Enhancing third-year non-English major students' participation in speaking lessons through collaborative activities at Hanoi University of Business and Technolo

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

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
Supervisor: Đỗ Bá Quý, MEd.




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

1.2.9. Previous studies on the topic 16
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 18
2.1. Background of the study 18
2.1.1. The teaching and learning conditions 18
2.1.2. The syllabus 18
2.1.3. The description of the material used 19
2.1.4. The learners 19
2.1.5. The teachers 20
2.1.6. The participants 20
2.1.7. Teaching practice at HUBT 21
2.2. Data collection instruments 22
2.2.1. Classroom observation 22
2.2.2 .Students’ reports 23
2.2.3. Questionnaires 23
2.2.4. Interviews 23
2.3. Data collection procedures 23
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 25
3.1. Students’ attitude towards speaking practice in class and pair and group work activities 25
3.1.1. Students’ attitude towards speaking practice in class 25
3.1.2. Students’ attitude towards pair and group work in speaking activities 26
3.2. Factors affect their involvement in speaking activities 27

vi
3.2.1. Topic of the discussion 27
3.2.2. Leadership 29
3.2.3. Proficiency level 31
3.2.4. Grouping 32
3.2.5. Conflicts during discussion 34
3.2.6. Shyness 35
3.3. Students’ distribution of participation in CA 35

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

1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale and statement of the problem for the study
In the globalization age today, English is considered as a means of international
communication and an important instrument to link many countries all over the world. The
demand for teaching and learning English in the world as well as in Vietnam is increasing.
Among four main skills, speaking skill plays an important role in English teaching in the
context of Vietnam. For many students, speaking is by far the most important of the four skills
in a second language in general and in English in particular. However, many EFL students
find this skill most difficult to obtain.
Through working together in speaking class, students have opportunities to strengthen both
their academic language proficiency and basic interpersonal communication skills. However,
through my own teaching experience and my class observation, there are some problems in
building up well-functioning groups or pairs in speaking class such as students‟ unwillingness
to involve activities, inequality in students‟ participation in speaking group work,
overwhelming Vietnamese use in English discussion, students‟ attitudes to repeated or boring
activities in class, students‟ lack of cooperative skills, etc. Therefore, for such a young teacher
as the author of this research, to create and control pair work or group work effectively in
speaking lessons for the third-year non-English major students is really a challenging work.
To my surprise, even though all of my students in two classes got accustomed to group work
in second language learning, most of them still suppose that working in pairs or groups in
speaking lessons is merely the action of putting all participants in groups, then each member
try to complete their task mainly individually and competitively then they combine the results
of each individual‟s to make the final one. After the first lessons with each class, I found out
that the most problematic issue of getting efficient speaking lessons is students‟ participation
and their working attitude towards team work. Furthermore, this situation was obviously
serious when I discovered that in all four classes of third-year students I taught, about half of
the groups (often with four to six members) felt disappointed with their group work
effectiveness and found this kind of learning activity so tough to deal with smoothly and
productively; one-third of the groups were quite happy with the common work they achieved

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. Aims of the study
This is an action research project. It is aimed at, firstly, investigating the effectiveness of using
collaborative activities in teaching speaking to the third- year students at HUBT. Secondly,

3
based on the results of the study, the research aims to provide some practical suggestions for
better use of collaborative activities in speaking classes.
Theoretically, the study supplies the English language teachers with the understanding of
collaborative activities in terms of their types, advantages and disadvantages. The study also
suggests some ways to successfully exploit collaborative activities during the stages of
teaching speaking.
Pedagogically, the findings and comments of this study are believed to be relevant to
improving the teaching of speaking skill to students at HUBT. The study may help teachers to
make their speaking classroom more active and effective so that they can help their students
develop speaking skill as well as other language skills.
3. Scope of the study
In terms of collaborative activities, the researcher just applied some of them according to
Kagan (1986, 1995) such as Numbered Heads Together, Jigsaw, Peer Tutoring, Cooperative
Projects, Think – Pair – Share in speaking lessons.
In terms of language skills and participants, the author of this study only focused on speaking
skill integrated with other language skills. Apart from the first speaking lesson, the five other
ones (in the section Case Study of the current course book) were implemented at HUBT for
two classes of third-year non-English major students in the second semester (school year 2009
– 2010).
4. Research questions/ hypothesis
The study aims to test the effectiveness of collaborative activities as a teaching technique to
motivate students to participate in speaking lessons. Thus, the hypothesis is that collaborative
activities can be used to enhance students‟ participation in speaking lessons. To test the
hypothesis, there are three research questions:
1. How are the students usually involved in speaking activities?

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

some key information about the teaching practice at HUBT, the participants, data collection
instruments, methods of data analysis and procedure of the study are presented in Chapter Two.
The last chapter, Chapter Three, describes the analysis of a range of data, and discusses and
interprets the findings of the study. Finally, the Conclusion discusses conclusions drawn from the
study, comments on the limitations of this research and makes some recommendations for further
studies as well as the author professional development after the research.

5
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
The study bases on the theoretical foundation of speaking skill and collaborative learning
approach. This chapter reviews the relevant literature and provides some key information of
the current research findings to see how this research contributes to the field.
1.1. Theoretical backgrounds of speaking
1.1.1. Nature of speaking
Speaking is a skill which requires the master speak with confidence to carry out a lot of
their most transaction. Bygate (1987) discusses the nature of speaking comprehensively
that to speak a foreign language, micro-linguistics skills are necessarily required to
understand grammar, vocabulary, and the rules of word order in sentence building.
Moreover, he shows the two sub-skills of interaction skills speaker often use, namely routine
skills and negotiation skills.
1.1.2. Characteristics of a successful speaking activity
According to Ur (1996:120), a successful speaking activity requires four typical
characteristics: learners talk a lot; participation is even; motivation is high; and language is
of an acceptable level. These characteristics are closely related to the theme of this study in
hope that learners involve much more, more actively and enthusiastically in speaking
lessons. First and foremost, they need a motivation to be eager and encouraged to speak,
for example, they have something new to share, want to contribute to the task achievement
or just they are fond of the topic. Then, when taking part in speaking practice, learners, on
the one hand, should try their best to talk as much as possible in an available period of

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

over the world. There are also various ways to define CL, so in order to understand it
clearly, it is suggested that some explicit definitions be presented.
In Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards, J. C.,
Platt, J., & Platt, H. 1997), cooperative learning or collaborative learning is defined as “an
approach to teaching and learning in which classroom are organized so that students work
together in small cooperative teams”. The above definition just mentions the structure of
the approach. Besides, the phrase “collaborative” is repeated, so it seems not to explicit the

7
definition clearly very much. The following definition may be the most recognizable one
as it is cited in a deal of other research: “Cooperative learning is the instructional use of
small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other's
learning” (Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, 1991). It indicates the two key
features: structure and objective of such learning aproach.
Moreover, Kagan (1990, cited in Panitz, 1996) has an excellent definition of CL by
looking at general structures that can be applied to any situations:
"The structural approach to cooperative learning is based on the creation, analysis and
systematic application of structures, or content-free ways of organizing social
interaction in the classroom. Structures usually involve a series of steps, with
proscribed behavior at each step. An important cornerstone of the approach is the
distinction between "structures" and "activities".
"To illustrate, teachers can design many excellent cooperative activities, such as
making a team mural or a quilt. Such activities almost always have a specific content-
bound objective and thus cannot be used to deliver a range of academic content.
Structures may be used repeatedly with almost any subject matter, at a wide range of
grade levels and at various points in a lesson plan."
This means teachers designs a series of cooperative activities that have “a specific content
bound” for students to finish together. In conclusion, definitions vary in words, but they all
direct to group environment in which each member of a team is accountable for learning
what is taught and helping teammates learn, thus creating an atmosphere of achievement.

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

to be a better way.
1.2.1.3. Collaborative learning versus cooperative learning
There are several studies try to distinguish collaborative learning and cooperative learning
by pointing out the similarities and differences of the two terms (Oxford, 1997; Myers,
1991; Palmer, Peters & Streetman, 2008). However, they are written and used
interchangeably in articles or books such as Richards, Platt, & Platt, 1997; Canh, 2003;
Nunan, 1992, the author of this study decided to take them as one.
1.2.2. Key factors of successful CL
Collaboration happens in everyday life, in most of daily situation such as doing business,
making social events, doing research etc; however, in learning, particularly in language

9
learning, collaboration is still not really an usual activity. Collaborative learning is possible
but challenging, so to get it successful is not easy. This process requires some key factors.
In a previous review of cooperative learning, Slavin (1983) found two components
necessary for cooperative learning to be effective in producing achievement gains: group
rewards and individual accountability.
According to Le Van Canh (2003), there are two key issues which need addressing to
make collaborative learning successful in second and foreign language teaching. They are
collaborative kills and cooperative atmosphere. The former must be taught explicitly as it
is the language skills which is essential for learners‟ academic careers and their future lives
as well. The latter is vital to get all learners involved in a “community of practice”.
There are five factors necessary for successful collaborative learning (cf. D. W. Johnson
and R.T. Johnson 1987, 1989; D. W. Johnson et al, 1990, 1998; Brandt 1987).
The very first factor is “positive interdependence”. It is a sense of working together for
mutual benefits with a common goal and caring about each other‟s learning. The work in
collaborative team should be structured for all members to have the feeling of belonging to
each other by establishing a mutual goal, sharing the same resources or joining rewards.
Learners care about the team and the other‟s success as well as their own. Thus, all team
members are on the same boat and “sinking or swimming together” is an essential

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

skills, trust and conflict resolution skills, etc. These skills are of great importance for well-
functioning collaborative teams since they bring the learners required and necessary ability
to deal with all problems that may happen during the lessons. As Goodwin (2003) says:
“Cooperative learning strategies can be successful with students of all ages, learning styles,
and ethnic backgrounds. However, students who have never been taught the prerequisite
social skills cannot be expected to work together effectively”.
The final factor is “team reflection” or “group processing”. Periodically, the teams assess
what they gain from the lessons and their peers, how well they are doing collaborative
activities together and the suggestions for the next time learning team. This is one kind of
reports delivered to each student for comments after each lesson. Thus, the entire group or
each individual can recognize their own strengths or weaknesses and make them better off
next time.
Here is the relationship between some factors given by Rebecca (2009):

11

Figure 1: Cooperative learning outcomes
In short, these five elements are crucial for students to make collaborative learning in
groups successful. Students need to utilize and combine many skills to achieve good
results. We can see that it is not a simple and easy way and requires many factors from
both learners and instructors. The roles of learner and teacher will be discussed in the next
part “Collaborative Language Learning”.
1.2.3. Benefits of CL
Cooperative learning has been a subject of interest to researchers for the past several
decades, and many research findings indicate that cooperative learning is an effective tool
for improving academic achievement (Johnson, Marayama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon,
1981; Slavin, 1984; Watson, 1991)
Well-developed instructional strategies such as CLL offer many potential benefits to
learners. Ted Panitz (1996) lists over 50 related benefits. In the Palmer, G., Peters, R., &
Streetman, R. (2008), the authors summarize these benefits into four main categories:

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”

of benefits in cooperative learning from more than 700 research studies back to the late
1800s. First, effort-to-achieve basket shows that cooperative learning can increases
learners‟ achievement. The second basket is interpersonal relationships in which learners
care about each other more and they are interested in each other's success and wellbeing
and most of them feel more accepted. The last area is psychological health. Students have

13
higher self-esteem, greater social confidence; their social skills are higher, and their
abilities to relate to other people and work in teams are considerably higher.
1.2.4. Types of grouping
In CL, students working together in small groups to achieve common learning goals and
cooperative learning teams provide an effective environment of new understandings. In
encouraging small group, learners feel freer to talk in an exploratory and tentative way to
share their ideas to each other. Moreover, grouping is the first step to create a well-
functioning collaborative group later.
According to I-Jung (2004:3-4), grouping methods fall into three categories: Random
grouping, student-selected grouping, and teacher-formed arrangement. First, randomly
assigned groups can be established by seat arranging, counting off, giving out numbered
pieces of paper, or just according to the numbers in the list of students (To, 2006:4).
Thanks to its convenience and readiness, random groups are often used in class. Since
students are chosen unintentionally, their language proficiency level, abilities, interests,
needs, learning styles, gender, personalities, etc are consequently in random difference.
This type of grouping can somehow fill the gap between low and high achieving students.
Student-selected grouping is the second type, in which students have their own choice in
selecting their partners and teammates. Often, those with similar proficiency level,
abilities, interests, etc group together. Despite some advantages of being comfortable and
safe among friends, there is a risk if students can be too relaxed together. Lastly, teacher-
formed grouping is also done and teachers‟ thorough consideration in advance is highly
required to create a heterogeneous. Such deliberately heterogeneous teams including two
to four members appear the favorable option in cooperative learning. However, teams

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

important that teachers organize and structure learning activities that encourage and
provide opportunities for collaboration. (Johnson, D., & Johnson, R., 1993)
Some teachers may mistakenly think that putting students into small groups and letting
them do their group work or sometimes walking around the class to see what the learners
are doing is cooperative learning. During cooperative activities, the professor is not
aimlessly meandering around the room. He or she is conducting purposeful performance
assessment. Thus, a professor should monitor each group with some care and look not only
for what answer group members are going to settle on but what other answers they are
considering along the way - not only on the outcome of the conversation but on the process

15
used to get there. In cooperative learning, the instructor is viewed as a facilitator and
consultant in the group learning process. Therefore, the instructor‟s duties are not just
sitting seeing all groups discuss, but instead, circulating among the groups in order to offer
encouragement, reinforce positive demonstrations of cooperative learning, clarify task
expectations, catalyze dialogue or issue timely questions designed to promote elaboration
and higher-order thinking. Additionally, teachers should prepare and design the materials
creatively and appropriately before teaching at class so that collaborative learning can
work.
1.2.7. Role of instructional materials
According to David Johnson (cited in Panitz, B., 1997) a lot of research shows that the
more complex and technical the teaching material get, the harder it is to understand and the
greater the superiority of cooperative learning is over competitive and individualistic
techniques. There are complaints that some tasks are too demanding for some average or
weak students, so they find speaking in a group hopeless. Meanwhile, some students at
better proficiency are not happy with speaking tasks at lower level which they may do
repeatedly before, or in other words, they need more challenging tasks. To balance
between the two extremes is not easy. Actually, it is rather tough for ESL teacher to
choose appropriate kind of group material to satisfy all students in class who are available
at mixed English levels.

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

some ideas with him or her by asking questions, then they change the role and finally
they share their ideas with the whole group. Students can develop questioning skills
thanks to this activity.
 Think – Pair – Share is a structure having three steps. Students are given chances from
working individually in step 1 to working with a partner in step 2 and lastly sharing
with others what was discussed. This strategy encourages students, helps without
giving answers, asks for help, explains, and suggests ways of learning, reflecting.
1.2.9. Previous studies on the topic
In Vietnam National University, Hanoi, four M.A. studies related to applying cooperative
learning in ESL classes have been conducted. Each of them focuses on the different skills,
subjects at various proficiency, and aspects of learning effectiveness. All the studies were
conducted in four local universities or colleges such as Tay Bac University, Thai Nguyen

17
University of Education, Vinh University, Gia Lai Teachers‟ Training College, etc in
different provinces nationwide in Vietnam. In terms of skills, meanwhile two of the
researchers applied cooperative learning in speaking lessons (Le, 2006; Hoang, 2005),
only one of them carried out the research on writing skills (Tran, 2009) and Dang (2006)
did a research on cooperative learning in English class in general without pointing English
skill involved. Regarding the subjects of the studies, three of the studies used cooperative
learning for classes of English major students and only one research on non- English major
ones in mixed level class (Dang, 2006). Despite different kinds of skills or classes
mentioned, the results yielded in the studies reveal that the application of cooperative
learning can bring about desirable benefits to both learners and teachers and it seems to be
a powerful teaching tool which can boost students‟ interest, participation, proficiency and
responsibilities for their own learning. Basing on the results of these previous studies, the
author of this research would like to apply this learning approach to another type of
subjects (non-English third year students) in another educational institute (HUBT) in
Hanoi in speaking lessons to help the students involve much more in practicing speaking
English in class.

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,

English is not their major but a compulsory subject in the courses. The training program is
diversified into two kinds according to the students‟ English proficiency. The students had
been classified into English classes before they started the official course at HUBT by an
English entrance exam. The first kind is all of the students who have relatively equal English
proficiency level (beginner or elementary), so they are taught with the textbook New English
File (elementary) and then Market Leader. The other type is for those who have elementary

19
English proficiency level or over. They are taught with a series of Market Leader (elementary,
pre-intermediate and intermediate) – business English course books. In the last semester, the
students are trained with TOEIC and pass a TOEIC test.
The students have two English lessons each week. Each lesson lasts for approximately four
hours (equal to five periods of 45 minutes). The students are accessed with the two tests, mid-
term test and final one. In the mid-term test, they have to perform a test with four language
skills – listening, reading, writing and speaking. The result of the mid-term test accounts for
30% of the total score. The final test, computer-based multiple-choice, is in charge of the rest
70%. The English course lasts for seven semesters (about three and a half years).
2.1.3. The description of the material used
The course book is Market Leader Intermediate by David Cotton, David Falvey and Simon
Kent, Pearson 2004. According to Cotton, D., Falvey, D., & Kent, S. (2004), Market Leader
Intermediate is for “tomorrow's business leaders”. It introduces intermediate English level
students to the professional communication and language skills necessary for a wide range of
business situations such as participating in meetings, negotiation and, socialization, etc. Thus,
speaking skill is at the heart of this course with the part of discussion, individually or in groups,
is present at mostly every part of each unit such as: Starting up, Vocabulary, Language
Review, Reading, Listening, especially in Skills and Case Study where students work in pairs
or groups to play a role in many different business situations. The book uses authoritative
authentic sources to explore topical business issues. It helps to build the professional standard
of language needed to communicate in the modern business world.
2.1.4. The learners

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