Dealing with Upper Secondary school students'''' anxiety in speaking lessons through a cooperative learning environment

Trang 1 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES    NGUYỄN THỊ THANH CẢNH Dealing with upper secondary sch

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

  

NGUYỄN THỊ THANH CẢNH

Dealing with upper secondary school students’

anxiety in speaking lessons through a

cooperative learning environment

NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ VIỆC GIÚP HỌC SINH TRUNG HỌC PHỔ THÔNG GIẢM LO LẮNG TRONG CÁC GIỜ HỌC NÓI QUA MỘT

MÔI TRƯỜNG CÓ TÍNH HỢP TÁC TRONG LỚP HỌC

MA MINOR THESIS

FIELD: METHODOLOGY

CODE: 601410

HANOI – 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

  

NGUYỄN THỊ THANH CẢNH

Dealing with upper secondary school students’

anxiety in speaking lessons through a

cooperative learning environment

NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ VIỆC GIÚP HỌC SINH TRUNG HỌC PHỔ THÔNG GIẢM LO LẮNG TRONG CÁC GIỜ HỌC NÓI QUA MỘT

MÔI TRƯỜNG CÓ TÍNH HỢP TÁC TRONG LỚP HỌC

MA MINOR THESIS

FIELD: METHODOLOGY

CODE: 601410 SUPERVISOR: TỪ THỊ MINH THUÝ (MA)

HANOI - 2010

Table of contents

Declaration ……….………… ……….….… i

Acknowledgments ……… ……… ii

Abstract……….………….….………… ….… iii

Table of contents ……… ……… …iv

Lists of tables ……… ……… … … v

Lists of abbreviations ……… vi

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION ……….……….…… 1

1 Rationale for the study……… ……… 1

2 Aims of the study……… ……… 2

3 Significance of the study……… 2

4 Scope of the study ……… ………2

5 Method of the study ……… ………….3

6 Organization of the study ……… …………3

PART TWO: development ……… ……… …4

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ……… … …… ……… 4

1.1 Anxiety in language learning ……… ……… ….4

1.1.1 Definition of anxiety……….……….4

1.1.2 The classification of anxiety ……… … 4

1.1.3 Anxiety and foreign language learning ……… 5

1.1.4 Causes of language learning anxiety ……… 5

1.1.5 Related studies on language anxiety in speaking skill ………… 6

1.1.6 Anxiety management strategies ……… 7

1.2 Cooperative learning ……… ……….……… 7

1.2.1 Definitions of cooperative learning ……… 7

1.2.2 Components of cooperative learning ……… 8

1.2.2.1 Positive interdependence ……… 8

1.2.2.2 Face-to-face promotive interaction ……… 9

1.2.2.3 Personal responsibility……… 9

1.2.2.4 Interpersonal and small-group skills ……… 10

1.2.2.5 Group processing ……… 10

1.2.3 Effectiveness of cooperative learning ……… 11

1.2.4 Why using a cooperative learning environment to deal with speaking anxiety? 12

1.2.4.1 Psychological basis ……… 13

1.2.4.2 Pedagogical basis ……… 13

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ………….…… ……….…….… 15

2.1 Research setting ……….… 15

2.1.1 Description of the school ……….…….15

2.1.2 Description of the program……… …… 15

2.1.3 Description of the course ……….…….16

2.2 Research questions ……… ……… ……… ….16

2.3 Participants ……… ………… … ……17

2.4 Instruments ……….17

2.4.1 Classroom observations ……… ……… 17

2.4.2 Staff consultations……….…… 17

2.4.3 Questionnaires for students ……… …….18

2.5 Procedures ……… 19

2.6 Data Analysis ……… 19

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS…… ………… ….……… …… 21

3.1 Research results ……….……… ……… 21

3.1.1 From classroom observations ………… ……… ……… ………21

3.1.2 From staff consultations ……….….……… ……….22

3.1.3 From questionnaires for students ……….………….…… ………… 24

3.1.3.1 Pre-intervention questionnaire ……….24

3.1.3.2 Post-intervention questionnaire ……….….……….29

3.2 Discussions on the research questions ……….……….……… 30

3.2.1 Research question 1 ……… 30

3.2.2 Research question 2 ….……… 31

3.2.3 Research question 3 ….……… 32

CHAPTER 4: The course ……… …….……… ……….33

4.1 Structuring students in cooperative learning ……… 33

4.2 Materials description ……….……….34

4.3 Description of the lesson plans ……….……… ………… ………35

PART THREE: Conclusions ……….36

1 Summary of major findings ……… ………… ………….……36

2 Recommendations ……….36

2.1 Recommendations on teachers & students interaction ……… 36

2.2 Recommendations on students & students interaction ……… 37

3 Limitations of the Study ………38

4 Suggestions for further study ………38

References ……….… 39

Appendices

Appendix 1: Observation sheet

Appendix 2: Staff consultations

Appendix 3: English version of Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale

Appendix 4: Pre-intervention survey questionnaire

Appendix 5: Sample lesson plans

Appendix 6: Post intervention survey questionnaire

Appendix 7: Scores and levels of speaking anxiety

Appendix 8: Students‟ feedbacks and evaluation on the intervention techniques

Lists of tables

Table 1: Criteria to identify groups of foreign language anxiety levels

Table 2: Student self- assessment on their linguistic background

Table 3: The level of student anxiety

Table 4: Levels of anxiety caused by intrinsic factors

Table 5: Levels of anxiety caused by extrinsic factors

Table 6: Students‟ feedbacks and evaluation on the intervention techniques

Lists of figures

Figure 1: Scores and levels of FLA

Figure 2: Score of students‟ feedbacks on the intervention techniques

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale for the study

Horner & Redmond (2002) state in a humorous way that “learning a language can be exciting for some but for others it can be a nightmare” Such feelings have been researched as foreign language anxiety for decades This phenomenon has been the research focus of many linguists and psychologists in recent years Anxiety has been regarded as one of the most important affective factors that influence foreign language acquisition Much research (e.g., Bailey, 1983; Horwitz & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994; Young, 1991), especially

in western countries, has been conducted to find the relationship between anxiety and achievements in the learning of different foreign languages Most studies (Horwitz & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994) arrive at a conclusion that anxiety and achievement are negatively correlated In Vietnam, similar research has also been conducted with different groups of people, mostly with college students The problem of language learning anxiety facing USS students has almost been overlooked

In EFL environment, anxiety is one of the persistent factors hindering many learners to learn successfully It affects students in different aspects of learning, particularly in speaking The level of anxiety has been observed to be higher in speaking activities than those of other skills It acts as an obstacle to many learners, especially students in mountainous areas In fact, the majority of students coming from these areas are very reserved and shy For them, the mere thought of having to talk about something in English may make them anxious They tend

to feel shy and tense; therefore, it is difficult for them to communicate The point that counts is that if we leave this problem unsolved, there will be a likelihood of pushing them into silence

in a speaking lesson, which is completely undesirable Many teachers even felt discouraged when they failed to get their students to participate in their intended activities simply because they were too reserved I have been wondering about what the governing factors underlying anxiety are From my actual teaching, I have come to realize that anxiety is not only the problem of less-able students but also the able ones This fact has given me an impetus to seek for the causes of anxiety faced by my learners with the hope to help them out of anxiety and to enhance the classroom atmosphere through a cooperative learning environment

2 Aims of the study

+ To investigate the potential sources of students‟ anxiety in English speaking lessons experienced by upper secondary students

+ To test how a cooperative learning environment really works in reducing students‟ anxiety in speaking lessons

+ To provide some suggestions for teachers to deal with the problem of students‟ anxiety in teaching English speaking skill

3 Significance of the study

This study is hoped to provide more insights into the nature of anxiety in learning foreign languages It is bound to better my own teaching by offering me a more thorough understanding of my students Furthermore, its application may give other teachers some suggestions to get students more involved in speaking lessons by gradually building up their self confidence On the part of students, the research is expected to raise their awareness of the sources of anxiety they encounter in speaking lessons so as to help them find out the ways to minimize its negative impacts on their academic performance

4 Scope of the study

It would be impossible for this study to cover all the facets of such a broad issue as students‟ anxiety in foreign language learning due to time constraints as well as the complexity of the matter under consideration As the thesis title suggests, I restricted this study

to finding the possible causes of student anxiety in speaking lessons, thereby proposing ways

of dealing with this problem through a CLE with vivid explanations and concrete illustrations

of how each step is carried out in the sense that they are comprehensible enough to be a handy reference for those who are concerned

5 Method of the study

In this research, a combination of observational and survey methods were utilized These two methods were supplemented and strengthened via the use of staff consultation approach to make a more realistic and reliable overview of the instructional situation Throughout the stages of the research, the following instruments were employed to collect the

primary data: Classroom observation, Staff consultation, and Questionnaires

6 Organization of the study

The study consists of four chapters exclusive of the Introduction and Conclusions

Chapter 1: Literature review provides a theoretical background concerning the factors

causing SA in learning FL including: definition of anxiety, classification, the relationship between anxiety and FL learning, causes of learning anxiety, anxiety in speaking skill, anxiety management strategies as well as the related studies on cooperative learning with its definitions, components, the effectiveness of CL and the bases for applying a CLE in dealing with SA

Chapter 2: Research methodology describes the overall picture of how the research

was carried out including the research questions, subjects of the study, the instruments employed, data collection and analysis procedures

Chapter 3: Results and Discussions presents the research results obtained form

classroom observations, staff consultations, and questionnaires, which were discussed according to thematic units (qualitatively) and in the form of tables (quantitatively) in relation

to the research questions

Chapter 4: The empirical course

This chapter specifies the practical steps in implementing a speaking lesson in light of a CLE such as how to structure students, what decisions should be made when applying CL, etc together with two sample lesson plansfor illustration

PART TWO: Development Chapter 1: Literature review

1.1 Anxiety in language learning

1.1.1 Definition of anxiety

Anxiety is generally viewed as a psychological concept and has been defined by a great many researchers Lesse (1970) portraits anxiety as “a phenomenon experienced as a foreboding dread or threat to the human mechanism whether the threat is generated by internal real or imagined danger”(p.13) With more mechanical coloring, Spielberger (1983) sees anxiety as “an unpleasant emotional state or condition which is characterized by subjective feelings of tension, apprehension, and worry, and by activation or arousal of the automatic nervous system that accompany these feelings” (p.482) In a similar manner, Horwitz (1986) defines anxiety as a kind of troubled feeling in the mind It is a subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the automatic nervous system

In a word, it seems difficult to describe or define anxiety in a simple and exhaustive manner, as it arises from many kinds of sources often associated with particular contexts or situations that individuals perceive threatening according to their unique frame of reference (Eharman,1996)

1.1.2 The classification of anxiety

As recognized by many scholars, anxiety is such a complex issue that it still requires more endeavors to figure it out Horwitz (2001) found that anxiety, like self-esteem, can be

experienced at various levels At the global level, trait anxiety is a more permanent

inclination to be anxious Some people are predictably and generally anxious about many

things At a situational level, state anxiety is experienced in relation to some particular act or

event From these findings, it is implied that in a classroom, it is important for a teacher to try

to determine whether students‟ anxiety stems from a more global or situational to deal with it properly According to MacIntyre & Gardner (1991), as trait anxiety has somewhat ambiguously defined nature, in terms of language teaching, it seems more useful to look into the aspect of state anxiety

Yet another important insight to be applied to our understanding of anxiety lies in the

distinction between debilitative and facilitative anxiety (Scovel, 1978), or what Oxford

(1999) called “harmful” and “helpful” anxiety We may be inclined to view anxiety as a negative factor, something to be avoided at all costs But the notion of facilitative anxiety, in the form of some concern or apprehension over a task to be accomplished is a positive factor

In Bailey‟s (1983) study of competitiveness and anxiety in second language learning, facilitative anxiety was one of the keys to success, closely related to competitiveness Assuredly, anxiety is multi-faceted

1.1.3 Anxiety and FL learning

Early researchers Chastain (1975), Swain & Burnaby (1976) regard language anxiety

as a simple transfer of other types of anxiety such as trait anxiety to language learning Some scholars, more recently, view language anxiety as a special and distinctive phenomenon caused by the unique stresses imposed on students in language classes In this light, Horwitz et

al (1986) offers a definition of FL anxiety as “a distinct complex of self perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors, related to classroom learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” and Gardner & MacIntyre (1994), put it as “the apprehension experienced when a situation requires the use of SL with which the individual is not fully proficient” In this view, the cause of anxiety is somewhat related to students‟ level of proficiency However,

it still remains questionable as it may be true for what is meant by oral proficiency only

The questions that arise here are: Why should anxiety be a special problem for language learners? Aren‟t students anxious about other subjects? The answer here may lie in the fact that language learning is very different Nascente (2001), believes that “in most learning situations, students are required to perform in the target language, which deprives them of their normal means of communication and behavior, which probably breeds anxiety about communicating with others, both in and outside classroom”

1.1.4 Causes of language learning anxiety

The major concern of the earlier studies was the causes of language anxiety As early

as 1983, Bailey, through the analysis of the diaries of 11 learners, found that competitiveness can lead to anxiety Besides, he also found that tests and learners‟ perceived relationship with

their teachers also contributed to learners‟ anxiety These three aspects that Bailey identified were supported in subsequent studies, especially in Young‟s study According to Young (1991), there are six potential causes of language anxiety which include personal and interpersonal, learner beliefs about language learning, instructor beliefs about language teaching, instructor-learner interactions, classroom procedures and language tests From this list we can see that Young, in fact, identified the causes from three aspects, that is, the aspects

of learners, teachers and instructional practice, with which Bailey‟s findings also complied

However, up to now, findings by Horwitz and Cope (1986) have been the most influential They identified three causes of language anxiety, that is, communication apprehension, test anxiety and fear of negative evaluation Based on these three components they also designed a Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale including 33 items This scale was later widely used by researchers to measure FL learners‟ anxiety and examine the effect of anxiety on learning in different contexts

1.1.5 Related studies on language anxiety in speaking

Up to now, not many research studies concerning students‟ anxiety in speaking have been carried out, though speaking has been reputed as the most anxiety-prone of all Some scholars (Bailey, 1983; Horwitz et al., 1986) share the view that students experience the highest level of anxiety in speaking In a study in 2005, Batista comes to a conclusion that speaking skill revealed twice the level of anxiety than writing did, and were four times higher than listening skill According to Morwitz et al (1986), the manifestations of students showing anxiety are observed as distortion of sounds, inability to reproduce the intonation of the language, poor retrieval of items from memory under various conditions such as exams, oral performances, etc Other studies (Cheng, et al., 1999; Kitano, 2001; Meihua Liu, 2006) on the relationship between anxiety and oral performance have quite consistent findings showing that

SA negatively affects the process of FL learning In particular, they are reluctant to express personally relevant information and, in more severe cases, they may keep silent instead of participation for fear of making mistakes

1.1.6 Anxiety management strategies

As language anxiety has affected learners a great deal, some researchers have attempted to work out the coping strategies to deal with this Useful suggestions can be found

in Horwitz (1986); and Young (1991) In a vivid and very practical way, Young (1991) categories the recommendations under a wide variety of FL variables, ranging from instructor behaviors to various activities and practices in the classroom as follows

* To deal with personal and interpersonal anxieties as well as erroneous beliefs and attitudes about language learning and teaching, he proposes that the teacher ask students to verbalize any fears and then to write them down on the board In this way students can see that they are not alone in their anxiety

* To reduce anxiety related to teacher-student interaction, he suggests that teachers create a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere, which is an important prerequisite to language learning success He also emphasizes that instructors should deal with corrections in a non- threatening way and develop an encouraging attitude to learners

* To minimize the anxiety associated with classroom procedures, teachers are advised

to tailor their solo activities to suit the affective needs of their students In addition, to avoid calling individuals randomly in front of their peers, group work and pair work in specific situations should be encouraged

1.2 Cooperative learning

1.2.1 Definitions of cooperative learning

The terms „cooperative learning‟ has been gaining widespread concern as is has proved

to be virtually productive in language teaching In a very clear way, Smith (1995) defines cooperative learning as “working together to accomplish a shared goal” In the same year, Roschelle and Teasley label cooperative work as a task that is accomplished by dividing it among participants, where “each person is responsible for a portion of the problem solving”

In his book in 1997, Jacobs sees the spirit of CL as „a body of concepts and techniques for helping to maximize the benefits of cooperation among students in education‟ Put it another way, students‟ cooperation skill can be best enhanced my means of CL

In a simply sense, CL is a type of instruction whereby students work together in small groups to achieve a common goal CL has become increasingly popular as a feature of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) with benefits that include increased student interest due to the fast pace of cooperative tasks, improves critical thinking power, and the opportunity to practice both speaking and listening skills in a natural context The range of benefits goes far beyond increased language learning to include increased self- esteem and tolerance of diverse points of view (Johnson & Johnson, 1989)

1.2.2 Components of cooperative learning

Normally, students can interact with each other as they learn in three basic ways They

can compete with one another; they can work individualistically on their own toward a goal without paying attention to other students; or they can work cooperatively with a shared

interest in each other's learning Whatever interaction patterns they use, it is important that students learn to interact effectively in each of these patterns

It is advisable for instructors to bear in mind that only under certain conditions may cooperative efforts be expected to be more productive than competitive and individualistic efforts Roger & Johnson (1994) propose five basic elements which lie in all healthy cooperative relationships as follows

1.2.2.1 Positive Interdependence

In an effectively structured cooperative lesson, it is required that students hold the belief that they "sink or swim together." Within CL situations, in Roger & Johnson (1994)‟s view, students have two responsibilities: learn the assigned material and ensure that all group

members learn the assigned material The technical term for that dual responsibility is positive

interdependence which exists when students perceive that they are linked with group mates in

such a way that they cannot succeed unless their group mates do and that they must coordinate their efforts with those of their group members to complete a task Positive interdependence promotes mutual benefits and maximizes the learning effectiveness of all members When positive interdependence is clearly understood, it establishes that:

1 Each group member's efforts are required and indispensable for group success (i.e., there can be no "free-riders")

2 Each group member has a unique contribution to make to the joint effort because of his

or her resources and/or role and task responsibilities

1.2.2.2 Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction

Promotive interaction which results from positive interdependence may be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each other's efforts to achieve, complete tasks to reach the group's goals (Roger & Johnson, 1994) Promotive interaction is characterized by individuals providing each other with efficient help and assistance; exchanging needed resources, such as information and materials They also confirm that it assists in processing information more effectively; providing each other with feedback in order to improve their subsequent performance; challenging each other's conclusions and reasoning in order to promote better decision making and greater insight into the problems being considered; trying

to gain mutual benefit; and maintaining a moderate level of arousal characterized by low anxiety and stress

1.2.2.3 Personal responsibility

As a core principle of cooperative work every group member has to do their fair share

of the work Personal responsibility (Individual accountability) exists when the performance of

individual students is assessed, the results are given back to the individual and the group, and

the student is held responsible by group mates for contributing his fair share to the group‟s

success It is important that the group knows who needs more assistance, support, and encouragement in completing the assignment It is also important that group members know they should not be „passive passengers‟ who become too dependent on the work of others and that they are expected to be responsible for the final group outcome (Harkins & Petty, 1982)

CL groups aim to make each member a stronger individual in his or her own right Individual accountability is essential to ensure that all group members are actually

strengthened by learning cooperatively After participating in a cooperative lesson, group

members should be better prepared to complete similar tasks by themselves

1.2.2.4 Interpersonal and small-group skills

The fourth element of CL to mention is the proper use of interpersonal and small-group skills In order to coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals, students must: 1) get to know and trust each other, 2) communicate accurately and unambiguously, 3) accept and support each other, and 4) resolve conflict constructively (Johnson & Johnson, 1991) Placing socially unskilled students in a group and telling them to cooperate does not guarantee that they have the ability to do so effectively We are not born instinctively knowing how to interact effectively with others Thus, students must be taught the social skills required for high quality collaboration and be motivated to use them if cooperative groups are to be productive It is believed that the more socially skillful students are and the more attention teachers pay to teaching and rewarding the use of social skills, the higher the achievement that can be expected Social skill is claimed to yield higher learning achievement

1.2.2.5 Group processing

The fifth essential component of CL is group processing The effectiveness of group work is judged by the way it functions A process, in this sense, is an identifiable sequence of events taking place over time, and process goals refer to the sequence of events instrumental in achieving outcome goals (Johnson & F Johnson, 1991) Group processing may be defined as reflecting on a group session to describe what member actions were helpful and unhelpful, and

to make decisions about what actions to continue or change The purpose of group processing

is to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the members in contributing to the collaborative efforts to achieve the group‟s goals

There are two levels of processing known as small group and whole class In order to ensure that small-group processing takes place, teachers allocate some time at the end of each class session for each cooperative group to process how effectively members worked together

The keys to successful small-group processing are allowing sufficient time for it to take place, providing a structure for processing, emphasizing positive feedback, making the processing specific rather than general, maintaining student involvement in processing, reminding students to use their cooperative skills, and communicating clear expectations as to the purpose of processing

In addition to small-group processing, the teacher should sometimes engage in class processing When CL groups are used, the teacher observes the groups, analyzes the problems they have working together, and gives feedback to each group on how well they are working together The teacher should systematically observe each group at work to assess the outcomes

whole-1.2.3 Effectiveness of CL

Some teachers admit that common practice in many schools has teachers striving to separate students from one another and have them work on their own Having students work alone or competitively has become the dominant interaction pattern among students in classrooms today The paradox is that the vast majority of the research comparing student-student interaction patterns indicates that students learn more effectively when they work cooperatively After synthesizing various studies on CL, Roger & Johnson (1994) point out the following benefits

1) Students achieve more in cooperative interaction than in competitive or

individualistic interaction It is indicated that cooperation in comparison with competition and individualistic learning seems to be much more powerful in producing achievement than the other interaction patterns

2) Students are more positive about school, subject areas, and teachers or professors

when they are structured to work cooperatively

3) Students are more positive about each other when they learn cooperatively than

when they learn alone, competitively, or individualistically - regardless of differences in ability, ethnic background, handicapped or not

4) Students are more effective interpersonally as a result of working cooperatively than

when they work alone or competitively Students with cooperative experiences are more able

to take the perspective of others, are more positive about taking part in controversy, have better developed interaction skills and a more positive expectation about working with others than from individualistic settings

5) Students‟ cooperative efforts is the leading factor in promoting productivity and

achievement regarding social interdependence Numerous studies on CL conducted over the

past decades have been consistent in validating its benefits in language teaching In their analysis of some studies concerning CL (1989), Johnson & Johnson point out that CL resulted

in „higher level reasoning, more frequent generation of new ideas and solutions, and greater transfer of what is learned within one situation to another‟

The fact that working together to achieve a shared goal produces greater productivity than does working alone is so well confirmed by so much research that it stands as one of the strongest principles of social and organizational psychology Therefore, it is rational to establish that CL is one of the most efficient strategies for any instructor

1.2.4 Why using a CLE to deal with speaking anxiety?

1.2.4.1 Psychological basis

In a modern class, students are usually exposed to a world of grasping knowledge, rapid change, and reluctance of what source of information to access Such confusions may easily lead to a rather anxious and defensive attitude towards leaning In a book in 1968, Maslow states that „human beings have with them two sets of forces or needs- one that strives for growth and one that clings to safety‟ Of these forces, the need to feel secure must be met before the need to take further steps or adventures Considering how human beings intend to

take risks, he also adds that „each step forward is made possible by the feeling of being safe, of operating out into the unknown from a safe port‟ With regard to this issue, Silberman (1966) makes it clearer that one of the ways to attain a feeling of safety is to be connected to other people or a sense of being in a group The feeling of group member enables students to face the challenges ahead When learning with others, they are provided with emotional and intellectual support that allows them to surpass their own level of knowledge and skill

One more viewpoint that strongly supports the value of working cooperatively is that

of Bruner (1966) He proposes the notion of reciprocity, that is „a deep human need to respond

to others and to operate jointly with them toward an objective‟ He sees reciprocity as a source

of leaning motivation According to him, „where joint action is needed, where reciprocity is required for the group to maintain an objective, then there seem to be processes that carry the individual along into learning‟ By working with peers to fulfill their social needs, students are more likely to engage in active learning, especially speaking

1.2.4.2 Pedagogical basis

Considering the notable points of the hypotheses about L1 acquisitions, a CL environment can be beneficial for students both in terms of linguistic input and output According to Input Hypothesis, Krasshen (1983) shows that we acquire a language as we access to written and spoken inputs and comprehend meaning conveyed in that language Our cognitive process occurs when the input is slightly beyond the current level of learners‟

competence This can be formularized as i + l On this basis, a CL environment helps increase

the quantity of comprehensible input from the more able peers Students‟getting input from their peers acts as a potential aid in reducing students‟ fear of having little to talk And the teacher‟s assistance as collaboration also facilitates the way students get access to the needed input for the later production

With regard to Output Hypothesis, one of the representatives of this linguistic school, Swain (1985) suggests that input is necessary but not sufficient for language learning How to generate output is vital for learners to raise their proficiency Practising productive skills enhances learners‟ fluency by pushing them to engage in syntactic processing of language rather than attending to the meaning If this is done in groups, students can benefit a great deal

from the production of their partners Moreover, the principle Equal Participation of CL

ensures the even participation of group members

Being in such an accommodating environment, students are apparently offered a chance to upgrade their language capacity through the enjoyment of learning and sharing with other peers In this way, some shy students may find the great encouragement to overcome their inhibition and fear of making mistakes

In summary, this chapter is the review of the principle theoretical bases for the study Despite the previous studies on different aspects of language anxiety, it seems that little research has been done to work out the solutions to this problem through the use of a CLE in oral English lessons Therefore, the present study focused on this promising area to find some coping strategies for the current issue

CHAPTER 2: Research METHODOLOGY

2.1 Research setting

2.1.1 Description of the school

I have been teaching at Hoang Van Thu Specializing USS, Hoa Binh Province It is a mountainous province in the North of Vietnam, in which the ethnic minorities account for approximately 80% of the population This is a typical feature of the area It seems that its geographical conditions are not favorable for FL learning Students here have few chances to contact with native speakers, which is very disadvantageous

By nature, the majority of students in these areas are reserved and not so confident compared with those from the city This characteristic strongly affects their performance in speaking, even for the students of a specializing school like ours Most of them experience a rather high level of anxiety during speaking lessons From my actual teaching, I have come to realize that anxiety is not only the problem of less-able students but also the able ones Many

of the students with high test scores still express frequent signs of anxiety when being exposed

to individual speaking

The school itself is well-equipped with all the needed facilities like Lab, Audio Center, etc It possesses a quite update library, with accessible internet sources In fact, the English teaching staff here is qualified enough However, there is a regrettable lack of cooperation of some teachers of other subjects when English classes make any noise Therefore, when teaching we have to be very cautious about the noise being made in order not to disturb other classes though we fully understand that noise, in many cases, is considered a healthy and indispensable part of teaching and learning languages

2.1.2 Description of the program

With regards to curriculum, the official textbooks assigned by the Ministry of Education poses a quite heavy workload on both teachers and non- English majors to meet the established objectives of each school year One of the reasons is that the textbook is rather challenging for most students, as a result, many teachers have painstakingly adapted this source of material to suit their teaching context The time allocated to speaking skill is 20% of

each unit However, in reality, it often takes the teacher at least half of the allowed time to explain the related content in this part to get students ready for speaking practice

As a matter of fact, tests of all levels at USS are written ones Students‟ oral skills have been rather neglected Students work much more on reading and grammar exercises than speaking practice Due to the lack of needed exposure to speaking along with other causes, most students are often puzzled and anxious when using English communicatively

Taking everything mentioned above into consideration, different factors of the study context may affect the issue under investigation- students‟ anxiety- to different degrees

2.1.2 Description of the course

+ The class meets on 3 lessons per week One in five lessons is speaking Usually, speaking is also taught integratively with other skills

+ The goal of the course is to get students familiarize with working cooperatively through which they can partly get rid of the feeling of anxiety and gain more confidence to use English orally

+ The focus of the course was the use of a CLE to reduce SA, in which both the teacher and the students make an effort to facilitate the learning process by cooperative with each other in different aspects of learning

2.2 Research questions

The final aim of the research is to examine the effectiveness of the application of a CLE to reduce student’s SA To achieve this goal, we have undergone various stages of investigation on learning situation, students’ behavior, the manifestations of anxiety in classroom setting, and so

on that possibly have negative effects on student involvement and performance Based on the initial findings, the following research questions are set forth

1 To what extent do the students experience anxiety in an oral English classroom?

2 What factors contribute to students‟ anxiety in English speaking lessons?

3 How does the application of a cooperative learning environment work in reducing anxiety in an oral English classroom?

2.3 Participants

+ Teachers: Being an empirical research, it is necessary to include the co-operation of other teachers Three upper secondary school English teachers with over eight years of teaching experience were invited to complete a consulting note Two of them have a B.A and one has an M.A

+ Students: are a group of 32 non- English major upper secondary male and female students, aged 17 years old, 4 out of 32 are ethnic minorities Their English proficiency level ranges from pre-intermediate to intermediate with about three years of academic English experience by the time they reach this course They come from different districts of Hoa Binh province The study took place in Hoang Van Thu specializing USS where they have been learning for a year and a half

2.4 Instruments

2.4.1 Classroom observations

During the first three weeks (2 speaking lessons), the researcher kept a record of students‟ behavior in the class The observations aimed to identify the students‟ signs of anxiety and levels of participation in different activities involving their oral performance - pair work, group discussions, especially the situations in which anxiety was intensely generated like presentations, answering questions, etc This was carried out via the use of classroom observation sheet (Appendix 1) Each intended item to exploit the needed data was completed either during or right after each lesson This instrument was mainly used before the intervention stages

2.4.2 Staff consultations

As most of my eight colleagues have been teaching English for more than six years, they are certain to have useful experience working with upper secondary students Three of them were chosen to contribute their ideas to the problems of student anxiety and the ways they have used to manage with their students They were asked to make some notes expressing their experience in identifying the common signs of students‟ SA, the major causes for this phenomenon as well as suggesting the ways they have used to reduce students‟ anxiety This was done in week four, shortly after classroom observation stage (Appendix 2)

2.4.3 Questionnaires for students

+ The quantitative pre-intervention questionnaire consisted of two parts (Appendix 4) The first part with two items aimed to elicit the information concerning students‟ English proficiency and speaking ability The second part comprised 14 items used to serve two main purposes: (1) to ascertain if the students investigated experience anxiety in speaking lessons, and (2) to determine whether the causes are more of intrinsic causes (questions 1-7) or more of extrinsic causes (questions 8-14) to decide on the suitable intervention techniques

The researcher adapted the 33-item survey from the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale developed by Horwitz et al (1986), (Appendix 3) Among 33 items, 8 of them were selected and 6 items were tailored to suit the study purpose The questionnaire was later translated into Vietnamese and administered to the students to determine their anxiety levels Each item was designed on a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from „Strongly disagree‟ to

„Strongly agree‟ with the numerical value 1-5 assigned to descriptors respectively Those who responded “Agree” or “Strongly agree” were assumed to have a high level of FLA (H) Therefore, highly anxious students could have a minimum FLA score of 56 points (4 points x

14 items = 56) In contrast, as the response of “Disagree” was assigned 2 points, those who were reported to have a low level of FLA (L) could have a maximum score of 28 (2 points x

14 items = 28) Accordingly, the total score ranging from 29 to 55 points signifies moderate anxiety (M) The rating criteria can be illustrated in Table 1 as follows

Table 1: Criteria to identify groups of FLA levels

Total score of foreign language anxiety Levels

aimed to test the effectiveness of Teacher & students interaction; Questions 7- 10 aimed to test

the effectiveness of Students & students’ interaction

2.5 Procedures

The study took place for eleven weeks of the second term of school year 2009-2010 During the first three weeks, the researcher taught speaking in the traditional way, which

strictly follows the textbook English 11, Hoang Van Van et al (2006) – (Unit 11 + Unit 12)

Classroom observations were centered on student‟s participation, behaviors and levels of anxiety in various classroom activities At the end of this phase, the first questionnaire was administered to 32 students to complete at home to allow for more privacy Based on the results from classroom observations, the questionnaire and the notes collected from three colleagues, intervention techniques were selected and applied for six weeks These techniques

were aimed at creating a CLE by means of Teacher & Students interaction and Students &

Students interaction After the intervention- the last week, the follow-up questionnaire was

delivered to these 32 students to get their evaluation on the implemented intervention techniques

The intervention results were studied and adjusted accordingly after the first three weeks before being continued in the next three weeks After this phase, the follow-up questionnaire was given to 32 students to get their feedback after the intervention

2.6 Data Analysis

This study was descriptive by nature The employed research tools provided both quantitative and qualitative data which would supplement each other to reflect the better impact as well as more reliable research results

The data collected from class observations and staff consultations were subjected to qualitative thematic content analysis Since the observations and staff consultations in the research were conducted according to a set of purposes or key questions, they could be best analyzed according to thematic units

For the quantitative analysis, with the data collected from the first questionnaire,

students‟ levels of anxiety were analyzed using the criteria as shown in Table 1, section 3.4.3

The collected data were channeled into two main categories: Intrinsic sources of anxiety

(come from within the learners) and extrinsic sources of anxiety (come from the teacher and their peers) Detailed information of the students‟ scores and levels of speaking anxiety is indicated in Appendix 7

+ In the next phase, the post survey questionnaire was also treated quantitatively Specifically, each item was designed on a 3-point scale with the numerical value from 1 to 3 points assigned to each corresponding option with the mid-point set at 1.5 The degree of improvement was judged as follows:

+ 10-15 points => no improvement (NI) + 16- 24 points => slight improvement (SI) + 25- 30 points => remarkable improvement (RI)

CHAPTER 3: Results AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Research results

3.1.1 From classroom observations

Before the intervention, the researcher observed and kept diaries of the class during two speaking periods The observation focused on the procedures and various classroom

activities of each lesson, in which student‟s participation, behaviors, signs and levels of

anxiety were mostly paid attention to

In these two periods, the following pattern in terms of procedure of the observed speaking lessons can be drawn (Unit 11 + 12 - English 11- Speaking)

+ Lead-in: Questions- Answers about the topics (Unit 11- Sources of energy; Unit 12- The Asian Games)

+ Pre-teach vocabulary: words and phrases selected from the textbook

+ Read and retell the model dialogue in pairs

+ Discuss in groups and do presentations

In general, what was taught seemed strictly loyal to the textbook To some extent, the teacher was successful in teaching the required content of the textbook However, if viewed from other sides, there remained things as food for thoughts after these two lessons as noted in

my diaries First, a heavy load of vocabulary and intended structures to be taught had occupied

a quite large portion of class time Besides, sometimes several students showed no care, the teacher felt rather annoyed and tended to be strict, trying to get them more involved in Second, class distribution was mainly in the form of class work (about 55%), individual work (20%), group /pair work (25%) Obviously, time spent on oral practice made up only a small percentage Furthermore, students‟ participation in groups was found to be uneven as some students were shy, keeping silent almost all the time Consequently, some individuals dominated group work This signifies that the actual talking time of some may be very limited With regard to student interaction, most resorted to working individually to fulfill task requirements, sometimes they shared ideas but not in a natural way Not much active interaction between teacher and students was recorded The teacher just explained some language items and task requirements for students to do Most oral mistakes were corrected in

some way In response to their peers‟ mistakes, some were constructive enough, some paid little attention, and some gave an unfriendly look These ways of reaction might deface the speakers and discourage them from speaking next time The forth point to mention was students‟ psychological manifestation The signs such as: turning red in the face, feelings of uneasiness, being shy and nervous were most frequently noticed Three in four students with ethnic minority background were very puzzled when expressing ideas Surprisingly, for some students with high scores in written tests showed signs of SA of various ranges Some stumbled, some found it difficult to express their ideas and intention It seems that such a psychological phenomenon affects learners of different levels of language proficiency However, it was shown that the majority of the able learners proved to be better speakers

3.1.2 From staff consultations

When being asked about their opinions and experience on the problem of SA in speaking, the three teachers pointed out various signs of anxiety, of which the most typical signs were: Students‟ keeping silent most of the time, being shy, reserved and reluctant or being unable to express themselves, using too much mother tongue, passing their own ball to others, afraid of being called to speak, speaking too softly among other things

My colleagues also helped outline the major causes of SA in speaking As for them, anxiety in speaking lessons is mainly attributed to:

- The lack of confidence or fear of being defaced due to a poor linguistic knowledge

- Feeling inferior to other learners as far as English is concerned

- The fear of not being able to make themselves understood in English or when they express their ideas, others will oppose them

- Some rigid topics that students have nothing to say

- The lack of careful preparations in advance

- The critical, sniggering/ scornful attitude from classmates

- Teacher‟s abrupt interruption

These causes were detected from actual teaching Thus, they are found to be very prominent and valuable in providing us more insights into the nature of SA The causes of SA

in speaking proposed by such scholars as Bailey (1983), Young (1991), Horwitz and Cope

(1986) are a broad level, so we- as teachers may sometimes find it hard to comprehend and to appreciate them In contrast, what picked up from teaching experience like those seems practical and concrete

To deal with SA, the teachers suggested the following ways:

- Teachers should put them to work in groups or pairs to discuss first

- Before doing a task, answering the questions or presenting, students should be provided with needed linguistic inputs, model practice and so on to get prepared

- Teachers should build up students‟ confidence by using some language games to get them involved and encourage them to overcome their shyness and to take risks

- Students should be assured that it is natural to make oral mistakes

- Teachers should not criticize their students if they say something wrong

- Teachers are advised not to interrupt but help students feel free to express their ideas

- The topics for discussions should be interesting and suitable for their age group

- Teachers should create a cheerful, friendly classroom atmosphere If possible, try to make use of their sense of humor sometimes to make students delighted

It can be seen that many of these suggestions are worth mentioning as they are derived from practical pedagogical context Interestingly enough, most of these ideas coincide with those put forward by Young (1991) To help reduce SA, he strongly emphasizes the need for creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere by dealing with corrections in a non- threatening way as well as developing an encouraging attitude to learners He also advises teachers to tailor their solo activities to suit students‟ need and the use of group work and pair work in specific situations Above all, these shared experiences on various aspects of learning anxiety had assisted the researcher greatly in selecting and adjusting the techniques used in the empirical course

3.1.3 From questionnaires for the students

3.1.3.1 Pre-intervention questionnaire

a) Student linguistic background

Table 2: Student self- assessment on their linguistic background

Items Very good

b)The level of anxiety perceived by students in speaking lessons (Appendix 7)

To verify whether the students under investigation experienced SA, the scores were calculated, summed and averaged in Table 3 and Figure 1

Table 3: The summed score of student anxiety

No of participants Average of total score Mean

As can be seen from table 3, the average level of SA reported by the respondents was 3.12 which was significantly higher than the mid-point value of five point Liker scale (3 points)

Figure 1: Scores and levels of FLA

L(12.5%)

M(71.9%) H(15.6%)

A closer look at the individual score of the respondents (Figure 1) indicates that only 4 out of 32 students (12.5%) reported free from anxiety, while 71.9 % admitted having moderate level of anxiety, not to mention 15.6% of them experienced high anxiety level In addition, among 32 subjects, the numbers of students whose SA score was higher than the average mid-point (3 points x 14 items = 42 points) was calculated at 18 (appendix 7) These figures suggest that SA does exist among the students surveyed in this study

c) The factors contributing to student anxiety in English speaking lessons

+ Intrinsic factors causing anxiety

As noted in section 3.4.3, items 1-7 were constructed to measure the degree of SA

within each cause to gain a more thorough understanding of the most serious causes The first seven factors were grouped under the category of intrinsic sources of anxiety This is because they have roots in students‟ psychology personally Responses to these items are presented in Table 4

Table 4: Levels of anxiety caused by intrinsic factors (Items 1-7)

Item Mean Strongly

of basic causes were found in Inferiority complex (item 5), Limited vocabulary and grammar (item 1), and Lack of practice (item 4) with the mean score measured at 3.43, 3.28, and 3.22 respectively Specifically, of these three items, the most prominent cause regarding Inferiority complex bore a large number of students in agreement accounting for 59.2% Although Limited vocabulary & grammar and Lack of practice hold the lower mean scores of 3.28, and

3.22 respectively, they also had the comparable percentage of responses showing agreement of 62.5 % for the former and 53.2% for the latter Surprisingly, 40.6% did not think that SA was attributed to Lack of practice Thus, it can be inferred that students‟ poor vocabulary and grammar, feeling inferior to other learners as well as the lack of practice could really be an obstacle for them to articulate their ideas

It is indicated that Personality (item 2), Bad pronunciation (item 3), and Lack of familiarity with the environment (item 7) did not strongly generate anxiety as the mean scores

of these items all fell below the mid-point of 3 The point that counts here is when asked about Personality and Pronunciation , many of the participants showed their reservedness by choosing “not sure” to item 2(31.3%) and item 3 (25%)

In general, there is a big difference among the mean scores of the seven items above, fluctuating from 2.75 to 3.84 The average of mean scores stood at as high as 3.15 suggesting that intrinsic factors are virtually worth taking into serious consideration

+ Extrinsic factors causing anxiety

The rest seven causes (item 8-14) were grouped under the category of extrinsic sources

of anxiety These causes are supposed to stem from the affective outside factors known as the interpersonal factors The findings are presented in Table 5