INVESTIGATING ORAL PARTICIPATION IN IN CLASS GROUP WORK BY FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

1
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TỐNG THỊ MỸ LIÊN

INVESTIGATING ORAL PARTICIPATION IN IN-CLASS
GROUP WORK BY FIRST YEAR STUDENTS AT ENGLISH
DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, VIETNAM NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY, HANOI

NGHIÊN CỨU VIỆC THAM GIA NÓI TRONG HOẠT ĐỘNG
NHÓM TRÊN LỚP CỦA SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ NHẤT TẠI
KHOA ANH, ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ - ĐHQG HÀ NỘI

Summary of M.A. Combined Program Thesis

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 60-14-10

HANOI – 2010


2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ED: English Department
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ELT: English Language Teaching
ESL: English as a Second language

ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies
NNS: Non-native English Speaker
NNSs: Non-native English Speakers
NS: Native English Speaker
NSs: Native English Speakers
VNU: Vietnam National University


3
REFERENCES
Abbott, B. B., & Bordens, K. S. (1999). Research design and methods:
A process approach (4th ed.). California: Mayfield Publishing
Company.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles- an interactive approach
to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Addition Wesley
Longman, Inc.
Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language
research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burnes, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, I. J. (2004). Utilizing group work effectively in the English
language classroom. TESL Reporter, 37, (1), 1-7.
Chong, C. T. (1999). Small Group Work: Are We Doing All Right?
CDTL Brief, 2, (3). Retrieved September, 9th, 2006 from
/>Cottrell, S. (2001). Teaching study skills and supporting learning.
Palgrave: Hampshire.
Gomez, A.M., Arai, M.J., & Lowe, H. (1995). When Does a Student
Participate in Class? Ethnicity and Classroom Participation. Paper

4
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication
Association (81st, San Antonio, TX).
Hadfield, J. (1997). Classroom dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.).
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Honeyfield, J. (1991). The formation of small groups in the language
classroom. Guidelines, 13, (1), 11-18.
Hyland, K. (1991). Managing group work. Guidelines, 13, (1), 29-35.
Johnson, D. W., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in
the college classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.
Jones, J. F. (1995). A Cross-Cultural Perspective on the Pragmatics of
Small-Group Discussion. RELC Journal, 26, (2), 44-61.
Le, H. (2004). Peer interaction in group work. Teacher’s Edition, (6),
28-30.
Lee, P. (2005). Students’ Personality Type and Attitudes Toward
Classroom Participation. Proceedings of the CATESOL State
Conference 2005.
Liu, J. (2001). Asian Students' Classroom Communication Patterns in
U.S. Universities : An Emic Perspective. Westport: Greenwood


5
Publishing Group, Inc.Long, M. H. & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work,
interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL
Quaterly, 19, (2), 207-228.
Martine, L. (2003).

Small group interaction among native English

speaking and non-native English speaking learners in a teacher
training context. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, l,
(13), 61-73.
McInnis, C. (2006). Small group discussions. Retrieved December,
13th,

2006

from

www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/small_group_rev2.pdf
Melles, G. (2004). Understanding the role of language/culture in group
work through qualitative interviewing. The Qualitative Report, 9
(2),

216-240.

Retrieved

September,

20th,

2006,

from

/>Ngoh, S. G. (1991). Small group work in the classroom. Guidelines, 13,
(1), 19-27.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Oakley and Crocker (1977). An Exploratory Study of Teacher
Interventions in Elementary Science Laboratory Groups. Westport:
Greenwood


6
Ohata, K. (2005). Potential Sources of Anxiety for Japanese Learners of
English: Preliminary Case Interviews with Five Japanese College
Students in the U.S. TESL-EJ, 9, (1), 26-38.
Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing
aren’t Enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50 (1).
Tickoo, M. L. (1991). Group work in language classrooms: a pedagogic
universal or a partial remedy? Guidelines, 13, (1), 45-54
Vajendra, K. V. & Mallick, G. (1999). Researching Education:
Perspectives and Techniques. Oxford: Falmer Press.
Vo, T. K. T. (2004). Beneficial grouping arrangements for oral English.
Teacher’s Edition, (6), 16-24.
Yuenfeng, Z. (2005). Task type and teacher's role: Two important
factors in effective group learning. Thinking Classroom Journal
[online]. Retrieved October, 11th, 2006 from />Zhenhui, R. (2001). Advantages of group-centered learning in large
classes. Teacher’s Edition, (6), 8-11.


7
1. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RATIONALE
Group work’s effectiveness has been reconsidered closely since Tickoo
(1991, p.53) left the open question “is group work a pedagogic
universal or a partial remedy?” Since then, the need to examine how

group-work theory works in practice has emerged. Addressing this
issue, various studies (Jones, 1995; Zhenhui, 2001; Martine, 2003;
Yuenfeng, 2005; Chen, 2004) were conducted; however, deep empirical
investigations into students’ participation in group work and influential
factors were few in number – Martine (2003) and Yuenfeng (2005).
Pitifully, those merely explored the oral participation level measured by
the number of turns and amount of talking time. Thus, a more
comprehensive evaluation of their participation would be appreciated.
With regard to Vietnam’s ELT context, the aforementioned matter has
not been thoroughly investigated despite the existence of a few related
studies like Vo’s investigation (2004). The urgency to do research
becomes significant in the ELT context of University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University (ULIS, VNU).
Although group work is a familiar method at English Department (ED),
it is considerably new for the majority of freshmen, who have had little
group-learning experience in high school. Consequently, it has
inevitably posed huge challenges for teachers and students at this site.
The present study was conducted to examine the participation of firstyear EFL learners at ULIS, VNU in group work. Hopefully, this
research could narrow the gaps and bring new perspectives to the field.
2. AIMS OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to investigate the oral participation of
first-year EFL students at ULIS, VNU in in-class group work.
Specifically, it addressed the following research questions:
1. What do first-year EFL students at ULIS, VNU think about group
work?
2. How are those students’ level and quality of oral participation in inclass group work?
3. What factors affect those students’ oral participation in in-class
group work?
4. Which monitoring strategies have EFL teachers at the research site
applied to increase the students’ oral participation in in-class group

work? Which ones are preferred by the students?


8
From the findings, the researcher would recommend several
pedagogical implications to motivate and balance students’ oral
participation in group work.
3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Due to time constraints, instead of aiming at group activities in general,
the study focused on those within classroom contexts. Besides, the
study merely examined EFL students’ oral participation. Moreover, it
was carried out with just 100 first-year students and five teachers of
English at ED at ULIS, VNU.
4. LITERATURE REVIEW
4.1 Definitions of key terms
4.1.1 Group work
Group work is widely agreed to be a process in which two or more
learners work together to do a task which involves cooperation and selfgenerated language (Brown, 2001; Doff, 1998). Besides, several
researchers like Johnson and Smith (1991) suggest three kinds of group
work: informal learning groups, formal learning groups, and study
teams. Nevertheless, in this research, “group work” just refers to oral
activities done in informal learning groups in class.
4.1.2 Participation
Research has focused on verbal and non-verbal aspects of students’
participation in classroom discussions (Lee, 2005; Liu, 2001). The
participation in group activities can be also assessed in the similar way.
Besides, when investigating oral participation, researchers have just
paid attention to observable aspects, i.e. the number of turns or the
amount of talking time (Martine, 2003); however, obviously, the quality
of ideas should be also judged to create a more comprehensive

evaluation. Due to time constraints, this study merely examined
students’ oral participation, measured by the number of turns, the
amount of talking time, and the quality of ideas.
4.2 ESL/ EFL students’ participation in group work
In ESL/ EFL settings, participation in classroom activities is important
for efficient learning to occur (Gomez, 1995). As regards working in
groups, without their active participation, learners might not gain any
group-work benefits. In that case, applying group activities in classroom
contexts will become a waste of time and effort. Therefore, students’
participation is indispensable in this kind of activity (McInnis, 2006).


9
Pitifully, several studies such as Ngoh (1991), Tickoo (1991), Martine
(2003) and Yuenfeng (2005) have demonstrated students’ lack of
participation in group work. This easily occurs at the process stage,
where they are involved in oral interaction, or the presentation stage.
The lack of participation of several members apparently results in
unbalanced participation. Martin’s study (2003) reveals a high level of
dominance of NS learners over NNS ones when discussing in groups; it
is also the case of EFL learners as identified by Yuenfeng (2005).
4.3 Influential factors on ESL/EFL Students’ participation in inclass group work
A number of studies have elaborated various elements encouraging or
inhibiting ESL/ EFL students from participating in in-class group work,
which can be grouped into three categories: student-related, pedagogyrelated, and culture-related factors.
Student-related elements include language difficulties, background or
subject knowledge, difficulties with some aspects of discourse,
acceptance of group work, and personalities (Melles, 2004; Chong,
1999; Yuenfeng, 2005; Vo, 2004; Martine, 2003).
Pedagogy-related factors refer to the level of difficulty of the task and

the level of interest of the topic, teacher role (setting up rules for groupwork participation, giving instructions, and being absent during group
interaction), and peer cooperation and evaluation (Vo, 2004; Yuenfeng,
2005; Ohata, 2005).
Finally, the lack of participation in group work might be due to cultural
factors, namely the concept of face and the fear of losing face, the value
of silence, and views on direct disagreement and co-operation (Ngoh,
1991; Martine, 2003; Yuenfeng, 2005).
4.4 Teachers’ monitoring strategies to increase students’
participation in group work
The literature has indicated several basic strategies which teachers can
apply to monitor students to ensure their active participation during
group activities. Those include keeping distance from students when
they start working, intervening during group work, providing language
help when needed, and dealing with common language errors (Ngoh,
1991; Brown, 2001; Hyland, 1991). Nevertheless, several educators
emphasize that it is essential for teachers not to provide excessive
guidance and support for students (Oakley and Crocker, 1977).


10
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1 Participants
The target sample of the research consisted of 100 first-year EFL
students from five randomly-chosen classes at ED at ULIS, VNU, and
five teachers of English who were teaching those five classes.
5.2 Data collection methods
The data were collected by three instruments, which established a
triangulation to enhance data reliability and validity through multiple
sources (Burns, 1994, as cited in Burnes, 1999).
5.2.1 Questionnaires

In the study, the questionnaire (Appendix 5), targeting at students,
aimed at collecting statistical data. It included four parts: the first part
about students’ perceptions of group work (eight questions), the second
part about their oral participation level and quality in group activities
(nine questions), the third part about factors affecting their participation
(23 questions), and the final part about teachers’ monitoring strategies
applied and preferred during group work (12 questions).
5.2.2 Semi-structured interviews
In the research, the interviews were used to triangulate and enrich the
questionnaire data. There were four interview schedules, two for the
teachers and two for the students.
In terms of teacher interviews (Appendix 3), the first schedule with four
questions was intended to collect the same information in the student
questionnaire but seen from teachers’ viewpoints. The second schedule
with two questions was used to ask teachers to recall about the observed
group activities, focusing on students’ oral participation level and
quality in those activities, and teachers’ monitoring strategies applied.
With regard to student interviews (Appendix 3), the first schedule with
three questions collected the relatively same information in the
questionnaire, but was expected to generate more details. The second
schedule with two questions was for students to recall about the
observed discussions, focusing on their oral participation level and
quality in those activities, and influential factors on their participation.
5.2.3 Observations
In the study, an observation scheme with two main parts (see Appendix
4) was applied for its convenience in data coding and analysis. It was
designed to investigate students’ participation level in the observed


11

group discussions, basing on the times of turns taken and the total
amount of talking time of each group member, and discover teachers’
strategies to increase students’ participation during those activities.
5.3 Data collection procedures
The data were collected during the period of six weeks. First, the first
version of the questionnaire was piloted with five first-year EFL
students at ED at ULIS, VNU. Then, it was carefully revised to ensure
its accuracy, conciseness, comprehensiveness and focus. After that, the
questionnaires were delivered to 100 first-year EFL students in five
random classes at ED at ULIS, VNU in class.
Later, five respondents, one in each class, were randomly chosen for the
interviews to yield more interesting points. Semi-structured interviews
of fifteen to twenty minutes basing on the first student-targeted schedule
were administered in Vietnamese with each participant in an informal
atmosphere to minimize their anxiety. Besides, teacher interviews of
fifteen to twenty minutes (using the first teacher-targeted schedule)
were conducted in English with five teachers teaching those students in
a friendly setting.
Next, observations were conducted to examine data reliability. One
observation of a particular group discussion was carried out in each
class. The researcher strictly followed the observation scheme to take
notes and focus on the points investigated. Immediately after each
lesson, a semi-structured interview of five to ten minutes (using the
second student-targeted schedule) was carried out in Vietnamese with
one student in the observed group for data triangulation. The teachers
were also interviewed in English (using the second teacher-intended
schedule) for around ten minutes after the lessons. It is important to
note that all the interviews and observations were tape-recorded.
Certainly, tape-recording did not bear any threats to the data reliability.
5.4 Data analysis methods and procedures

The questionnaire data were quantified and analyzed in the form of
descriptive statistics (using one measure of central tendency – the
mean). Then, they were illustrated in charts and tables.
As for teacher interviews, the recordings were transcribed. Meanwhile,
student interviews (in Vietnamese) were transcribed and translated into
English. Afterwards, a color-coding system was applied to synthesize
those data.


12
Besides, the first part of the observation scheme was analyzed by
frequency and duration method recommended by Bordens & Abbott
(1999), and was illustrated in charts. The second part’s data (teachers’
monitoring strategies) were demonstrated in a table.
All the data were grouped under four main areas: students’ perceptions
of group work, students’ oral participation level and quality in group
work, factors affecting students’ participation in group work, and
teachers’ monitoring strategies to increase students’ participation.
6. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
6.1 Students’ perceptions towards group work
6.1.1 Data from the student interviews
It is noteworthy that all the interviewees pointed out various benefits
they could gain through group activities. The first mentioned by three
out of five were improving their language skills and boosting students’
confidence through interacting with each other. Besides, two referred to
the opportunity to widen their knowledge about certain topics.
All the interviewees also reflected on group work’s disadvantages. First,
four of them agreed on students’ overuse of their native language.
Moreover, three acknowledged a noisy and chaotic atmosphere as a
problem of group work. Another disadvantage was the imbalance of

participation among group members as assumed by two participants.
6.1.2 Data from the questionnaires
As regards the first four statements in Table 4.1 (Appendix 1), notably,
the first two statements were the most prominent and visible advantages
perceived by the students as they had higher means. Meanwhile, the
responses to the others showed a tendency towards the middle (means <
3.4), which demonstrated the participants’ wider range of views.
In contrast, there were various opinions on the disadvantages. The last
four statements in Table 4.1 all received the mean scores between 3.1
and 3.7, among which overuse of mother tongue had the greatest
tendency to agreement (the highest mean - 3.66).
6.1.3 Data from the teacher interviews
Generally, the teachers supposed that their students had positive
attitudes towards group work. In fact, four of them believed the
majority of students loved working in groups. However, there were a
minority of the learners who were not really aware of the usefulness of
group work as acknowledged by two of the teachers.


13
6.1.4 Summary and discussion
The data collected from different sources supported to confirm that the
students had good awareness of group work’s advantages and held
different attitudes towards its problems. Furthermore, the teachers could
be conscious of students’ perceptions of group activities.
As shown, the participants were aware of the benefits of group activities
highlighted in the literature by Zhenhui (2001) and Chen (2004). This
great awareness may be because the students had several learning
achievements after joining group work in the first semester, and now
they could recall their experience. Additionally, like the researchers in

the literature, the participants held different viewpoints on the problems
of group work. This could be because the application of this activity
worked differently in different contexts, and therefore, whether the
problems could be visible or not might depend on a number of agents.
Unlike McInnis’s study (2006), which indicated a large number of
students’ lack of awareness of the role of participation in group work,
the present investigation demonstrated the learners’ fairly positive
perceptions of gains through participating in this activity. This could be
easily understood as the participants of McInnis’s study and those of
this research were not similar in terms of the ELT context, learning
experience or personal achievements.
6.2 Students’ participation in in-class group work
6.2.1 Data from the questionnaires
The means of the first four statements concerning participation patterns
(Table 4.2, Appendix 1) illustrated that marginal interaction (mean =
2.29) and conditional participation (mean = 2.26) were the most popular
participation patterns among the students in group work while silent
observation was the least common (mean = 1.81).
In terms of the quality of ideas contributed (the last four statements in
Table 4.2), sharing many ideas, even irrelevant and/or unconstructive
ones was the most common (the highest mean - 2.43), which showed
that the participants did not seem to be selective in sharing ideas.
Besides, saying only some words or phrases was least regularly chosen
(the lowest mean - 1.91), and this was the only mean below 2.
Nonetheless, noticeably, the means of all the eight statements were less
than 2.5, which showed the students’ tendency to participate differently
rather than follow a fixed pattern at different times.


14

Referring to different members’ participation in one group (Figure 4.1,
Appendix 2), surprisingly, 26% of the respondents thought the
imbalance always occurred. It seemed that those bore negative
experiences concerning peers’ participation in group work. Strikingly,
while 41% marked “Sometimes”, 32% agreed on its high frequency.
Those data showed that the lack and imbalance of participation visibly
occurred in in-class group work. The quality of ideas shared in group
work also needed to be questioned since many students tended to be not
selective in deciding on what to say.
6.2.2 Data from the student interviews
Three out of five interviewees admitted they tended to contribute little
in group work. Interestingly, two of those first used the word “average”
to talk about their participation level, but confessed to lacking
participation when asked to elaborate more. By contrast, the other two
assumed that they had active participation. However, one recalled his
little involvement in the first semester. When it came to the observed
lessons, most of them confessed to their little participation.
Coincidentally, one used the word “average” again when first talking
about his participation level.
Furthermore, strikingly, all of them claimed that the dominance of some
members visibly happened in their classes. This problematic situation
was considerably common, especially when the students just got
acquaintance with this ELT method.
As regards the quality of ideas contributed, all of them said that at times
they spoke whatever they thought of. Two of them even confessed to
their low-quality ideas in group activities.
On the whole, the student interview findings supported to verify the
similar problems as revealed by the questionnaires.
6.2.3 Data from the observations
In terms of the number of turns (Figure 4.2, Appendix 2), a serious lack

of participation was apparently displayed. Half of the students took no
more than three turns, at least twice fewer than those of the person
participating most actively in each group. Furthermore, a great
participation imbalance could be seen in every group, most obviously in
group five where member one had 13 turns, more than the others’ total
turns. Notably, in the other groups, two members appeared to dominate
the discussions for taking over half of the group’s total turns.


15
With regard to the total amount of talking time (Figure 4.3, Appendix
2), the same situation was reflected. Nearly one third took up less than
five percent of the total talking time; meanwhile, some were too
domineering. Most strikingly, over two thirds of group five’s total
talking time belonged to member one. In the other groups, the
imbalance was still clear with one member’s talking time taking up over
40%. Unsurprisingly, those having more turns talked more in each turn.
Moreover, some had the same number of turns but differed in the
amount of talking time.
In short, the observations disclosed the similar problems in participation
level identified by the questionnaires and student interviews.
6.2.4 Data from the teacher interviews
Interestingly, the teachers held the same view of the discussed matter.
Four of them referred to the lack of participation and domination of
some members. Only T3 appeared to be more positive about her
students’ participation.
Regarding the quality of ideas, all the teachers claimed that their
students easily went off-topic during the discussions. In addition, three
of them concluded that working in groups might reduce the quality of
ideas of certain students. For example, some were hesitant in using

complicated expressions, or used Vietnamese to make others understand
what they wanted to say. These showed that group work sometimes
failed to generate good ideas from the students.
6.2.5 Summary and discussion
The data collected by the three instruments helped to conclude that
there were three major problems in the participation of the students in
in-class group activities: a lack of participation, an imbalance in the
participation ratio in one group, and a shortage of good ideas.
These findings are comparatively similar to what has been addressed by
earlier researchers (Tickoo, 1991; Ngoh, 1991; Chen, 2004) and
identified in the previous empirical projects (Martine, 2003; Yuenfeng,
2005). Thus, it could be concluded that those problems tended to be
prevailing in any ELT contexts with all types of learners. Certainly, the
level of seriousness of those problems would differ among different
group activities in one context and among different ELT contexts.
Nevertheless, different from the related studies, which merely focused
on participation level, this research shed light on the low quality of


16
ideas contributed during group work. Additionally, the present study
spotted students’ tendency to use the word “average” to describe their
own participation level, which was out of the researcher’s expectations.
6.3 Factors affecting students’ participation in in-class group work
6.3.1 Data from the teacher interviews
It is worth examining the teachers’ views to see whether they could be
conscious of this issue and whether there was any mismatch between
teachers’ views and students’ awareness.
The first agreed by all the teachers was students’ unfamiliarity with
group work, the impact of students’ English proficiency, discussion

topic’s interesting level, and teachers’ observation and facilitation.
Besides, three of them paid special attention to the influence of peers on
the students during group work. Meanwhile, T3 claimed on the impact
of peers’ responses to the work (enthusiastic or uninterested) and
attitudes toward others’ turns (encouraging or discouraging). There were
four other elements mentioned by only one interviewee: the use of
marks or gifts, the time that the activity takes place, students’
personality, and their health or mental status.
Notably, T3 discovered more elements than others, which could be
explained by the difference in teaching experience. T3 had been
working with first-year students at this site for seven years while the
others’ working experience just ranged from one to three years.
6.3.2 Data from the questionnaires
First, the top striking student-related factors included lacking
vocabulary and grammar, lacking previous group work experience,
lacking background knowledge, having positive view of group work,
and lacking confidence (mean > 2.5) (Table 4.3, Appendix 1). Among
those, lacking vocabulary and grammar was the most prominent (the
highest mean - 2.9). Moreover, the least influential was being unable to
see group work’s benefits (the lowest mean - 1.81 < 2).
In terms of pedagogy-related factors (Table 4.4, Appendix 1), the most
outstanding was being encouraged by teachers’ clear instructions (the
highest mean- 2.85 - also the only mean above 2.5). Four factors (seeing
no clear rules for participation, being afraid of negative peer evaluation,
being forced to participate more due to lack of peer participation, and
disliking group members) received the means below 2, among which
disliking group members stood at the bottom of the list (mean = 1.68).


17

As demonstrated in Table 4.5 (Appendix 1), the most influential cultural
element was getting used to listening (the highest mean - 2.34), and the
least striking was being afraid of losing face in front of peers (the
lowest mean - 1.71). Notably, all the culture-related factors’ means were
less than 2.5. Besides, half of those received the means below 2.
When asked to list any other influential factors, just two respondents
replied. Surprisingly, health was the only one mentioned by both; the
others (time, team spirit, peers’ lack of responsibility, and study
environment) were merely referred to by either of them.
Overall, the questionnaire data showed that student-related elements
were the most influential while culture-related ones were the least
striking. Of course, the level of impact and the number of factors
differed among the participants.
6.3.3 Data from the student interviews
Student-related factors
One prevailing factor was the lack of concentration. During the
observed group discussions, four out of five experienced it, which made
them unaware of being in group work at times. Nevertheless, just three
of them could figure out the reasons.
Besides, language difficulties enormously troubled the participants. In
the observed activity, four had problems with vocabulary. Three of
those also acknowledged the failure to express their ideas in English.
Only S4 was not troubled by vocabulary; she appeared to be the most
confident about her proficiency level of English.
Furthermore, three of them agreed on the influence of the shortage of
ideas and previous experience with group work and English skills.
Additionally, preference to working individually was mentioned by two.
Surprisingly, both had little previous group-work experience, and
expressed their unfamiliarity with studying in groups. Thus, it could be
seen that secondary-school experience had great impacts on students’

preference to working individually. Being afraid of making mistakes
also hindered the participation of two. Despite their initial desire to
speak, they did not dare to speak for their anxiety of being underrated.
Two other much less striking elements included students’ personality
and students’ attitudes towards group work as stated by one. Notably,
S2 expressed her negative attitude to group work. It seemed that she had
several negative group-work experiences.


18
Pedagogy-related factors
First, discussion topic was the most prominent and direct. Three said
that the topics in the observed discussions did not inspire them to talk
whereas one was motivated to discuss by the topic. Interestingly, in the
general interviews, the same number affirmed negative and positive
impacts of this factor. The level of difficulty of the topic also influenced
students’ participation but appeared to be less troublesome.
Additionally, the interviewees admitted being strongly influenced by
group members. Four were influenced by group members’ participation.
Additionally, three pointed out the effect of understanding among group
members. For example, S3 generally referred to the significance of
understanding about ideas and studying styles among group members.
Besides, peers’ encouragements and cooperative attitudes had positive
impacts on two. In addition, disagreements about ideas among peers
prevented some from contributing. In the observed discussion, S2 was
hindered by her disagreements with others. By contrast, S4 was
sometimes prohibited from participating by others’ disagreements with
her ideas. She also acknowledged the impact of arguments among
others on her. Two other peer-related factors mentioned by one were
peer assistance and attentive attitudes.

Another factor was teacher’s intervention during group work. In the
observed discussion, S2 was motivated by the teacher. Meanwhile, S4
expressed her desire for teacher’s help. Two others mentioned by only
one interviewee were group roles and time constraints.
Culture-related factors
Disagreements about ideas might be related to being afraid of hurting
the others. This was closely associated with cultural value of
compromise, which means students do not want to argue with others.
It is noteworthy that S4, whose participation level in the observed
discussion was the highest, indicated the fewest influential factors, one
of which was positive.
On the whole, it is obvious that the participants were much influenced
by internal factors (themselves) and by peers in this kind of activity.
6.3.4 Summary and discussion
The findings from all the sources reflected that the participants were
strongly affected by a variety of factors concerning students themselves,
pedagogy and culture, among which student-related elements appeared


19
to be the most outstanding. The interviewed participants expressed
many elements shown by the questionnaires. Still, the student
interviews revealed several factors which were not mentioned in the
questionnaires: lack of concentration, shortage of ideas, group roles,
anxiety of hurting others, time limit, and health conditions. In addition,
there existed a slight mismatch between teachers’ viewpoints and
students’ own awareness. Specifically, the teachers did not show an
insight into the impact of internal elements. Meanwhile, the effect of
marks or gifts and the time to conduct the activity were acknowledged
by the teachers but claimed by no students.

These findings are comparatively similar to what has been identified in
the previous research (Martine, 2003; Vo, 2004; Yuenfeng, 2005).
However, the participants in the present study did not seem to be
influenced by all the factors mentioned in the literature. Instead, they
were affected by some others, namely lack of concentration, shortage of
ideas, group roles, time limit, and health. However, those were wellsupported by relevant literature (Harmer, 2001).
Besides, the present study revealed a larger number of pedagogy-related
factors than existing studies. A few researchers like Ohata (2005), Vo
(2004), and Martine (2003) pointed out peer impacts, but those only
indicated the effects of several elements such as peers’ negative
comments, discomfort and boredom when working with those they
dislike, and peers’ lack of participation. On the contrary, the participants
in this study were strongly affected by many other peer-related factors
such as peers’ encouragements, help, disagreements, and attitudes. This
could be explained by group forms. All the students in the present
investigation came from one Asian cultural background – Vietnam,
where the collectivism and community are highly valued and therefore,
people would tend to have great influence on each other.
Furthermore, the present study did not reflect much about culturerelated factors like those by Martine (2003) or Melles (2004). This
could be explained by the participants’ cultural background. All came
from one culture; as a result, there were few cultural conflicts.
Another difference was that while related studies (Ngoh, 1991; Martine,
2003; Yuenfeng, 2005; Vo, 2004; Melles, 2004) paid special attention to
detrimental elements, this research shed light on all the possible factors
which might either promote or restrain their performance.


20
What is more, unlike those in Yuenfeng’s study (2005), whose
participation were encouraged by the teacher’s absence, the participants

of this investigation highly appreciated teachers’ intervention during
group work. This might be the result of the teacher-centered approach
applied in Vietnam for long, which made the students have preperceptions of teachers’ roles in providing language input to boost their
learning rather than that generated by themselves and their peers.
6.4 Teachers’ monitoring strategies during group work
6.4.1 Data from the questionnaires
As seen in Table 4.6 (Appendix 1), the teachers applied most of the
strategies listed with a high frequency (means > 2.5). The most popular
were providing language help when needed, moving around to observe
groups, moving around to remind groups to stay focused, standing at the
front or side of the class to observe groups, and moving around to
encourage shy members (means > 3). Among those, providing language
help when needed was the most striking (the top mean - 3.25).
Assigning further tasks for those finishing earlier was least regularly
applied (the lowest mean - 1.85 - also the only mean below 2).
With regard to student preference (Table 4.7, Appendix 1), the
respondents preferred teachers’ strategies related to linguistic support:
providing language help when needed, correcting students’ mistakes
immediately during group work, taking notes of students’ mistakes for
later correction, and trying to correct all students’ mistakes (means > 4).
Among those, providing language help when needed was favored most
(the highest mean - 4.19). Meanwhile, the participants expressed varied
attitudes to most other strategies with a tendency toward the middle (3 <
means < 3.5). The least preferred was assigning further tasks for those
finishing earlier (the lowest mean - 1.91 - the only mean below 2).
When asked to list any other strategies, just one respondent replied with
two more strategies: applying light punishments to students who don’t
pay attention to group work and using many games to encourage group
work. This participant claimed on his/ her liking to these strategies.
Comparing between teacher application and student preference

indicated that except providing language help when needed, which was
both most frequently applied by the teachers and most strongly favored
by the respondents, other commonly applied strategies by the teachers


21
received diverse opinions from the students. Moreover, interestingly, the
least commonly applied was coincidentally the least preferred.
6.4.2 Data from the teacher interviews
The teacher interviews helped to generate more details.
The most popular as acknowledged by all the five teachers was going
around and observing groups. Three of them not only observed the
students’ performance but also had some interference. For example, T1
intervened a lot by going to each group to remind Ss to stay focused on
the task, which she supposed was not favored by her students. She even
said something to encourage less active members to speak or
participated in the discussion by suggesting several ideas, and she
believed that the students loved those two strategies. Meanwhile, T3
went to each group and raised some ideas for the group to think, which
was highly appreciated by her learners. Unlike these teachers, T2 just
interfered in the group performance at the end of the activity. For this
strategy, she was not sure whether her students liked it or not.
Another strategy mentioned by three of them was mixing students in
different groups at different times. T5 even tried various methods to
group her students. All of them agreed on students’ liking to this
strategy. In addition, two of the teachers referred to setting time limit for
each activity, which was supposed to be favored by the students.
Others were mentioned by only one teacher. T1 often encouraged the
groups to think of their own interesting group names while T3 always
awarded the best group to motivate the students’ participation next time.

Both of them believed that the students loved those strategies.
In general, the teachers believed that the students liked their strategies.
6.4.3 Data from the observations
Most remarkably, moving around to observe groups and taking notes of
students’ mistakes for later correction were done by all the teachers
(Table 4.8). Being applied by four out of five, standing at the front or
side of the class to observe groups, moving around to remind groups to
stay focused, and providing language help when needed were ranked
second. No one assigned further tasks for those finishing earlier.
6.4.5 Summary and discussion
On the whole, the data from the three sources affirmed that the teachers
tried a lot to motivate their students to participate by applying a range of


22
monitoring strategies. Many of those, especially the ones involved in
providing linguistic help, were preferred by the students.
As seen, the findings are relatively consistent to what has been
identified in the previous studies. The teachers in this investigation used
many strategies which have been introduced in the literature by Brown
(2001), Hyland (1991), Ngoh (1991), and Oakley and Crocker (1977).
Nonetheless, the present study displayed certain differences. First, the
teachers in this research applied several strategies which have not been
acknowledged by previous researchers. Second, although the amount of
teachers’ intervention has been controversial (Ngoh, 1991; Oakley and
Crocker, 1977), this study indicated that the students highly valued it.
Finally, unlike Ngoh’s study (1991), which suggested that teachers
should assign further tasks for those finishing earlier, the present
research demonstrated a low tendency of using this strategy by the
teachers and a low preference for it by the students.

7. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 Raising students’ awareness
Teachers should build up students’ awareness of group work’s benefits
and the importance of participation in group work (Le, 2004). For
example, teachers can organize experience-and-gain-sharing meetings
or have informal talks with learners about those issues, especially at the
beginning of each semester in the first year. Moreover, setting rules for
participation in in-class group activities is a good idea as it helps
students to acknowledge that participating is part of learning.
7.2 Assisting students with group-work skills
This is recommended by Martine (2003). When it comes to the ELT
context of ULIS, VNU, it becomes more significant since the majority
of first-year EFL students have had little previous group-work
experience at secondary school. Thus, teachers’ careful guidance will be
essential to ensure their participation in group work.
In fact, orientations about group work have been conducted in the first
semester at ED, ULIS, VNU but its real effectiveness remains a
question. As a result, those should be re-organized in a more efficient,
systematic way. However, it is a challenging task to help students to be
skillful at group learning in a short period of time. Consequently,
seminars or experience-sharing meetings should be held during the year
and even the years later to consolidate students’ group-work skills.


23
7.3 Creating a supportive group atmosphere
Bonding and ice-breaker activities and discussion of group dynamics
are sometimes considered as a waste of real teaching time. Nonetheless,
at the beginning of the first semester, those are effective in settling firstyear students, most of who have never worked together (Cottrell, 2001).
Applying the activities requiring them to change between working with

the peers they know best and those they know least will be also a good
idea. This will establish their confidence in talking to and working with
others and reduce the possibility of some being left out when group
activities are conducted later. By all those activities, negative peerrelated factors can be eliminated.
7.4 Conducting group-work procedures
Careful planning and management virtually can minimize the effects of
negative influential factors on students’ participation and maximize
those of positive ones (Brown, 2001). Therefore, conducting groupwork procedures carefully is highly recommended for the teachers at the
research site. However, within the scale of this research, this section just
covers the procedures closely related to boosting and balancing
students’ participation in in-class group work.
7.4.1 Planning group work
Teachers should be careful in selecting motivating group tasks (Hyland,
1991). As Ngoh (1991) suggests, the group tasks must be as interesting
and real-life as possible, not too complex, and suitable for the students’
capacity. Additionally, an important aspect of devising group tasks is to
ensure that all members are fully involved to contribute to the
successful completion of the task (Hyland, 1991).
Moreover, they should set up time for each procedure so that time can
be sufficient for students’ participation and interaction (Ngoh, 1991).
Giving learners more time to prepare for discussions is useful for them
to generate necessary language to perform the tasks (Martine, 2003).
7.4.2 Providing necessary input before the activity
According to Ngoh (1991), once students have been provided with
necessary language input to use in discourse and in the activity, the lack
of students’ participation can be partly tackled. This sort of language
input might include language functions to agree, to disagree, to ask, to
interrupt, to explain, or to question. Those should be taught earlier in an
academic year, and be consolidated from time to time.

24
Furthermore, learners’ awareness of essential vocabulary for the task
needs to be built up so that they will have a frame of reference which
guides them in the activities (Ngoh, 1991).
7.4.3 Giving clear instructions
In the instructions, teachers should define the number of sentences or
phrases to be produced, insist on one piece of work per group (Ngoh,
1991), and set a time limit for the activity to stimulate language use and
encourage greater interactions (Hyland, 1991). Besides, instructions
should be given before organizing students into groups so that they can
work individually first (Ngoh, 1991). This helps to eliminate the
dominance of certain stronger members in groups.
Teachers should give clear instructions by repeating them, and speaking
at a slower pace (Ngoh, 1991). They should refer students to the
textbook if the instructions are stated there (Le, 2004); nevertheless,
simplifying them is strongly recommended for easier understanding
(Kelch, 1985, as cited in Ngoh, 1991). Besides, teachers’ brief written
instructions on the blackboard can help learners to catch what they are
supposed to do (Le, 2004). Then, they should check students’
understanding of the tasks by testing out certain elements of the
instructions (Brown, 2001; Le, 2004). Finally, they should identify
signals for groups to stop working: a raised hand, a timer, or a whistle.
7.4.4 Organizing group work
Teachers should apply flexible and suitable grouping configurations in
terms of grouping techniques and group sizes (Vo, 2004). It depends on
the teachers to select the most appropriate in their own classes.
However, they should try to avoid personality conflicts when grouping.
Moreover, teachers should decide the group size that can guarantee
maximum interaction among members. As Ngoh (1991) recommends,

the most appropriate group size is four.
Besides, to avoid passive observers in group work, teachers should
assign a specific role to each member (Chen, 2004). For example, “a
leader” will assign jobs for other members; “a secretary” should take
notes; and “a presenter” reports on the final ideas agreed by the group.
7.4.5 Monitoring group work and giving feedback
Teachers should move around to observe and encourage interaction,
listening to them and reminding them to stay focused on the assigned
task, reminding dominant members to share turns with others, and


25
motivating shy ones to speak out their ideas (Hyland, 1991; Le, 2004).
Moreover, teachers should provide language help when students need to
support them in generating meaningful interaction (Ngoh, 1991).
Also, common linguistic errors may be treated immediately when
teachers come to each group so that the students can better their
performance before presenting ideas to the class, or teachers may take
notes of those errors for later correction in front of the whole class
(Ngoh, 1991). Nevertheless, only oral errors that affect intelligibility of
a message should be corrected (Ngoh, 1991).
8. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Although the study was conducted on a small scale with a particular
group of first-year EFL students at ULIS, VNU, it would contribute to
the existing knowledge in the field concerning group work, students’
participation in group work, influential factors, and teachers’ strategies.
Moreover, it could raise awareness of EFL learners about the problems
in their peers’ participation in group work and elements affecting their
participation. It could also assist teachers of English to recognize what
encourage or discourage their students from participating in group

activities so that they could adjust their teaching methods. Finally, it
proposed several useful recommendations for teachers to minimize
negative impacts of influential factors on students’ participation.
9. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FURTHER STUDIES
Due to various constraints and scope of the study, the present research
displays certain limitations. First of all, only five teachers were
involved, which might somehow affect the data richness. However,
since multiple methods addressing the same issue were adopted, and the
findings by those supplemented each other, this did not seriously affect
the study reliability. Second, this research did not go deep into each
category of factors and the influence level of each element.
The limitations of the present study leave several gaps for other
researchers to fill in. First, further studies should widen the research
scale with a larger and more various group of participants. Second, they
might thoroughly investigate each category of influential factors on
students’ participation in in-class group work. Also, they can go deep
into the level of influence of those elements. Besides, they can examine
the similar matter but in long-term or formal groups.