VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
 NGUYỄN THỊ MINH HÀ

ENHANCING THIRD-YEAR NON-ENGLISH MAJOR
STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN SPEAKING LESSONS
THROUGH COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES AT HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY
(Tăng cường sự tham gia của sinh viên năm thứ ba không chuyên trong
các giờ học nói thông qua các hoạt động cộng tác tại trường
Đại học Kinh doanh và Công nghệ Hà Nội)

M.A. Minor Programme Thesis
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10

HA NOI – 2010

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rational and statement of the problem for the study 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 3
4. Research questions/ hypothesis 3
5. Method of the study 4
6. Organization of the thesis 4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 6
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. Theoretical backgrounds of speaking 5
1.1.1. Nature of speaking 5
1.1.2. Characteristics of a successful speaking activity 5
1.1.3. Problems with speaking and speaking activities 6
1.2. Theoretical backgrounds of collaborative learning (CL) 6
1.2.1. Definitions of CL 6
1.2.1.1. Definition 6
1.2.1.2. Collaborative learning versus competitive learning 8
1.2.1.3. Collaborative learning versus cooperative learning 8
1.2.2. Key factors of successful CL 8
1.2.3. Benefits of CL 11
1.2.4. Types of grouping 13
1.2.5. Learner’s roles 14

v
1.2.6. Teacher’s roles 14
1.2.7. Role of instructional materials 15
1.2.8. Collaborative activities (CA) 15

3.3.1. In “Case Study” lessons 35
3.3.2. In presentation project 38
3.4. Students’ nature of participation in CA 38
PART C: CONCLUSION 40
REFERENCES 43
APPENDIX vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HUBT: Hanoi University of Business and Technology
ESL/ EFL: English as a second or foreign language
CL: Cooperative learning/ Collaborative learning
CLL: Collaborative language learning
CA: Collaborative activities

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Some matters related to grouping before and after the application of CA
Table 2: Conflicts during discussion before and after the application of CA
Table 3: Students’ distribution of participation- class 1
Table 4: Students’ distribution of participation- class 2

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Cooperative learning outcomes
Figure 2: Students’ attitude towards speaking practice in class before the application of CA
Figure 3: Students’ attitude towards speaking practice before and after the application of CA
Figure 4: Students’ attitude towards pair or group work before and after the application of CA
Figure 5: Students’ desire for leadership in pair or group work
Figure 6: Students’ distribution of participation- class 1&2


together; and only one-sixth of them were truly satisfied with their mutual team work

2
efficiency and found a little difficulty in practicing speaking English together. Nevertheless,
all of the learners complained their peers‟ participation in group work. Most of the complaints
focused on team members‟ laziness, „hijacking‟ attitudes, lower English proficiency and the
bad working habits due to the lack of collaborative skills. Especially, the team leaders
criticized the ineffective collaboration among teams in which every member competed against
each other to get the easy tasks, so most of the hard ones would fall on the heads of the groups.
Meanwhile, many teammates felt annoyed as other members (often the higher proficiency
learners) overwhelmed them. Consequently, there was less time for them to practice speaking
English and they had not many opportunities to raise their voices.
Besides, to some extent, the students‟ attitudes on the way the institute, particularly the
English department assess their achievement in acquiring a second language, have great
influence on their effort in participating in group work. It means that there are not a few
learners consider practicing English just a compulsory on-task activity and just take part in
group work more enthusiastically if they are going to be marked what they do in the group.
Additionally, as a matter of fact, marks for speaking skill only occupy a small percentage of
the total mark at the end of each module (7.5%); thus, the motivation to be more involved in
practicing English in group is still questionable with very practical English learners.
For such reasons, I pick up collaborative activities and tried to apply them in my own EFL
speaking lessons in hope of bringing students better study environment and opportunities to
take part in speaking lessons as well. However, it is still very challenging for both teachers and
students. To build up such environment is an essential part of teacher‟s role in class so that
good team players can become more willing helpers and prompters for weaker ones in the
groups. Also, there are good opportunities for not very good members to participate in-group
discussion with more confidence, enthusiasm and creativeness.
Accordingly, the author of this study takes it into consideration and conduct an action research
titled “Enhancing third-year non-English major students’ participation in speaking lessons
through collaborative activities at Hanoi University of Business and Technology”.

2. What are the factors affecting their involvement in speaking activities?
3. To what extent do collaborative activities increase students‟ involvement in speaking
activities? 4
5. Methods of the study
The research is conducted basing on both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Firstly, quantitative approach was utilized to investigate fully the participants‟ performance in
collaborative activities in speaking lessons. The data collected will go through analysis and yield
conclusion about the subjects of the study. In each speaking lesson, group discussion is observed
directly by group leaders and mainly by the researcher. The checklists and field notes are carefully
noted down to show what really happens in group discussion using collaborative activities. The
observation forms are based on the model initiated by Wallace (2001) and Hopkins (1993).
In addition, questionnaires which aim at investigating students‟ attitudes towards speaking
lessons, their learning habits in previous lessons and their opinions of the effects of
collaborative activities on their involvement in speaking lessons. Closed questions and rating
scale responses are used to help the researcher have detailed countable data.
Besides, qualitative approach is also involved in the process of data collection. The learners‟
ideas in their reports after each lesson or in the semi-unstructured interviews with their teacher
(either face-to-face interviews or online chatting) contribute much to the data analysis. Then
the researcher can process the data and draw conclusions on that matter that to what extent CA
can help students enhance their participation in class.
6. Organization of the thesis
This paper is designed with three main parts namely Introduction, Development, and Conclusion.
The first part, Introduction, briefly introduces the general background information of the study
such as the rationale and statement of the problem for the study, the aims and significance, scope,
research questions and the method dealt with in the study. The second part of the thesis is
Development, which include three chapters. Chapter One provides the literature review relevant
to the study on the two major issues: collaborative learning approach and speaking skill. Then

time; on the other hand, opportunities to raise their voices should be fairly equal to every
learner. Besides, learners can express themselves in relevant and comprehensible ways with
acceptable accuracy.
However, if students cannot communicate in reality, they will not be supposed to be
successful. Thus, Pattison (1992:7-8) lays great stress on four conditions to develop speaking
ability as follows:

6
 Learners choose what they want to say by giving them a list of different situations
or topics (with one or some grammar points for elementary level).
 Type of drills in which learners respond mechanically without thinking about what
they are saying is left out.
 Teachers should pay more attention to fluency than accuracy and do not interrupt
to correct mistakes or errors.
 Pair or group work is employed.
1.1.3. Problems with speaking and speaking activities
Ur (1996) points out some problems existing in practicing speaking activities.
 Inhibition: learners often have a shy a nervous feeling while speaking, especially
in front of class or other people;
 Nothing-to-say situations: when learners do not have anything to say due to the
lack of knowledge and low language proficiency or no motive to express
themselves;
 Low or uneven participation: when only a few participants dominate discussion.
 Mother-tongue use: learners often share the same mother tongue and abuse it in
second language learning class because they feel free and easier in using their first
language.
1.2. Theoretical backgrounds of collaborative learning (CL)
1.2.1. Definitions of CL
1.2.1.1. Definition
Currently collaborative learning or cooperative learning (CL) has been used widely all

Besides, CL can be defined as a learner-centered instructional process in which small,
intentionally selected groups of three to five students work interdependently on a well-
defined learning task. Students themselves have individual accountabilities for their own
performance, at the same time the instructor serves as a facilitator or consultant in the
group learning process (Cuseo, 1992). According to this researcher, cooperative learning
can be defined operationally in terms of six procedural elements.
Canh (2003) shows that collaborative or cooperative learning is closely connected with a
variety of concepts and techniques with the aim at fostering the interaction between
learners. The theory and practice of cooperative learning operate on the basis of the

8
principle that learners not only learn form the teachers but also from each other. He
stresses that teacher‟s role is to create sufficient classroom opportunities to organize such
learning. In this way, learning is considered as social interaction.
1.2.1.2. Collaborative learning versus competitive learning
It is better to distinguish CL from Competitive Learning. In competitive learning, in order
to succeed, other learners must fail, meanwhile in CL, learners must work together to
succeed and personal success only springs from group success. It is the reason why CL is
used more in teaching and learning English; and when it is applied correctly, it will
improve information acquisition and retention, higher- level thinking skills, interpersonal
and communication skills, and self- confidence (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1998).
Many people may argue that competition rather than cooperation motivate students to
work harder to do the best job, but Good and Brophy (1987:437-8) do the research on
collaborative as opposed to competitive learning and then suggests: “[…] although the
effects of cooperative learning on achievement appear to be basically motivation, the key
is not motivation to win competitions against other teams but motivation to assist one‟s
team as a whole will do well”. In fact, only a small number of students in a class think they
can get the highest score, if teachers consider competition is motivation of working harder
and achieving success, many other students in the class will think they have no chance in
the world. Therefore, in stead of competing, cooperating and supporting each other sounds

consideration to each member. Obviously, collaborative learning is closely related to
learner autonomy since they can be more independent of the teacher when participating in
collaborative learning with peers in second or foreign language acquisition. However, it
does not mean that learners can always depend on their teammates. That is why we need to
stress the aspect “positive”. Because of common goals, the team members have to “share”,
without one member, hardly can the goals be achieved with full capacity. Meanwhile, each
should be aware of “personal independence”.
Moreover, “individual accountability and personal responsibility” is another key factor to
promote successful collaborative learning. That means every team member should have a
sense of “joint responsibility” to build a well-functioning cooperative group. Everyone in
the team is responsible for his or her own work as well as the teammates‟, and the team
leader always feels in charge of the entire group. When it is necessary, supporting each

10
other is always a good team activity for a better team result. For example, sometimes, with
tough tasks, they can translate the target language into their mother tongue to make sure all
members have a clear view of what they are supposed to do; or one may explain difficult
ideas to the teammates in simple words so that all are able to understand thoroughly the
task. Therefore, equally active contribution of all group members to the group is a key to
success. The concept “individual accountability” always goes with “joint responsibility”,
which suggests no “hitchhiking” or freeloading” for anyone. In fact, this matter is of great
concern with the focus of enhancing students‟ participation in speaking lessons.
Another factor making collaborative learning successful is “abundant verbal, face-to-face
promotive interaction”. It give students opportunities to explain, argue, describe in a more
detailed way and link what they have already known or learned in previous lessons to the
current or new material.
Furthermore, effective collaborative learning cannot be mentioned without interpersonal
and small group social skills or so-called collaborative kills (Canh 2003). When learners
participate in collaborative activities in pairs or group, it is very helpful for them to be
armed with such social skills as appropriate communication, leadership, interpersonal

social, psychological, academic, and assessment. Additionally, schools utilizing this
strategy report an increase in student attendance because students feel that they are a
valuable and necessary part of their groups (McBrien & Brandt, 1997).

12
Dr.Theodore Panitz (1999) questions whether CL can be a positive motivator for a diverse
student population or not and attempts find the answer to that question. First, according to
this author, CL can improve learners‟ attitudes by creating a favorable disposition towards
the learning experience through personal relevance and choice. A primary benefit of CL is
that it enhances students' self-esteem that in turn motivates students to participate in the
learning process (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Cooperative efforts among students result in
a higher degree of accomplishment by all participants (Slavin, 1987). Students help each
other and in doing so build a supportive community which raises the performance level of
each member (Kagan, 1986). Besides, another obvious effect on learners is developing
students' social interaction skills. By asking group members to identify what behaviors
help them work together and by asking individuals to reflect on their contribution to the
group's success or failure, students are made aware of the need for healthy, positive,
helping interactions (Panitz, 1996; Cohen, 1991). Furthermore, CL can help learners‟
engender competence. It creates an understanding that learners are effective in learning
something they value. For instance, CL develops higher level thinking skills (Webb,
1982). Last but not least, students can enhance meaning much through challenging,
thoughtful learning experiences including learner's values and perspectives and contribute
to an equitable society.
CLL can help to increase students‟ learning as mentioned in Longman Dictionary of
Language Teaching and Applied Linguistic (1997):
 It is less threatening for many students.
 It increases the amount of student participation in the classroom.
 It decreases the need for competitiveness.
 It reduces the teacher‟s domination in the classroom.
In brief, Roger Johnson in an interview with Panitz, B. (1997) drew three basic “baskets”

larger than four may lead to passive participation (Harmin, 1994; I-Jung, 2004).
Advantageously, heterogeneous learning teams can be facilitate to work independently
when learners still help each other.
Regarding group size, three categories are presented: pair, group and the whole.
Cooperative teams may have two, three, or four students; it depends on available time, task
type and learner‟s ability. Pairing is ideal because it maximizes students‟ participation. It is
obvious that staring to work in pairs is quite easy and involvement can be retained.

14
Occasionally pairs tend to make less noise than larger teams. However, there are some
activities in which pairs are sometimes unable to complete by themselves. There are times
when more input is needed than a pair is likely to be able to generate. When a task calls for
much creativity or many different perspectives, teams of three or four should be used.
Sometimes, the whole class can be a group so that they can brainstorm, then share their
ideas at the beginning of the activities (Valentino, 2000) or present their results and assess
other partners at the end of the lessons.
1.2.5. Learner’s roles
A difficulty is that students always think teacher is the only person who is in role of
providing them knowledge and skills, and they are receivers not doers. That is the
traditional way of learning and teaching. Obviously, it takes a long time for students to get
familiar with the new learning and teaching method. As mentioned above, there are five
key elements making successful CL. Thus, to achieve in cooperative learning, apart from
getting taught by the teachers, students should train themselves with these features:
positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, interpersonal skills
and ways of processing the team.
1.2.6. Teacher’s roles
When mentioning any learning and teaching methods or approaches, never can we forget
the position of the teacher with different roles. Even though CLL is a student-centred
approach, or in other words, its focus is on students and their study proficiency progress
during their language acquisition, teachers are still of great importance. In CLL, it is very

As a result, instructional materials for CLL (collaborative activities) should be designed
with modification basing on learners‟ interest, proficiency, and needs. The activities can be
borrowed, created or combined from existing materials.
1.2.8. Collaborative activities (CA)
Collaborative activities are the activities in which teacher use structures and techniques to
guide learners to work together in small group effectively to reach the shared goal. There
are quite a lot of collaborative activities developed such as Numbered Heads Together,
Team Interview, Jigsaw, Think-Pair-Share, Rallytable, Roundtable, Roundrobin
Brainstorming, Team Pair Solo, Three-Step Interview, Teammate Consult, Mix-N-Match,
Showdown, Partners, etc. These are some examples often used in CLL in the study, basing

16
on Kagan‟s book (1994) and Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistic (1997).
 In Jigsaw, each member of a group has a piece of information needed to complete a
group task. Jigsaw is a good way to ensure individual responsibility while using
collaborative learning.
 Number Heads Together is the strategy in which students work together and check that
all group members can explain what their group has done. To do it, team members,
usually composed of four individuals, count off 1, 2, 3, and 4. The instructor poses a
question, but requiring some higher order thinking skills. Students discuss the question,
making certain that every group member knows the agreed upon answer. The instructor
chooses a specific number from a team randomly as group spokespersons.
 Peer Tutoring is done by getting students help each other learn, taking turns tutoring or
drilling each other.
 Cooperative Projects is when students work together to produce a product, such as a
written paper or group presentation.
 Cooperative Interaction is when students work together as a team to complete a
learning unit, such as discussion, role-play.
 Three-Step Interview is an activity in which each student chooses a partner and shares

In short, some basic theoretical backgrounds of speaking and collaborative learning have
been provided in this chapter. Basing on the benefits and the key factors affecting
successful CL, the author of this study has applied CL, particularly CA in speaking
lessons. The details of the research method, the application and its findings are presented
and discussed in the next chapters.

18
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents some key information about the teaching practice at HUBT, the
participants, data collection instruments, methods of data analysis and procedure of the study.
2.1. Background of the Study
2.1.1. The teaching and learning conditions
Hanoi University of Management and Business was established in June, 1996, by Professor
Tran Phuong (Chairman of economic science Vietnam, former Vice Chairman of the
Ministerial Council) as Director. By expanding the target training to areas of technology, the
university was renamed Hanoi University of Business and Technology (HUBT) in May, 2006.
As its name suggests, the subjects like accounting, finance, corporate administration, foreign
trade, etc are the main ones in the training program. Besides, English is regarded as a very
important subject because it serves a means of international communication and it is helpful to
the students after graduations, who are supposed to be successful businessmen in the future.
Due to the great importance of English, good conditions for English teaching and learning
have been usually provided. Overhead projectors, videos, cassette and CD players are
available so that teachers and students can perform their teaching and learning. There are also
English books, newspapers, magazines and computers with Internet access in the library of the
university. However, the students rarely have opportunities to communicate with foreigners,
particularly English native speakers.
2.1.2. The syllabus
The final goal of English teaching program at HUBT is that the students are able to
communicate with foreigners both in spoken and written English at intermediate level and
pass the TOEIC tests at the end of the seven-semester English course. To those students,

The students of HUBT are often aged from 18 to 22. There are about 25 – 30 students in each
English class. However, the number of male and female students in the class is of great
difference due to their majors, the females outnumber the males. Two fields of Banking and
Finance, and Accounting gain the domination by female students meanwhile other fields like
Corporate Administration, Information technology, Mechanic engineering, and Architecture
are dominated by male students.
Generally speaking, their English proficiency level is low and of mixed ability. Many of them
come from remote religions of rural areas where they did not have many chances to learn