investigation of effectiveness in pair group work in teaching English

- The Title AN INVESTIGATION INTO USING PAIR WORK AND GROUP WORK IN
TEACHING SPEAKING TO THE FRESHMAN AT FFL-IUH".
- Abstract
The adoption of the new series of English textbooks throughout Vietnam since 2000 has proved
to be a big step in enhancing students’ communicative skills. Among a great number of
improvements that can be clearly seen in these textbooks, the researchers have a noticeable
interest in the use of pair work and group work in teaching speaking. Therefore, this study aims
to investigate the feasibility and the effectiveness of the implementation of these two ways of
classroom management in teaching speaking to the freshman at FFL-IUH. The survey is carried
on 100 students and 10 English instructors in ffl-iuh. At first, the respondents are delivered some
questionnaires aimed at exploring their attitudes towards the application of pair work and group
work in teaching and learning speaking. Next, the researchers invite some of the participants to
join in separate interviews as well as ask for permission of one instructors to observe one of her
speaking period. The quantitative data obtained through the questionnaires – the most important
basics for analysis – are supported by the qualitative data which lie in the interviewees’ answers
and the classroom observation. The findings reveal not only a great number of merits but also
some problems and obstacles to the implementation of pair and group work. The instruments –
questionnaires show values in conveying students’ and instructors’ thoughts about the use of
these two ways of classroom management, which may have a strong influence on teaching and
learning speaking in Vietnamese University context.
1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Statement/Rationale
In recent years, English has been considered one of some important subjects and a compulsory
one for Vietnamese students. "Better English, better careers" was the answer given by many of
them when they told about their purpose of learning this language. In their daily life, it can't be
denied that this international language may help them prepare better for their career in the future
because it does not only equip learners with a necessary source of information of social and
culture knowledge but also gives them up-to-date information concerning a different issues in
our society nowadays. Especially, our country's recent regional and global participation has been
increasing the demand for English speaking people, who are wanted to communicate with the

outside world and access up- to- date technology.
Vietnamese students are creative however there are many problems facing them when they speak
this language, especially the the freshman at FFL-IUH. Among them, the problem of oral
communication seems to be the most serious one. Teaching this language has been had necessary
help from educators but having the best appropriate teaching method which may meet the need
of the education and the society is still considered a big question for teachers of English in
Vietnam.
There have been some important changes in the teaching and learning this language in recent
years because of big efforts from many international organizations and educational projects.
Different modern approaches, techniques and methods on the teaching of this language have
been applied in many universities, colleges and high schools. Generations of teachers of English
are trying their best to have the best result in their career and in the classroom's contexts.
During learning English, speaking skill is one of the most necessary ones that can help students
have a better job. For many years in teaching, teachers may know that learners would like to
speak but they feel they have not enough confidence. As a fact they can think that, this language
is not easy so they are not interested in learning, especially in speaking. This action research
study of effectiveness of pair work and group work activities because that may also give students
more opportunities to improve other skill better.
2
For all the above problems, it is willing for me to propose "Investigation into using Pair work
and Group work in teaching speaking to the freshman at FFL - IUH" as the subject of this
study.
1.2 Research Goals
There have been many studies on the spoken English teaching group work so far. Therefore, this
study does not claim to introduce a new way of English teaching method. The main objective of
the study is for the benefits of the learners, and the study will be a source of materials for
teachers of English on the teaching of speaking skill, who consider pair work and group work as
one of some important educational ways to help students speak better.
All in all, this study is aimed at investigating the outcome of the implementation of pair work
and group work in teaching speaking for the first year students of FFL- IUH and pointing out the

merits and the problems as well as suggesting some possible solutions.
To achieve this aim, the research addresses the following questions:
1. What are the advantages and the possible problems of using PW-GW in teaching speaking
for the the freshman in FFL ?
2. How can English teachers apply PW-GW to teaching speaking for the freshman effectively?
1.3. Indication of the Importance/Significance of the Research
With a focus on the current situation of the implementation of PW-GW in teaching speaking for
the freshman in FFL, this study is supposed to be a reliable source for teachers of English who
desire to investigate a variety of methods for a successful communicative classroom in FFL
3
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW/THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. Definitions of Pair work and Group work
Pair work-group work has been incorporated into language teaching and learning in most parts
of the world since the emergence of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the early
1970s, and has taken firm root in many present-day ESL or EFL classrooms. This approach came
into being because of the ever-growing need for the use of language for communicative
purposes, and because of the fact that a lot of educators and linguists became more and more
dissatisfied with the Audio-Lingual and Grammar-Translation methods of language teaching. In
this context, there began a movement away from traditional lesson formats where emphasis was
put on the mastery of different items of grammar, hence shifting practice from controlled
activities such as mechanical memorization of dialogs and drills towards communicative
activities, which can be successfully done through PW-GW. According to Brumfit (1984), group
work is often considered an essential feature of communicative language teaching. In favor of it,
Long & Porter (1985) hold that PW-GW can promote students’ practice, the quality of their talk,
their motivation, and positive classroom atmosphere. Salmon (1988) supports Long & Porter’s
ideas and adds that PW-GW also helps increase students’ confidence.
Similar to CLT, Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) also promotes learning through
communication in pairs or small groups. CLL is an approach to teaching that makes maximum
use of cooperative activities involving pairs and small groups of learners in the classroom. This
means each learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is motivated to increase

the learning of others (Olsen & Kagan, 1992, p.8). The concept “cooperative” in CLL
emphasizes an important aspect: developing classrooms that foster cooperation rather than
competition in learning. That is to say, students in pairs or groups work together towards a
common goal instead of competing with one another for individual ambitions.
Other benefits which PW-GW may offer are mentioned below. First of all, it may maximize each
learner’s opportunity to speak and that practicing in pairs and groups will reduce to some extent
the psychological burden of public performance. Thanks to PW-GW, students will also have
more language practice opportunities and the time they will have for interacting with one another
in pairs and groups is absolutely abundant. Second, pair and small group activities enable
4
students to take a more active role in their learning as well as to act as an important resource
person for one another (McGroarty, 1989). Last, students learn best when they are actively
involved in the learning process via pairs or groups. According to Davis (1993), students
working in small groups tend to learn more of what is taught and retain it longer than when the
same content is presented in other instructional formats.
Besides the aforesaid advantages, unfortunately, several possible problems and difficulties may
arise in a class using these two types of interaction patterns. Because a lot of pairs and groups
work at the same time, the first problem language teachers might confront is that the class gets
rather noisy and out of hand. We think it is natural for a teacher to feel a need to keep control of
the class, but we need to differentiate between ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’ noises. The
former is exactly what most teachers want to achieve, not the latter. A classroom full of students
in pairs or groups talking and interacting in English, even if it is really noisy, is surely what we
wish. A high level of noise during this session can be tolerated since this is a good sign
signifying that the students feel engaged, included and enthusiastic about learning itself when
communicating with their friends. Long & Richards (1987) maintain that a learner-centered class
like the above, where learners do most of the talking in pairs or groups, and take responsibilities
for using communicative resources to complete a task, proves to be more conducive to language
learning than a teacher-centered class. Consequently, the noise which seems to be an inevitable
problem in any classrooms can sometimes be very beneficial.
Difficulty in monitoring the class is also a problem for teachers. As Kumar (1992) mentions,

large class size might make interaction and involvement difficult. It is obvious that in Vietnam’s
language teaching context, a classroom often houses approximately over 40 students. That is to
say, a teacher has to monitor at the same time lots of pairs and groups. As a result, he or she will
not be able to equally give help and advice to every pair or group.
Another trouble that most language teachers may face is how they form pairs and groups at the
beginning. Should pairs or groups be of mixed ability, so more capable language learners may
help weaker ones? Or would same-ability pairs or groups be preferable, so that faster learners
can progress at their own pace, while the teacher gives extra help to individual learners in the
slower groups? Studies indicate that mixed proficiency pairing or grouping may be optimal. In a
mixed-ability group, faster learners will consolidate their own understanding of issues at hand
5
when explaining these to slower learners, while slower ones will benefit from peer tutoring by
faster learners. However, in some cases, this kind of pairing and grouping is likely to give rise to
another problem: not all members participate equally in discussions. For instance, a high-level
learner may not want to work with a weaker partner and tend to dominate and monopolize most
of the time. As a result, slow learners have the tendency to withdraw and sit still listening to their
domineering partners.
Furthermore, some students complain that when they work in pairs and groups, they are greatly
concerned with face-losing when using the target language incorrectly or inappropriately. In their
mother tongue, learners have a wealth of strategies at their disposal to avoid a difficult or
embarrassing situation, to self-correct, or to seek help in case of linguistic trouble. They also
know how to show others that they acknowledge and appreciate others’ opinions. On the
contrary, in the target language, they are not equipped with those kinds of things mentioned
above. Consequently, they are not confident enough to interact with other members in the group.
Besides, teachers fear that the potential chaos and conflicts may arise within pairs or groups and
that in classrooms where students share a common native language, they have the tendency to
overuse the mother tongue. With the former problem, teachers ought to effectively manage the
conflicts that are inevitable in pairs or groups. Cognitive conflict among students, if managed
effectively, can be very constructive, leading to increased motivation and to higher levels of
cognitive development and moral reasoning, as Johnson & Johnson (1979) propose. With the

latter problem, because students feel more secure with their own language, they tend to turn to
mother tongue whenever they engage in a conversation or a discussion, and this can be tolerated
only for the first time.
All in all, PW-GW can lose their meaning if they are utilized and handled in an automatic and
unthinking way on the part of the teachers. No technique is the panacea for all our teaching
problems and its value should be reconsidered from time to time. However, we cannot deny the
obvious merits that PW-GW can offer.
2.2. Advantages and problems of PW-GW
2.2.1. Advantages
6
- Give learners more speaking time
- Changes the pace of the lesson
- Takes the spotlight off teachers and puts it onto learners
- Allow learner to mix with everyone in the group
- Give learners a sense of achievement when reaching a team goal
- Teach learners how to lead and be led by someone other than teachers
- It allows teachers to monitor, move around the class and really listen to the language they
are producing.
(By Jo Bertrand Originally published 2009)
2.2.2. Problems
- If an activity of PW – GW goes on for too long students, especially the poor ones make
noise because theybecome bored, they want to get the teacher's attention and they may become
disruptive. Such noisemay become disruptive for the whole activity and class behaviour because
misbehaviour is contagious.
- Another disadvantage of pair work and group work is the use of the mother tongue. When
studentsget excited working in pairs or groups they sometimes use their mother tongue to express
somethingthey are not able to express in a foreign language. Such a situation is normal because
they want to communicate.
- When learners work in pairs or groups it is impossible for the teacher to listen and correct
all the mistakes they make and this is not the purpose of the activity.

- It may be a problem to put students into groups. There is the danger that if the teacher
divides the class into mixed ability groups the best students in the group will have to do the task
while the weakest ones switch off and become disruptive.
7
There are many problems with pair work, but there are also many ways to solve them
successfully. Some more tips are suggested by Byrne(1989:34-35) to prevent problems with pair
work Byrne suggests several points to keep in mind:
- Divide the students into pairs in the most convenient way possible
- Make sure the students know exactly what they have to do
- Keep activities simple
- Don’t let activities go on too long
- Carry out selective checking
- Control the noise level as necessary
- Provide feedback
2.3. Organizing PW-GW in the classroom
“Use pair work and group work to increase student talking time – even if it seems chaos”
(Hadfield)
The teachers notes always start with suggestions on how to introduce the game or activity.
This is important as it helps stimulate interest in the topic and will prepare them for the activity
to follow. (Watcyn-Jones 2002:10)
To be “well-organised“ the teacher must give clear and explicit instructions and, while the
pair work is taking place, the teacher should be moving around the room monitoring and if
necessary guiding and correcting what individual pairs are doing. It may be necessary to write on
the blackboard an outline or model of what the pairs should be doing or some key words and
phrases. (Hadfield 1992:47).
It is also very important to always explain very clearly what to do and, where possible,
demonstrate the activity first with the whole class. This stage should not be rushed as when the
students understand fully what they feel more confident and are able to do their best and really
benefit from the activity.
8

It is a good idea to set a time limit for each activity and write this up so that everyone can
see it. Give a warning a few minutes before it expires so that students can start to finish off.
2.3.1. Feedback session and follow-up work
Each activity should end with checking/feedback session for the whole class. This checking
and evaluation is an integral part of the activity and it is important to leave enough time for it.
After any PW-GW exchange students can recall and re-tell their partner what they
remember about the exchange (e.g. if they’ve just been eliciting personal information or
opinions). Or they can swap partners and tell their new partner about the ideas of their previous
partner. This doubles the amount of speaking generated by any activity and is a good way to
keep fast finishers busy while the rest catch up.
Teacher can occasionally discuss the activity with the students. The discussion could
include talking about what the students found difficult as well as finding out if anyone wanted to
say something but didn’t have necessary language skills to express himself or herself.
This is also the time when any mistakes can be pointed out and, if necessary, revision
practice given. One way of doing this is to write on the board sentences which contain the main
language mistakes you noted while circulating round the class during the activity. Teacher can
get the students to work in pairs and to identify and correct mistakes.
2.3.2. How to pair students off
Sometimes teacher might want to choose the pairs and at other times you may wish it to be
random. For example, ask students to stand in a line with the oldest at one end all the way down
to the youngest at the other end. Then pair the oldest with the youngest, the second oldest with
the second youngest, and so on down the line.
2.3.3. Seating arrangements during PW-GW
For teachers who are used to a more formal arrangement – with the teacher facing rows of
students – it is advisable to try out less formal pattern with one or two specific tasks, and reflect
on its advantages and disadvantages before making it a regular used layout. (Underwood
1987:52)
9
In traditional classroom, the students sit in rows. If it is at all possible, the room should be
arranged in such a way that pairs face one another across a desk or a table. This is to give them

‘eye-contact’ which makes communication a lot easier. However, there may be practical reasons
why such a classroom arrangement may not be possible. In the case of large classes organized in
rows try to get students to work with the person sitting directly in front of or behind them. If this
isn’t possible and the students have to work with the person sitting next to them, they can move
their chairs so that they are at an angle. Finally, when organizing a class into pairs, the students
should sit so that it is difficult for them to see their partner’s handout (unless it is an activity
where they share handouts).
According to Byrne (1989:32-33), teachers should as far as they can use the existing
classroom arrangement. He suggests to get the students to work with a neighbour and only move
a student if it is absolutely necessary. The important thing is for students to be able to form pairs
quickly and without any fuss. However, Scrivener says (1994:93) that it’s difficult to sit still for
a long time; it’s worth including activities that involve some movement, even if only to give
people the chance to stretch their legs. He suggests several original ideas for investigating and
exploring the possibilities of seating:
• If the students normally sit in rows try forming a circle.
• Turn the classroom around so that the focus is on a different wall from normal.
• Make a train carriage with seats (or an aeroplane, or a town centre, or
whatever).
• Divide the class into separate groups at far corners of the room.
• Ask how can we reorganize this classroom to make it a nicer place to be? Let
the class discuss it and agree, then do it.
• Push the seats or desks up against the wall. Sit on the floor.
• Get rid of the seats completely. Ask everyone to bring in a bean-bag or cushion.
(Scrivener 1994:95).
10
2.3.5. The role of teacher during PW-GW
The role of teacher will depend to a large extent on the function he performs in different
activities. Harmer examines the roles of controller, organiser, assessor, prompter, participant,
recourse, tutor and investigator. (Harmer 1995:200-205) It will be obvious that the teacher’s
behaviour for various types of activity will be different. For communicative output according to

him, the role of the teacher should change. Pair work is often used for communicative activities
that is why role of teacher very often changes in pair work. Since the teacher as controller is no
longer oppressively present students can help each other to use and learn language. The teacher
will still, of course be able to act as an assessor, prompter or resource. With pair work, then,
students can practise language use and joint learning.
2.3.6. Teacher positioning in the classroom
Teacher’s roles are closely connected to the teacher’s positioning in the classroom. Where
we decide to position ourselves at various stages of the lesson is important if we take into
account the effect it has on our learners. I agree with this view that whether we are standing,
seated or crouching in front of, to the side of or behind learners sends out a message with regard
to what we want them to do. Wherever we stand in the class, students will see us, therefore
standing is important when we want the attention of the whole class, for clarifying language or
giving instructions, for example.
2.3.7. Delayed correction
In this kind of error correction the teacher walks round the class quickly to make sure that
all the students are working properly. She only stops if she finds that some students don’t know
what to do, or are doing the wrong things. If this is true of lots of pairs, the best idea is to stop the
whole class and ask one pair to show everyone again what they are to do. When the teacher hears
mistakes, she makes a note of them. This is important information for the teacher. If she hears a
mistake repeatedly, she can wait until the pairs have finished the exercise and then ask someone
to do the question in which she heard the mistake. (Edge 1989:39)
11
If the teacher hears lots of mistakes in important points she has been trying to teach, she
need not think too much about correction. She must realize that the class has not understood
what she has presented and she needs to think of different ways of presenting the same point
again. Teachers can get this important information only if they give learners the chance to make
mistakes.
2.3.8. Peer correction
Peer correction is another possibility how to correct mistakes in pair work If students can
get used to correcting each other in a positive way, this can be very helpful during pair and group

work If the students aren’t sure what is correct, they can make a note of their difficulty, carry on
with the exercise, and ask the teacher later. (Edge 1989:42)
There is a question what happens if the partner doesn’t notice a mistake and the students
continue with their work. I agree with Edge who claims that at this stage of learning, it is much
more important that the students get lots of practice in the language than that everything is
absolutely correct. (Edge 1989:42)
In fluency activities, we don’t want the learners to be interrupting each other. They should
concentrate on what their partner is saying. Occasionally, however, it is useful to have someone
concentrating on how things are said. In addition to the teacher walking round the class and
making notes, it is possible to turn some of the students into observers. (Edge 1989:43)
2.3.9. Observers
Edge suggests observers for work in groups but I think that this is a good idea also for pair
work. The students work in groups of three. Two of them carry out the pair work activity while
the third one listens and tries to note down some mistakes that the others make. This student is an
observer. The teacher makes sure that different students take turns at being the observer. When
the activity is finished, the observer shows the others what he or she has written down and the
group discusses what is correct and what is wrong. Disagreements can be referred to the teacher.
This use of an observer can be very profitable for learners, but the observer’s job is very difficult
and it is important for the teacher to make clear what this job is and what it is not. (see Edge
1989:45-46)
12
2.4. Theoretical Framework
Teaching speaking is thought to be a crucial part of second language learning and teaching.
In an online article, Kayi (2006) indicates that the ability to communicate in the target language
clearly and efficiently makes an important contribution to learners’ success at school and later in
every stage of their life. Therefore, it is essential that language teachers pay more attention to
teaching speaking.
Despite its importance, for many years, teaching speaking has been undervalued and
deemphasized in Vietnam, and English language teachers have continued to teach “speaking” in
the form of a repetition of drills or memorization of dialogues. Rather than leading students to

pure memorization, teachers should provide a rich classroom environment where meaningful
communication takes place. Obviously, teaching speaking is mainly based on having students
complete the tasks via pairs or groups. It is likely that the tasks in these textbooks are mostly of
discussion type, so they require joint effort from students. Also, as stated in Tai lieu boi duong
giao vien (2006), Task-based Learning Approach (TBL) is favored and adopted so as to create
authentic language settings for learners and engage them in purposeful communication activities.
The term “Task-based Learning” mainly originates from the literature on language education
(Prabhu, 1987; Nunan, 1989). In TBL, learning activities are organized around tasks instead of
around any single language items. Their focus falls on the meaningful use of language within a
social milieu. Theoretically, in a task-based lesson, the teacher does not pre-determine what
language will be studied; the lesson is based around the completion of a central task and the
language studied is determined by what happens as the students complete it. TBL typically
consists of three stages as illustrated below:
13
This is a model of task-based learning described by Jane Willis (1996). This model follows a
three-phase process. The first phase is called “pre-task” in which the topic is defined and
essential vocabulary are highlighted by the teacher. The second stage is called “task cycle” with
three sub-steps (task, planning, and report), in which the students perform the task in pairs or
groups, and then rehearse their report before presenting it in front of the whole class. The last
phase is “language focus” with two distinct steps: analysis and practice, during which specific
language features that learners encountered in the task are examined and analyzed. Some practice
of language features and feedback on the students’ performance are appropriate at this stage.
According to some researchers and linguists, TBL is advantageous to students because it is more
student-centered and less teacher-centered. In all three stages, they must use all their language
resources rather than just practicing one pre-selected item. The teacher plays the role of a
facilitator who ensures the necessary conditions for the learning to take place by providing
exposure to the language and guiding learners to use the correct language for fulfilling the task.
14
Pre-task
Introduction to topic and

task
Task cycle
Task
Planning
Report
Language Focus
Analysis
Practice
Practice
It is the learner doing the task who becomes the centre of the lesson. In addition, it is a strong
communicative approach where students spend a lot of time interacting with each other in pairs
or groups to fulfill the task assigned by their teacher.
However, this approach cannot be said to be without any limitations. Firstly, TBL, according to
the online article “The Practice of Learning Theories”, could be time-consuming, especially
when the task assigned by the teacher is complicated. Secondly, TBL is considered very effective
to intermediate-level learners and beyond. Nevertheless, it proves to be quite demanding for
slower or beginner ones, which causes great concerns among many language teachers who have
adopted this approach into teaching speaking (“Teaching Tips: What is Task-based Learning”).
In many Universities in Vietnam, most the first year students, roughly speaking, are lower than
pre-intermediate level. As a result, they may find speaking tasks in the new English textbook
rather beyond their abilities. Such low levels of students together with limited time (90 minutes
for one speaking lesson) lead to the important realization that TBL may not be suitable for
teaching speaking for the first year students in Vietnam’s language teaching and learning
context.
Therefore, on this point, Harmer (1998) suggests using ESA trinity, which may help to solve the
problem. ESA stands for Engage, Study, and Activate – three important stages of a lesson.
During the Engage stage, the main job of teachers is to provoke the students’ interest, curiosity
and attention by a variety of activities such as a game, a dramatic story, an amusing anecdote and
so on. The second phase – Study – primarily focuses on language and the construction of
language. The teacher does not need to present new language input but can cover revision or

extension of previously-taught materials. The last stage is Activate, which means giving students
chances to use the target language as freely and communicatively as possible via such activities
as role plays, debates, discussions and so forth. More importantly, this model can create various
effects if the elements E, S, A are combined in different ways.
The Straight Arrows (or E-S-A) is considered best for low-level learners. This characteristic of
Straight Arrows serves as a supplement for the second limitation of TBL. In a Straight Arrows
lesson, first, the teacher arouses students’ interest, then focuses on presenting new language, and
eventually lets the students activate what they have just studied. Undoubtedly, this process may
help low-level students study better.
15
ESA Straight Arrows Sequence
The Boomerang (or E-A-S-[A]), in contrast, proves to be more suitable for intermediate and
advanced learners. In this procedure, the teacher selects a topic of study and will not present new
language until the students demonstrate their needs for it.

EAS(A) Boomerang Sequence
Patchwork is the last type. Like Boomerang, this pattern also works well with intermediate and
advanced levels. In a patchwork lesson, the three elements will appear more than once and in
varied orders. Compared with the two sequences above, this sequence provides a balance
between study and activation.
16
3
Engage Study
Activate
1
2
EAS(A)
ESA
Engage Study Activate
EAASASEA Patchwork Sequence

All in all, having numerous lesson sequences in hand, teachers are the people who take the
responsibility of making the right choice of the ESA sequence appropriate to different learners’
levels.
In short, we have mentioned and elaborated on the merits as well as the potential problems and
obstacles of pair and group work. Researchers, linguists, and language teachers all over the
world have discovered and studied in-depth these themes and so far still have attempted to reach
a consensus. Moreover, on presenting the teaching of speaking with the focal point on TBL, we
want to note that this approach deserves our attention as most of the speaking tasks in the new
English textbook for the first year students have their origins from TBL and require the students
to work in pairs or groups so as to fulfill a common goal – a task. Also, to deal with the
drawback of TBL for low-level learners, the ESA model developed by Jeremy Harmer with its
diversifying patterns should be taken into consideration.
2.3. Research questions
The research addresses the following questions:
1. What are the advantages and the possible problems of using PW-GW in teaching speaking for
the freshman in FFL ?
2. How can English teachers apply PW-GW to teaching speaking for the freshman effectively?
17
Engage Study Activate
EAASASEA
(etc)
6
1
4
3
5
7
2
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1. The place where you investigate

This study takes place in FFL – IUH and in an English class.
3.2. Research object
Students. One hundred freshman of FFL – UIH participate in the survey.
Teachers. Ten teachers agree to join in our investigation. All of them possess a great deal of
teaching experience, at least approximately five years of teaching. Many of them have
participated in workshops and training sessions on teaching speaking.
3.3. Research methodology
Questionnaire. I design separate questionnaires for students and teachers, each contains
multiple choice and checklist in order to obtain participants’ opinions about teaching speaking
and the implementation of pair work and group work.
3.4. Results
One hundred questionnaires for students and ten questionnaires for teachers are sent out and all
are returned to the researchers, making up 100% response rate.
All of the teachers (100%) acknowledge the contribution of PW-GW to the success of a speaking
class and thus spare a certain amount of time for their students to work in pairs or groups in their
speaking classes (as illustrated in Appendix D; Q2, Q3 and Q5). However, there is a difference
between the respondents’ answers about how often they have pair work and group work in their
speaking classes. Most of the teachers (about 80%) state that PW-GW is usually operated in their
speaking classes whereas only more than 30% of students say the same thing.
Only half of the students agree that these two kinds of classroom organization have much effect
on their speaking ability (see Appendix C, Q4). Contrary to our common belief that pair work
and group work will motivate students and give them more time to practice speaking English,
many of those first year students admit having used Vietnamese when working in pairs or
groups, especially when they are not under teacher’s observation. The reasons for this include the
students’ lack of vocabulary as well as confidence and their habit of using Vietnamese for
everyday communication (as shown in Appendix C, Q6).
18
Most students and teachers agree that the majority of these activities are taken from books
(textbooks, reference books, etc.). Although only a few of these activities are for free practice
(13.3%), it is clear from Table 1 that many various kinds are designed for pairs or groups.

Obviously, discussion is most used as it receives the highest percentage of frequency from both
teachers and students. In addition, dialogue, interview, and information gap are also frequently
used as more than half of the respondents state that these activities are usually or sometimes
operated in their speaking classes. However, there is a remarkable difference between the
respondents’ responses to the option “role play”. Only a few students (3%) but a lot of teachers
(more than 60%) say that role play is always or usually operated in their speaking classes.
Besides the in-class activities, most teachers (83.3%) also say that they give pairs or groups of
students projects at homework (as seen in Appendix D, Q8).
As the researcher expected, more than half of students express their approval of these kinds of
classroom organization because PW-GW helps them communicate with their friends, learn from
each other and split the tasks with each other. As a result, they have less work to do and more
time to practice speaking. Working with their peers also makes students feel more comfortable
when speaking in English.
In contrast, nearly one fourth of the students give negative responses to the idea of using pair
work and group work. Their major reasons include their habit of working individually, the
inconvenience when changing seats, noisy class, and their teachers’ inability to reach and help
every student.
However, as shown in Table 4, both teachers and students have the same opinion that PW-GW
offers a great number of merits such as students’ chances of exchanging ideas to learn from each
other, of solving tasks more easily and faster thanks to their friends’ help, of learning how to
cooperate and to split tasks equally, and more time for practicing speaking. A high percentage of
teachers (approximately 90%) also point out some more merits of pair work and group work:
promoting students’ fluency and helping students feel more confident when speaking English
(see Appendix D, Q12).
The findings reveal that the most noticeable problems arising from pair and group work are noise
and teacher’s less help and attention given to individuals, as these options get more than 80% of
19
supporting responses from both teachers and students. Besides, the other suggested problem –
students’ inequality of splitting the responsibilities also receives a relatively high rate of
agreement (over 50%) from both teachers and students. However, there is a contrast in the

respondents’ answers to the option “teachers’ little control of the whole class”. More than half of
the teachers consider it a problem, whereas half of the students do not. This conflict between
teachers and students’ opinions shows that while teachers always regard controlling the whole
class as one of their responsibilities, most students dislike being controlled by teachers in
speaking classes.
When asked about the frequency with which they use MT (mother tongue) during pair and group
work, about one half of the students questioned admit that they sometimes talk in MT even under
their teacher’s supervision. Likewise, a large number of the students in the class under our
observation have the tendency to overuse the mother tongue while working in pairs or groups,
although the teacher does remind or even request them to use TL (target language) and actually
monitors a few pairs and groups to check whether they follow her order.
Additionally, when asked about the obstacles for the implementation of PW-GW in speaking
classes, the majority of teachers and students agree that those obstacles include the limited
amount of time for speaking period, the students’ unfamiliarity with working in pairs or group,
and their inexperience in dividing equal responsibilities among partners in pairs or members in
groups. Most respondents consider the insufficient amount of time as the biggest problem, as it
receives the highest percentage of agreement from both teachers and students. Also from Table
6, it is important to note that the option “unsuitable seating arrangement” receives a very high
percentage of agreement from teachers (more than 90%) but nearly 50% of disagreement from
students. Consequently, it is reasonable to infer that while the seating arrangement seems to be a
significant obstacle to the teachers, it is little concern for most students. Furthermore, the
teachers also disclose two other obstacles: the students’ lack of fluency as well as accuracy and
their shyness when speaking in English.
4. Conclusion
In order to examine the implementation of PW-GW in teaching speaking for first year students at
FFL - IUH, I have addressed two main questions as have been indicated in the beginning.
20
1. Pair work and group work have been implemented into teaching speaking for the freshman
and have gained a great deal of favor among both teachers and students. The use of pair work
and group work has proved to have a great number of advantages. It is clearly seen that PW-GW

can create a relaxing learning environment in which students feel more confident to speak
English and have more chances for practicing and exchanging ideas with each other. As a result,
students’ speaking ability and fluency are much improved. They also help students learn more
about how to share their responsibilities while working in pairs or groups in order to solve tasks
better and faster.
However, I find it very necessary to take quite a lot of problems into thorough consideration. The
most common problem is the students’ use of mother tongue. Additionally, as student talking
time increases, noise and teacher’s less help and attention given to individuals are inevitable
problems. Besides, conflicts and inequality of splitting the responsibilities among members in
groups or between partners in pairs also need to be dealt with.
2. The first year students are still shy when talking with each other in English and are also
inexperienced in cooperating and sharing responsibilities with other people. Furthermore, the
amount of time suggested in the syllabus as well as the seating arrangements of Vietnamese
universities classrooms are not suitable for encouraging the full potential of pair work and group
work so the using PW-GW is quite difficult.
The study has implied a number of suggestions about how to make the implementation of pair
and group work into teaching speaking a success :
- Firstly, it is true that PW-GW puts heavier demand on teachers than usual. It is pointed
out by most of the participants that teachers need to spend a great deal of time not only
preparing materials, tasks, exercises and games for pairs or groups at home but also going
around the class more often when students are working to check their work, give help if
they need it and prevent their using Vietnamese.
- Secondly, on mentioning how to prevent students’ use of their mother tongue, it is also
advisable for teachers to provide their students with vocabulary or grammatical structures
that may help them to solve the tasks. When students have enough background
knowledge, they do not have the need to use MT.
21
- Thirdly, the tasks assigned to pairs or groups need to be interesting enough and not too
difficult nor unfamiliar with students so that they can be engrossed in working with their
friends to finish them.

- Fourthly, teachers should not give pairs or groups more time than they need to do their
tasks as they may gossip in MT if they finish their work early.
- Fifthly, another consideration is to form pairs or groups of students that have different
strong points so that they can help and learn from each other. In such an organization, the
better students can give assistance to their less capable peers. During this process, not
only the weaker students will benefit from the help they get but it is also a chance for the
stronger ones to understand more about the language they are mastering.
22
References
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chung ta dang hoc Anh van nhu the nao? [How have we been learning English?] (2006, August
2). Message posted to Forum about accounting, archived at
/>Davis, B. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Griffiths, B. (October 31, 2005). Teacher positioning in the classroom. BBC British Council
Teaching English. Retrieved April 19, 2008, from
/>Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Harlow: Longman.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning.
Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-70.
Kayi, H. (2006). Teaching speaking: Activities to promote speaking in a second language. The
Internet TESL Journal, 12. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from />Teaching Speaking.html
Kumar, K. (1992). Does class size really make a difference? Exploring classroom interaction in
large and small classes. RELC Journal, 23(1), 29-47.
Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk and second language acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228.
Long, M. & Richards, J.C. (1987). Methodology in TESOL. Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
McGroarty, M. (1989). The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in second language
instruction. National Association for Bilingual Education (NABA) Journal, 13(2), 127-143.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

23
Olsen, R. & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative
Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource Book (pp. 1-30). New York: Prentice Hall.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Appendices
Appendix A
Students’ Questionnaire
I am ……………… At the moment, I am doing research on “Pair work-Group work in teaching
speaking for the first year students of FFL - IUH”. This questionnaire aims to investigate the
implementation of pair work and group work. We would very much appreciate it if you could
spend time providing us with the necessary information. It is confirmed that your personal
identity will remain strictly confidential.
Your gender :  Male  Female
Please tick () the most appropriate boxes.
Q1. Do you have a speaking practice period in your class ?
 Yes  No
Q2. Does your English teacher operate pair work and group work in your speaking classes?
 Yes  No
If you choose “yes”, please continue from question 3
If you choose “No”, please continue from question 10
Q3. How often do you work in pairs or groups in your speaking classes?
 Always  Usually  Sometimes
 Rarely  Never
24
Q4. How much effect do pair work and group work have on your speaking ability?
 Very much Much  Not much
 Litte Not know
Q5. . How often do you use Vietnamese while working in pairs or groups in your speaking
classes?
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never

Under
teacher’s
observations
Not under
teacher’s
observations
Q6. In your opinion, the reasons why many students still like to use Vietnamese, instead of
English as requested, to communicate while working in pairs or groups in speaking classes are:
(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree)
Reasons 1 2 3 4
a. Lack of vocabularies
b. Habit of using Vietnamese
C. Lack of confident to speak English
d. Using vietnamese easily exchange and save time.
e. Scare of making mistakes and being made fun of by your
friends
 Other reasons :
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
25