poor participation in class was reconfirmed by the data collected from observation sheets The first research

question “What are the factors causing students’ poor oral participation in

speaking lessons?” was also answered via the data collected from week 1 to week

2, which confirmed that teaching technique is one of the main causes for students‟ poor participation in speaking class The initial data was analyzed and the literature review was then based on to form the hypothesis of the study, which is “CL activities in speaking classes could help improve students‟ participation.”

2.5.2 Phase 2: Planning action (Weeks 6-7) and intervention (Weeks 8-13) 2.5.2.1 Planning action

Regarding CL as an effective method to improve students‟ poor participation, some

CL techniques were considered to be used because within the limited time, the researcher could not make use of all CL structures Then only Jigsaw, Think-Pair-Share and Numbered Heads Together were selected These CL techniques are not new in teaching English But they have never been used by the researcher in her speaking lessons As mentioned in the rationale, she had often used group-work but the way she structured group-work was not good enough to encourage student‟s oral participation Students also claimed that group discussion in speaking classes did

not motivate them to speak, and they needed to have more interactive group-work Thus Jigsaw, Think-Pair-Share and Numbered Heads Together were selected not

only due to its feasibility and applicability as proved in previous studies but also its

capacity to help the researcher in dealing with other weaknesses of the students Jigsaw is assumed to increase interdependence and autonomy which are among the

students‟ weaknesses It is the researcher‟s belief that students‟ interdependence and

autonomy would help students interact more without hesitation Moreover, this form of information gap has been proved to be best used for acquisition and presentation of new material and create equal opportunity for students to speak in

class For all of these reasons Jigsaw was selected to teach lesson 7 and lesson 9

where much environment and poverty related-knowledge was introduced (See

Appendix 6)

Structuring group-work with Think-Pair-Share is supposed to get students

thinking and involved in giving their own idea, sharing their feeling and experience

As recommended, the students often need more time to prepare before sharing their ideas to the class Some minutes of thinking and exchanging with their partner would get them more confident to speak Thus, the more confident and ready they are, the less hesitation they speak with Think-Pair-Share was planned to be used in lesson 8 and lesson 12 where students‟ favorite topics were discussed With this choice the researcher hoped that the students could feel free and easy to talk because the topics were so popular to them (See Appendix 7)

Numbered Heads Together is good in that it gets all students involved in the task

Even when individual students do not know the answer and have no contribution to group work, they still have chance to raise their voice after learning from their group-mates Moreover group cooperation in finding the answer can create more fun, motivation and competitiveness among students and groups, which would

result in more oral participation Numbered Heads Together is good for

reviewing, checking for knowledge and comprehension (Kagan, 1989/1990), thus it was used in lesson 10 and lesson 11 (See Appendix 8)

2.5.2.2 Intervention

After planning the treatment for the problem, the teacher researcher officially applied these three cooperative learning techniques in her teaching This phase was conducted in classrooms and lasted for six weeks in six 90-minute speaking lessons from week 8 to week 13 The lesson plan was designed with 3 stages: Pre-speaking,

While-speaking and Post-speaking Because of the limited time, each technique was only used (once or twice depending on the length of the activity) as the main structure for group discussion in while-speaking stage of two different speaking lessons from lesson 7 to lesson 12

The data in this phase was collected from observation sheet and student‟s self report and questionnaire 2 Then it was analyzed to work out whether the research questions were answered

2.6 Data analysis

The data of the study was analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively Data on reasons for student‟s poor participation in class was quantitatively analyzed with the use of descriptive statistic in the forms of percentages and frequencies, then reviewed and interpreted to develop categories to classify the data into proper categories such as: student-related factors and teacher-related factors, for example

We also analyzed data on students‟ on-task behavior and interaction quantitatively first to come up with the answers to the two research questions, then made it more qualitative by giving deeper explanation and interpretation

CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS

3.1 Results from Phase One (Pre-action stage)

Initial data was collected from three instruments: questionnaire 1, students‟ reports, and class observation sheet

self-3.1.1 Factors affecting students’ oral participation in speaking classes

To find out the reasons for students‟ poor participation in speaking class, a number

of speaking-related issues were examined through Questionnaire 1 with 10 questions

3.1.1.1 Question 1: Students’ self-evaluation of their speaking level

It seems that most of the students reported to have low-level of English speaking skills Only 10% of the students said that their speaking skill was good 66.7% considered their speaking skill bad, and 23% said that their speaking skill was very bad, and 0% of the students evaluated their speaking skill to be very good

3.1.1.2 Questions 2-3: Students’ attitudes to speaking textbook

When answering the question about the topics given in Speaking term 2, 83% of

students said that they liked them (50% like it very much and 33% like it much) 10% of the students did not like them very much and only 6.7% liked them little

The result from question 3 shows that 30% of the students found the topics interesting, 33% said that they were familiar topics, and 16.7% found them difficult They were interested in such topics as health and injure (100%), love and marriage (28%), travel and tourism (100%), sharing feeling (90%), climate and weather (67%), environment (67%), helping the poor (30%) The topics considered difficult included raising a family (67%), crime and punishment (100%), climate and weather (30%), physical world (67%), helping the poor (67%), job interview (67%)

Some topics are found boring: physical world (90%), crime and punishment (40%), and job interview (67%)

3.1.1.3 Question 4: Students’ problems in learning speaking skill

It is assumed that most of the students have the same problems in learning speaking skill Specifically, 83.33% of the students do not know how to think in English These students say that they often translate what they want to say from Vietnamese into English The same percent of the students lack grammar structures and vocabulary Almost all students (93.3%) do not have anyone to speak English with Other problems puzzling students include: poor pronunciation (90%), lack background knowledge (63.3%), lack of confidence (60%), shyness (47%), and poor communicative skill (63.3%)

3.1.1.4 Question 5: students’ ways of learning in English speaking lessons

When answering the question “How have you been learning in speaking lessons”?,

only 10% of the students said that they often interacted and communicated in English with other students and the teacher 66.7% of the students reported that they often worked individually in class 13.3 % of the students frequently contributed ideas to group discussion 10% of the students often asked questions in class 73.3

% of the students said that they rarely gave comment or opinions, and nearly the same percentage did not volunteer to answer questions unless the teacher prompted them More than half of the students had more listening and taking note than speaking (57%) 63.3% of the students often left group presentation duty to their group-mates 66.7% of the students were not motivated in speaking lessons Only 10% of the students attempted to answer the discussion questions by the beginning

of the class and brought their notes to the class None of the students read all

assigned texts for each class carefully and critically by the beginning of the class

3.1.1.5 Question 6: Students’ comments on their actual speaking lessons

The result from question 6 gives a brief overview of how speaking lessons took place When giving comments on speaking lessons, 60% of the students said that the teacher often talked a lot because students did not actively participated 66.7%

of the students reported that "students are sometimes asked to work in groups but group member often leave the task to the leaders who are often selected to report group-work to the class" 67% of the students commented that most of the students were not willing to speak in class 76.7% of the students gave negative comments

on speaking activities They said that the activities used for group-work did not really compel and motivate students to interact, and the teacher did not change speaking activities frequently to motivate students (70%) Other students said that the teacher often interrupted students to correct mistakes (20), and materials

provided for reading were sometimes too difficult for them to understand (37%)

3.1.1.6 Questions 7-8: students’ frequency of participation and reasons for poor participation

The data collected from question 7 shows that 13.4 % of the students had frequent participation in speaking class (6.7% very often, 6.7% often) 43.3% of the students sometimes participated, 3.3% rarely participated and 10% never participated in speaking classes This result is supported by the data from question 5 and question 6 when only 10% of the students reported that they often asked questions in class, 73.3 % of the students said that they rarely gave comment or opinions, 67% of the students commented that most of the students were not willing to speak

When asked about the reasons for their limited speaking in class 63.3% of these students said that their English (pronunciation, grammar structure, vocabulary and

so on) was not good 50% of the students said that they did not have anything to say 47% of the students said that they were shy 16% of the students said that it did not matter when they did not speak Especially, a great number of the students did not like teacher‟s way of teaching They said that speaking activities were boring (63.3%) and did not motivate them to speak in class (60%) Besides, 53.3% of the

students reported that they could usually complete the task by themselves without discussing and sharing ideas with other classmates A small number of students said that they were afraid of being “stupid” if their answers were not right (13.3%), there was no chance for them to speak because of large class (10%), and the given topics were difficult to talk about (13.3%)

To sum up, students‟ poor participation in speaking class was caused by a variety of factors One of the main causes is teaching technique which fails to involve students

in speaking activities

3.1.1.7 Questions 9-10: Students’ recommendations

As revealed in question 9, nearly all of the students affirmed that oral participation

in class was important (important 16.7%, very important 73.3%) They claimed that oral participation helped improve their speaking and communicative skill in English Some other students said that it helped them learn more about the others and be learned Only 10% of students considered participation in class a little important

Students were almost aware of the importance of oral participation, thus they actively gave their opinions on what should be done in class to help them speak more 60% of the students said that they needed to be provided with certain knowledge related to the topics 73.3% of the students recommended more tasks and activities that could strongly and equally get students involve in speaking 40% the students said that they needed more time to prepare and discuss before answering the teacher‟s questions 63.3 % of the students preferred interactive class and the same number of students wanted to learn in a smaller-sized class Some other students said that the teachers should do something to make group-work more effective and interesting

3.1.2 Results from class observation: students' on-task behavior

To touch upon how often student participated in the researcher‟s speaking lessons with currently used teaching techniques, observation technique was used with the participation of three observers who observed students in speaking lessons The students' on-task behavior recorded shows how much students participated orally in the groupwork The following result is from the observation sheet worked out in lesson 3, week 3 (See Appendix 5)

The result shows that students‟ participation in this lesson was quite low 19 out of

30 students were scanned to be on-task with a total of 75 times accounting for 20.83% of the given time Specifically, 4 students had one time, 6 students had two times, 4 students had 6 times and 5 students had 7 times

3.1.3 Results from students’ self-report

After the lesson, the students were asked to complete the self-report in which they reported the times they interacted with their classmates and the teacher in the main group-work in while-speaking stage (See Appendix 6) The data was expected to support the result from the observation sheet

Table 2: Students’ interaction self-report in lesson 3

In CL group-work

a = less than twice b = 2-3 times c = 4-5 times d = more than 5 times

As shown in Table 2, 73.33% of the students had less than 4 times interacting with their classmates and teacher in group-work Meanwhile, the number of students who had 4 or more than 4 times interacting in group-work was 8, account for only 26.66% Luckily, the data from students‟ self-report supported the findings from the

observation sheet Data collected from both instruments proved a fact that students‟ oral participation in speaking class was very low

3.2 Results from Phase Two (Action stage)

3.2.1 Results from class observation: Students’ on-task behavior

During 6 weeks of using Jigsaw, Numbered heads together and Think-pair-share,

the result from class observation sheet shows dramatic changes in students‟ frequency of oral participation There was an incredible increase in the number of students participating and the amount of time they got involved in speaking activities

In lesson 7, the total number of students who were scanned to be on-task was 30 with 193 times, accounting for 53.61% of the given time All of the students spoke

in class at least twice

In lesson 8, students participated more and had much more times on-task than in lesson 8 All of the students had 5 or more than 5 times scanned to be on-task Obviously, there were more students who had more than 8 times scanned to be on-task On average, the students were on-task 75% of the given time

In lesson 9, the average percentage of time students were on-task decreased slightly

to 61.66%, but still much higher than that in lesson 3 100% of the students participated but with fewer times All of the students had 4 or more than 4 times scanned to be on-task

In lesson 10, the students‟ average percentage of time to be on-task continued to increase a little bit from 61.66% in lesson 10 to 68.33% All of the students had more than 5 times scanned to be on-task

In lesson 11, the average percentage of time the students were on-task decreased again to 52.22 % Two third of the students had less than 8 times scanned to be on

The rest had 8 or more than 8 times No students had more than 9 times scanned to

be on-task in this lesson

In lesson 12, students were again more engaged in speaking activities Each student had at least 6 times scanned to be on-task This was the first time there had been students who had 12 times scanned to be on-task Overall, the students were on-task 70.55% of the given time

It is easy to see that the students‟ percentage of time to be on-task from lesson 7 to lesson 12 increased, but inconstantly Despite of this, students' oral participation was always at higher rate compared to lesson 3, and the number of students who had oral participation remained stable

3.2.2 Results from Students’ self-report

It seems impossible for students to self-record the amount of time they interacted with their teacher and classmates during a 90-minute lesson, they were just asked to report the number of times they interacted when working in CL groups The findings are as followed

Table 3: Students’ interaction in lesson 7

In CL group-work

a = less than twice b = 2-3 times c = 4-5 times d = more than 5 times

Table 3 indicates that the number of times students interacted with the teacher and other classmates in group-work increased significantly As reported, there was a considerable decline in the number of students who had less than 4 times of

interacting and an increase in the number of students who had 4 or more than 4 times of interaction compared to lesson 3

Table 4: Students’ interaction in lesson 8

In CL group-work

a = less than twice b = 2-3 times c = 4-5 times d = more than 5 times

Table 4 showed students‟ interaction in lesson 8 Compared to lesson 7, in CL group-work, there was a higher percentage of students who had more than 4 times

of interacting with the classmates and teacher (2 students had 4 or 5 times, 28 students had more than 5 times)

Table 5: Students’ interaction in lesson 9

In CL group-work

a = less than twice b = 2-3 times c = 4-5 times d = more than 5 times

It can be seen from Table 5 that although 100% of the students had more than 4 times of interacting with other students in group-work, students‟ participation decreased a little It was because fewer students reported to have more than 5 interaction times

Table 6: Students’ interaction in lesson

In CL group-work

a = less than twice b = 2-3 times c = 4-5 times d = more than 5 times

Table 6 shows a slight increase in students‟ participation Specifically the number of the students who had more than 5 interaction times in group-work increased a little from 22 in lesson 9 to 23 in lesson 10

Table 7: Students’ interaction in lesson 11

In CL group-work

a = less than twice b = 2-3 times c = 4-5 times d = more than 5 times

Table 7 shows that students‟ number of interaction times decreased In CL work, there was again a lower percentage of the students who had more than 5

group-interaction times (18/30 students)

Table 8: Students’ interaction in lesson 12

In lesson 12, the students‟ participation in group-work was quite at high rate 90%

of the students had more than 5 times interacting with the teacher and other students

In summary, the data collected from students‟ self-report shows that although, in some lessons, students did not had quite good participation, there was an increase in students‟ engagement in English speaking lessons

3.2.3 Results from Questionnaire 2: Students’ opinions and self-evaluation

Questionnaire 2 aimed at seeking students' opinion on the last six speaking lessons

in which Jigsaw, Think-Pair-share and Numbered Heads Together were used and

their feeling in the those lessons

Answers for the first 5 questions reveals that nearly 100% of the students found speaking lessons interesting Just a very small number of the students claimed that speaking lessons were little interesting All of the students revealed that they had more opportunities to speak in class

In addition, 86.66% of the students said they felt more relaxed and active in 6 speaking lessons at action stage 90% of the students enjoyed working in groups with their classmates 86.66% of the students claimed that they interacted more with the teacher and other students

In the next 3 questions, students were asked to give their comment on the three teaching techniques used in the last 6 speaking lessons When being asked “How do

you like Jigsaw, Numbered heads together and Think-pair-share?”, 43.33% of

students said they liked them very much, 46.66% liked them much, 6.66% did not like very much, and only 3.33% liked a little However, more than 90% of the students said that these techniques motivated them to speak in class, of which 12 students claimed that Jigsaw was the most effective technique in improving their speaking, 9 students chose Think-Pair-Share, and 7 students chose Numbered Head