VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
TONG
THI
MY LIEN
INVESTIGATING ORAL PARTICIPATION IN
IN-CLASS GROUP WORK BY FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS
AT ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
NGHIEN CUU
VIEC
THAM
GIA NOI
TRONG HOAT
DONG NHOM TREN LOP CUA
SINH VIEN
NAM
THU
NHAT
TAI
KHOA ANH, DAI HOC
NGOAI NGU
-
DHQG
HA
NOI
M.A. Combined Program Thesis
Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code:

1.1.2
Participation
6
1.2 Overview of group work
7
1.2.1
Group organization
7
L2.2
Benefits of group work
8
1.2.3 Problems oj group work
9
1.3 ESL/ EFL students' participation in group work
11
1.3.1
The importance ofESL/EFL students 'participation in group
work //
1.3.2 Patterns of students 'participation in group work //
1.3.3 Students
'
lack of participation in group work 12
1.4 Influential factors on ESL/EFL
students'
participation in in-class group work 13
1.4.1
Student-related factors
14
1.4.2 Pedagogy-related factors
15

3.4 Teachers' monitoring strategies during group work 60
VI
CONCLUSION
1.
Summary of the study 68
2.
Pedagogical implications 69
3.
Limitations of the study 73
4.
Suggestions for further studies 73
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
VII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ED:
English Department
EFL; English as a Foreign Language
ELT: English Language Teaching
ESL:
English as a Second language
ULIS:
University of Languages and International Studies
NNS:
Non-native English Speaker
NNSs: Non-native English Speakers
NS:
Native English Speaker
NSs:
Native English Speakers

Group work has been widely believed to offer various advantages such as enhancing
students' interaction, generating a supportive atmosphere, creating chances to use the
target language and promoting learner autonomy (Long & Porter, 1985: Brown, 2001).
Thus,
it has blossomed in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) classrooms. The emphasis on group activities is particularly noteworthy
in Vietnamese English Language Teaching (ELT) setting where students are EFL learners
and have few opportunities to use English in daily life (Vo, 2004). Nonetheless, the
effectiveness of group work has been reconsidered closely since Tickoo
(1991,
p.53)
left
the open question
"/.v
group work a pedagogic universal or a partial
remedy'^"
after his
experiment comparing the success of
a
group-work class with a
teacher-directed
one.
Since
then, the need to examine how group-work theory works in practice has rapidly emerged.
Addressing this issue, in the world of language teaching, various studies such as those by
Jones
(1995),
Zhenhui (2001), Martine (2003), Yuenfeng (2005), and Chen (2004) were
conducted to discover what actually happened when implementing group activities in
language classrooms. However, deep empirical investigations in the sub-area of students'

the ELT context of University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National
University (ULIS, VNU). Although group work is a familiar ELT method at English
Department (ED), it is considerably new for the majority of freshmen, who have had little
previous group-learning experience in high school. Consequently, it has inevitably posed
huge challenges for both teachers and students at this site.
The study entitled
'"investigating
oral participation in in-class group work by first-year
EFL students at
ED,
VLISy
VNlf^
was conducted as an attempt to examine the
perceptions of first-year EFL learners at
ULIS,
VNU towards group work, investigate their
participation level and quality in group work, find out possible influential factors on their
participation, and pinpoint teachers' monitoring strategies to motivate students to
participate in group activities.
HopefulK,
this
research,
focusing on single-culture groups
of Vietnamese EFL students at tertiary level, could narrow the abovementioned research
gaps and bring new perspectives to the field.
2.
AIMS OF
THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to
investigate

Although the study was conducted on a small scale with a particular group of first-year
EFL students at ULIS, VNU, the researcher hoped that its findings could be of great
significance. Specifically, it would contribute to the existing knowledge in the field
concerning group work, students' participation in group work,
infiuential
factors on their
participation, and teachers' strategies to motivate students to participate.
Moreover,
it
could help to raise awareness of first-year EFL
students
at ULIS, as well as EFL learners.
about the problems in the participation of their peers in in-class group work and certain
elements affecting their participation. It could also assist teachers of English to recognize
what encourage or discourage a number of their students from participating in group
activities so that
the\
could adjust their teaching methods to motivate their students in
language learning. Finally, it would propose several
useftil
recommendations for teachers
to minimize negative impacts of infiuential factors on
students'
participation in group
work.
5.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The research report consists of three parts. The Introduction presents the rationale, aims,
scope, and significance of the study. The Development includes three chapters. Chapter
One covers an in-depth review of the literature in which relevant theoretical background

p.177).
Doff
(1998)
gives a simpler explanation:
Group work is a process that the teacher divides the class into small groups to work
together (usually four or
five
students in each group) and all the groups work at the same
lime(p.l38).
Vo (2004) also follows Doffs approach as she defines group work as "any classroom
activity in which students perform collaborative tasks with one or more partners" (p. 16).
On the whole, it is widely agreed that group work is a process in which two or more
learners work together to do a task which involves cooperation and self-generated
language.
Although applying group work in classroom contexts has been extensively discussed in the
literature, not much has been said about the classification of group activities. Johnson and
Smith (1991) are among the few researchers who have touched upon this matter
systematically. According to them, basically, there are three main kinds of group work:
informal learning groups, formal learning groups, and study teams. First, informal learning
groups are a form of grouping students temporarily within a single class session. A class of
any size can be organized into informal groups at any time of the lesson to check students'
understanding of the material, or to provide them with chances to apply what they are
learning (Johnson and Smith, 1991). For instance, teachers may ask those sitting near each
other to work in teams and spend five minutes discussing a topic.
Second,/orma/
learning
groups are groups which are formed to do a specific task such as delivering a presentation,
or conducting a project (Johnson and Smith, 1991). In these
groups,
students work together

observable aspects of participation such as the number of turns taken or the amount of
talking time (Martine, 2003). However, the researcher of the present study supposed that
the quality of ideas students give out during the activities should be also judged so that a
more comprehensive evaluation of students' participation can be made.
To sum up, this study examined students' oral participation, measured by their number of
turns taken, their amount of talking time, and the quality of their ideas shared during group
work to create a more comprehensive investigation.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF GROUP WORK
1.2.1 GROUP ORGANIZATION
When deciding to use this kind of activity, teachers have to think of group organization.
involving two factors: how big a group should be (group size), and how students can be
allocated to groups (group formation).
There are several arguments about group size. According to Honeyfield
(1991),
a team can
contain between five and eight students. Meanwhile, Brown (2001) argues that the number
of between two and six learners is appropriate. In fact, the size of a group depends on
certain elements such as the number of students in the class, the task itself and the duration
of the activity (Zhenhui, 2001; Chen, 2004). Nevertheless, small groups of four or five
appear to be the most effective.
It
is likely to create more interesting and challenging tasks
with a variety of opinions shared, and adequate negotiation among members to reach
agreement (Honeyfield, 1991). Harmer (2001) also stresses
students'
great involvement
and participation that can be generated in such small-group work.
8
In terms of group formation, a review of the literature shows that teams can be created by
three major ways, namely random grouping, student-selected grouping and instructor-

including enhancing students' interaction, generating a supportive
atmosphere,
creating
chances to use the target language and promoting learner autonomy.
In the first place, group work contributes to the enhancement of students' interaction (Long
& Porter, 1985). As it offers them more chances to interact with each
other,
greater
involvement and accountability can be produced within a group. Thanks to
this,
their
communicative competence, cognitive learning, mteractive skills and interpersonal
relationships tend to be promoted (Zhenhui, 2001).
Secondly, a cooperative affective classroom atmosphere is likely to be created through
group activities (Zhenhui, 2001; Brown, 2001). According to Gower (1987, as cited in
Yuenfeng, 2005), since the pressure of being listened to by the teacher tends to blur when
working in teams, learners feel more relaxed and more ready to speak. Cooperation and
unity among them can be also facilitated (Zhenhui, 2001;
Luft,
1984, as cited in Martine,
2003).
Another benefit is generating a better environment for students to use the target language
(Chen, 2004). Learning in groups, students, especially the poorly motivated ones, have
greater opportunities for active, meaningful and varied use of the target language (Long,
1977,
as cited in Zhenhui, 2001; Chen, 2004). Such an ideal interactive environment is
essential to communicative language learning.
Furthermore, group activities can promote learner autonomy (Brown, 2001; Boumer et
al.,
2001,

Moreover, students, especially elementary or even intermediate ones, tend to rely much on
their native language rather than using the target language (Chen, 2004; Yuenfeng, 2005).
This is exactly the distinctive feature of a monolingual class where all share a common
mother tongue (Ngoh, 1991; Brown, 2001). As Ngoh (1991) indicates, when engaged in
group interaction, those of low linguistic competence often resort to their native language;
teacher insistence on using English to communicate might lead to their complete silence.
In addition, learners are prone to expose themselves to imperfect language. Ngoh (1991)
raises the question whether they are really learning from each other in the fear that
inaccurate production may allow the fossilization of inaccurate structures. As Prabhu
(1987,
as cited in Tickoo. 1991) further explains, working in
groups,
students have to
depend on other members for linguistic data while few are known to possess error-free
language. Thus, interaction between members in teams
certainK
causes the great risk of
fossilization; in other words, common errors will gradually take firm roots in their
individual linguistic systems (Prabhu, 1987, as cited in Tickoo. 1991). This is even more
dangerous as the teacher has little chance to make corrections and.
accordingK.
students
will simply reinforce each
other's
errors (Brown, 2001).
Finally, group activities cause unbalanced participation among members (Chen. 2004).
This may be because some may fall into roles that easily become fossilized;
consequentK.
they turn out to be passive whereas the others might dominate (Harmer. 2001). The lack of
participation of some members in groups and many others factors inhibiting students to

It
is part of the learning process, which generates
interaction and initiates the use of the target language among them (Mclnnis, 2006).
Dynamic participation by all members is one of the qualities of an effective group activity.
Nevertheless, as Mclnnis (2006) pitifully states, a large number of students are not actually
aware of the role of participation in group work.
The\
might not understand what
advantages group activities can bring to them. This leads to their hesitance to contribute,
which will be discussed in section
1.3.3.
1,3.2 PATTERNS OF
STUDENTS^
PARTICIPATION IN GROUP WORK
As mentioned earlier, research has concentrated much on students' participation in the
classroom. Liu (2001) is one example. In his research, he even points out four classroom
participation patterns, namely total
mtegration.
conditional
participation,
marginal
interaction, and silent observation.
12
Firstly, total integration refers to students who actively participate in classroom
discussions, knowing exactly when to speak up and what to say (Liu, 2001). Visibly, they
display spontaneous, appropriate, and natural participation.
Secondly, conditional participation is constrained by a range of elements such as socio-
cultural, cognitive, affective, linguistic or environmental ones (Liu, 2001). Due to those
factors, learners' participation and interaction with others and the teacher are often limited.
Furthermore, during the discussions, they are still confused in finding out when to speak,

13
Learners' lack of participation visibly happens in group activities. For instance, in James
and Devlin's study
(2001,
as cited in Melles, 2004), a large number of ESL learners
confessed that they found it hard to participate in group work. Ngoh (1991) states that this
easily occurs at the process stage, where they are involved in oral interaction, or the
presentation stage. In fact, it is difficult to get everybody involved actively (Yuenfeng,
2005).
It may be because some may fall into roles that easily become fossilized;
consequently, they turn out to be passive whereas the others might dominate (Harmer,
2001).
Moreover, there are numerous factors lying behind learners' lack of participation in
group activities, which will be ftirther discussed in the next section 2.4.
This lack of participation of several members apparently results in unbalanced
participation (Chen, 2004). As Tickoo
(1991,
p.46)
illustrates,
"very
often one or two
group members not only steal turns and grab opportunities but
ver>
often do almost all the
talking. The rest may not even be allowed words in
edgeways."
Evidently, an empirical
study on 14 Non-Native English Speakers (NNSs) and four Native English Speakers (NSs)
in two MA teacher-training courses at the University of Birmingham revealed a high level
of dominance of NS learners over NNS ones when discussing in groups (Martine, 2003).

Martine (2003) also figures out
students'
difficulties with some aspects of discourse as an
influential element.
In
his study, many Asian learners expressed their unfamiliarity with
turn taking and uncertainty about the applications of turn taking when working with others.
Specifically, they did not know when and how to take turns.
Besides, acceptance of group work might influence student participation.
In
Martines
project (2003), some participants claimed that their positive attitudes toward group work
stimulated them to raise their voice during group discussions with NSs. Meanwhile.
according to Ngoh
(1991),
the inability to perceive the value of group work is detrimental
to students' contributions. Those who believe that group work brings no benefits might
withdraw from the activity, sharing no ideas and giving no responses.
Another element is
students'
previous experience with group work. The lack of
exposure lo
group work of the majority of NNS learners was a great hmdrance in group participation
(Marline, 2003). Despite their desire to participate, it was difficult for them to do so since
15
they were not familiar with working in groups, lacking group work or communication
skills to negotiate with others.
Lastly, students' personalities might determine their participation level in group work (Vo,
2004).
Yuenfeng (2005) exemplifies that some might be too shy to contribute; as a result,

members' willingness to cooperate. In addition, Martine (2003) states that the lack of
participation of peers has an antagonistic effect on those who participate more, i.e. their
compulsion to talk more than they like due to the lack of input from others.
16
1.4.3 CULTURE-RELATED FACTORS
The lack of participation in group work might be the matter of cultural influences as
well
(Ngoh,
1991).
A relatively large body of research has reached consensus on the role of
culture in ESL/EFL learner participation in groups due to its effects on their approaches to
group work (Andrews & Dekkers, 1999; Anyanwu, 2000, as cited in Melles, 2004). Chan
(1999,
as cited in Melles, 2004) even says that NNS students' lack of participation is
sometimes assumed to be a cultural disposition. Among the researchers, Martine (2003)
goes deep into this issue by giving further clarification about cultural impact, which is
strongly supported by Yuenfeng (2005).
First, cultural factor refers to theories on uncertainty avoidance including the concept of
face and the fear of losing face, which visibly exists in Asian culture (Martine, 2003).
Interestingly, while Martine (2003) draws attention to students' fear of losing face in front
of their peers, Yuenfeng (2005) states that students will keep silent rather than lose face in
front of their teacher. Furthermore, the fear of losing face is somehow associated with the
feelings about their language proficiency and confidence (Martine, 2003).
Cultural influences also include the value of silence in certain cultures (Chong. 1999;
Martine, 2003).
In
Asian culture, silence is considered to be important, which leads to the
common perception of the classroom as a place of quiet learners (Jones.
1995).
For

STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN GROUP WORK
Literature on teachers' strategies has indicated several basic strategies which teachers can
apply to monitor students to ensure their active participation during group activities.
First, when teams start working, teachers should keep distance from them for a short period
of time so that they are more comfortable to start the activity, working on the task by
themselves (Brown, 2001). They can stand at the front or the side of the class and observe
what is happening.
However, afterwards, teachers' intervention during group work is absolutely necessary.
They should move around to unobtrusively listen and observe and encourage interaction.
monitor groups through listening to them, checking whether they are effectively
performing their assigned Jobs, reminding them to stay focused, remind dominant speakers
to share speaking turns with others, and encourage shy members to present their ideas
(Hyland, 1991). This can help to ensure that group members are actively participating. In
addition, teachers should assign further tasks for those who have finished earlier (Ngoh.
1991).
Moreover, they should provide language help when needed (Ngoh,
1991).
Also, common
language errors should be either treated immediately or noted for later correction (Ngoh.
1991).
Nevertheless, it is highly suggested that only oral errors that affect intelligibilit> of
a message should be corrected
(Walz,
1982, as cited in Ngoh,
1991).
This supports to build
learners' confidence in learning the language.
18
Nevertheless, several educators emphasize that it is essential for teachers not to provide
excessive guidance and support for the students. For instance, Oakley and Crocker (1977)

participation quality, which helped to yield a more comprehensive evaluation of their
participation.
It
even touched upon
teachers'
monitoring strategies to motivate their
participation as well. Therefore, the present
study's
inquiry was relevant and significant m
the research field.