Sự tham gia của sinh viên vào hoạt động thảo luận nhóm trong nhóm trong giờ học nói tiếng anh ở felte ulis vnu

ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

SỰ THAM GIA CỦA SINH VIÊN VÀO HOẠT ĐỘNG
THẢO LUẬN NHÓM TRONG GIỜ HỌC NÓI TIẾNG
ANH Ở FELTE – ULIS – VNU

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Th.s Lưu Ngọc Ly
Sinh viên

: Nguyễn Thu Hiền

Khóa

: QH2016

HÀ NỘI – 2020


ACCEPTANCE PAGE

I hereby state that I, Nguyen Thu Hien, class QH2016.F1.E10, being a
candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (English Language Teaching) accept
the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor‟s
Graduation Paper deposited in the library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited
in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in

accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care,
loan or reproduction of the paper.

Hanoi, May 7, 2020
Signature

Nguyen Thu Hien


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would not have been able to reach the destination of the long journey to
the Bachelor‟s Degree without the support and encouragement of many people.
Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to those
who made significant contributions to the completion of the thesis.
I first would like to express my sincere thanks to my thesis supervisor, Luu
Ngoc Ly (M.A) for her positive attitude, support, critical feedback and
encouragement throughout the study. Without her advice over the long haul, I
would certainly not have been able to complete the thesis.
I am extremely grateful to my family for inspiring me to get through the
difficult time with their never-ending love, patience and financial support
whenever I need.
My special thanks also go to the lecturers and students at the Faculty of
English Language Teacher Education, who facilitated the data collection. Their
support, cooperation and kindness were essential contributions to the value of this
study.

i

ABSTRACT

Group discussion has been widely implemented in EFL classrooms in
Vietnamese tertiary context as an effective strategy in the development of
students‟ communicative competence. Though the implementation of group
discussion has been explored by prior researchers from different perspectives, the
level of students‟ participation in this activity has not been shed light on with
adequate research. This study sought to occupy this research space by
investigating the level of students‟ participation in group discussion in Englishspeaking lessons and identifying the affecting factors as well. This study was
conducted with a total of 101 students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher
Education – University of Languages and International Studies – Vietnam
National University, Hanoi. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were
adopted. Drawing on the data collected by means of the questionnaire, observation
and interview, several findings were registered. The results of the study indicated
that though a majority of students participated in the activity, the participation
frequency and quality remained at a rather low level. The level of participation
among individuals also varied significantly. A number of factors were identified as
exerting impacts on their participation, including students‟ attitude towards the
value of group discussion, linguistic factors, pedagogical factors, personality, and
socio-cultural factors. Among these factors, linguistic elements, discussion topics,
knowledge preparation and the lack of confidence emerged as the major
determinants of students‟ participation in group discussion. From these findings,
pedagogical implications and recommendations for future studies were put
forward.

Key words: Group discussion, students‟ participation, affecting factors

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Abstract
List of tables, figures and abbreviations
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1
1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ........................................................................... 1
2. STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM ............................................................. 2
3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................... 4
4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 5
5. ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................6
1. GROUP DISCUSSION IN EFL CLASSES .............................................................. 6
1.1 Definition of group discussion .............................................................................. 6
1.2 Benefits of group discussion in teaching speaking ................................................ 6
1.3 Concerns about group discussion in teaching speaking ........................................ 7
2. STUDENTS‟ PARTICIPATION IN GROUP DISCUSSION.................................... 9
2.1 Definition of students‟ participation ...................................................................... 9
2.2 Indicators of participation in group discussion...................................................... 9
2.3 Aspects in the evaluation of participation level in group discussion .................. 10
2.4 Factors affecting students‟ participation in group discussion ............................. 11
3. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 14

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................15
1. RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................. 15
2. SAMPLING .............................................................................................................. 16
2.1 Participants .......................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Study site ............................................................................................................. 17
3. DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 17
3.1. Instruments ......................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Procedure of data collection ................................................................................ 24
4. DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 26
iii


4.1 Analyzing the quantitative data ........................................................................... 26
4.2 Analyzing the qualitative data ............................................................................. 26
5. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 27

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ....................................................28
1. RESEARCH QUESTION 1: THE LEVEL OF STUDENTS‟ PARTICIPATION IN
GROUP DISCUSSION IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING LESSONS .................................. 28
1.1 Participation frequency ........................................................................................ 28
1.2 Participation quality............................................................................................. 35
1.3 Summary.............................................................................................................. 39
2. RESEARCH QUESTION 2: FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENTS‟
PARTICIPATION IN GROUP DISCUSSION ............................................................ 39
2.1 Students‟ attitude towards the value of group discussion activity....................... 39
2.2 Linguistic factors ................................................................................................. 42
2.3 Socio-cultural factors ........................................................................................... 45
2.4 Pedagogical factors .............................................................................................. 48
2.5 Personality factors ............................................................................................... 51
2.6 Summary.............................................................................................................. 54

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ..................................................................................54
1. MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE RESEACH ............................................................... 55
1.1 The level of students‟ participation in group discussion ..................................... 55
1.2 Factors affecting students‟ participation in group discussion ............................. 56
2. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS ......................................................................... 57
2.1 Expand students‟ vocabulary ............................................................................... 58

2.2 Improve students‟ pronunciation ......................................................................... 58
2.3 Reduce the fear of making mistakes .................................................................... 58
2.4 Minimize the use of the first language ............................................................... 58
2.5 Enhance the elaboration of ideas ......................................................................... 59
2.6 Encourage students to ask quality questions ....................................................... 59
3. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 60
4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................... 60

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................62
APPENDICES.............................................................................................................70
iv


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CEFR

Common European Framework of Reference

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

FELTE

Faculty of English Language Teacher Education

L1

Native language

L2

Second language

ULIS

University of Languages and International Studies

VNU

Vietnam National University

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Basic information about participants (p. 16)
Table 2: Coding scheme (p. 21)
Table 3: The percentage of students orally participating in observed discussions
(p. 30)
Table 4: Overall participation frequency and the variance in participation
frequency among students (p. 30)
Table 5: The percentage of students showing each indicator of participation (p. 32)
Table 6: The number of participation instances regarding each indicator (p. 33)

v


Table 7: Frequency of three participation indicators (p. 34)
Table 8: Quality of expressing opinions and giving comments regarding
elaboration of ideas (p. 36)
Table 9: Quality of questions posed in recorded discussions (p. 37)
Table 10: Descriptive results of students‟ attitude towards the value of group

discussion activity (p. 40)
Table 11: Descriptive results of linguistic factors (p. 42)
Table 12: Descriptive results of socio-cultural factors (p. 46)
Table 13: Descriptive results of pedagogical factors (p. 49)
Table 14: Descriptive results of personality factors (p. 52)

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Data collection (p. 25)
Figure 2: Students‟ responses towards the frequency of their participation in group
discussion in English-speaking lessons (p. 29)
Figure 3: Students' reported general behaviors in group discussion (p. 31)
Figure 4: Students‟ attitude towards the value of group discussion (p. 40)
Figure 5: The percentage of choices towards linguistic factors (p. 42)
Figure 6: The percentage of choices towards socio-cultural factors (p. 45)
Figure 7: The percentage of choices towards pedagogical factors (p. 49)
Figure 8: The percentage of choices towards personality factor (p. 52)

vi


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
In Vietnam, the aim of accelerating the integration in a globalized economy
has created the driving force for major reforms in the education system, in which
English language teaching and learning plan is emphasized. In 2008, the
Government of Vietnam launched a national foreign language education policy
known as Teaching and learning foreign languages in the national education
system from 2008 to 2020. Accordingly, English curriculum for university students
directs towards learners‟ capability to use this language confidently in their daily
communication, study and work in an integrated and multicultural environment

(Vietnam‟s Prime Minister, 2008). In other words, the policy places a high value
on learners‟ communicative competence. This goal has posed certain challenges to
English teaching and learning in Vietnamese universities and colleges due to the
long existence of traditional teaching approaches, which emphasize the
transmission of grammatical knowledge rather than communicative performance
(Vietnam News, 2018). Hence, the transformation in teaching methods in tertiary
context has been required to bridge this enduring gap.
With the aim of becoming a research-oriented university in language
education, linguistics and international studies, the University of Languages and
International Studies (ULIS), one of the members of Vietnam National University,
Hanoi (VNU), carries out the mission of offering courses in developing learners‟
proficiency in different languages. At undergraduate level, Faculty of English
Language Teacher Education (FELTE) offers training in English teaching
methodology and related fields, which serves the purpose of enhancing English
language education in Vietnam in general. With a view to reaching the target of
providing language courses of high quality in accordance with the policy
mentioned above, EFL classes at FELTE – ULIS – VNU require a high level of
1


students‟ interaction, active participation and the integration of real-life matters
into lessons as well.
This aim has put forward the demand of integrating cooperative activities
into lessons, which, as Leite (2009) stated, act as a catalyst to students‟ interaction
and the use of target language. Among the cooperative learning activities that
should be applied in EFL classes to promote communicative competence, group
discussion, which provides students with opportunities to use the target language
to interpret and express real-life messages, can be seen as a useful tool (Stroud,
2017). However, along with obvious benefits, this activity also presents tough
challenges that teachers need to take into account to enhance students‟

participation in group discussion implementation (Alaro, 2017).

2. STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM
There have been various researchers taking group discussion activity in
EFL classes into consideration from different perspectives. As Stroud (2017)
claimed, the use of group discussion in EFL speaking lessons is widely perceived
as beneficial. Accordingly, some worth mentioning advantages of this activity in
EFL classes are the increase in the use of target language and the promotion of
learning autonomy. Nonetheless, the implementation of this activity is apparently
not a simple process. There are certain obstacles that may impinge negatively on
group discussion, which were pointed out in previous studies. Firstly, if the group
discussion is not well managed and organized, it may promote errors, noise and
anxiety (Brown, 2001). Secondly, this activity requires a high level of students‟
oral engagement, otherwise, the learning targets cannot be fulfilled (Liu, 2009).
Considering Vietnamese EFL context, prior authors, namely Le (2019) and
Tran (2013), have taken an interest in the implementation of group discussion.
What have been exploited in these studies are various factors having influence on
students‟ participation. For instance, Le (2019) named a range of factors which
2


may act as deterrents or catalysts to students‟ participation, including students‟
personality, linguistic competence, and teachers‟ characteristics. Meanwhile, Tran
(2013) emphasized cultural factors and educational system as the determinants of
Vietnamese students‟ engagement in discussions. However, in these studies, the
level of students‟ participation, which serves as a precursor to the successful
implementation of group discussion, has not been investigated. Though
Vietnamese students in these studies were stated as generally having passive
participation, a specific description of how they attend in group discussion were
not provided.

Particularly examining EFL classes at FELTE – ULIS – VNU, the
researcher has realized that though group discussion activity is commonly
conducted, there are only few studies at undergraduate level taking this topic into
account, i.e. Le (2006) and Bui (2014). Additionally, in these studies, researchers
put the focus on the techniques to improve the effectiveness of group discussion
rather than taking a close look at students‟ participation. Meanwhile, students‟
engagement in group discussion and the causative factors should be identified in a
strong correlation in order to enhance the quality of this activity.
The recognition of the research gap has led the researcher to the choice of
the study: “Students’ participation in group discussion in English-speaking
lessons at FELTE – ULIS – VNU”.

This study aims to:
- Investigate students‟ participation in group discussion in English-speaking
lessons at FELTE – ULIS – VNU;
- Acquire a deeper insight into the factors affecting students‟ participation in group
discussion in English-speaking lessons at FELTE – ULIS – VNU;
- Provide some pedagogical implications for teachers to enhance students‟
participation in group discussion.
3


To achieve these aims, the following research questions are posed:
1. How do students at FELTE – ULIS – VNU participate in group discussion in
English-speaking lessons regarding frequency and quality?
2. What are the factors affecting students‟ participation in group discussion in
English-speaking lessons at FELTE – ULIS – VNU as perceived by students?

3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
According to Loftin, Davis and Hartin (2010), among the aspects to

evaluate the level of participation, the classification into frequency and quality is
the most commonly used one. Both these aspects were applied to this study to
reflect students‟ participation in group discussion.
As regards frequency, students‟ participation was operationalized in terms
of the number of times students contribute to a group discussion. As for
participation quality, the cognitive level of oral contribution was focused on.
Greater details of the two aspects of participation are explained further in the
literature review.
In this study, the correctness of the contribution and the accuracy of
language use were not considered for the two following reasons. Firstly, as
students‟ own views are expressed in discussion, some responses do not seem to
be assessable against an absolute standard of correctness (Song, 2015). Secondly,
as group discussion is considered as a fluency-based activity rather than an
accuracy-based one (Folse, 2003), the accuracy of vocabulary, grammar and
pronunciation was not assessed in the current study.
The research involved freshmen from FELTE – ULIS – VNU, who were in
the second term of the first year at the university. It is also important to note that
the data obtained was solely taken from students‟ viewpoints and the researcher‟s
observation. The researcher did not investigate the opinions of lecturers. If this
factor was considered, the results might be different.
4


4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
It is hoped that by looking at the current situation of students‟ participation,
this study will raise greater awareness about the level of students‟ engagement in
group discussion in speaking lessons. Besides, the findings of this study shed light
on factors exerting influence upon students‟ participation, which aids teachers to
find out suitable adjustments to cope with possible obstacles in the application of
group discussion. In the long term, the findings of this study can help educators

develop the future curriculum by taking various factors into consideration when
integrating cooperative learning activities into teaching English.

5. ORGANIZATION
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the topic and
the aims of the study. Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature that serves as the
basis for the study. Firstly, it examines the definitions of key concepts related to
students‟ participation and the implementation of group discussion in EFL classes.
Secondly, it reviews the affecting factors to students‟ participation, which have
been proved in previous studies on the same field. Chapter 3 describes the
methodology.

Initially, it presents the rationale for the choice of research

methods, followed by study site of the research. Subsequently, this chapter
examines research instruments, data collection and analysis procedure. In Chapter
4, a detailed account and interpretation of the findings, with reference to each of
the research questions, are demonstrated. Finally, in Chapter 5, the summary of
findings, pedagogical implications, limitations of this study and suggestions for
future research are offered.

5


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

1. GROUP DISCUSSION IN EFL CLASSES
1.1 Definition of group discussion
Group discussion has been defined by researchers from different
perspectives. According to Hoover (1964), who emphasized the interaction among

participants, group discussion is the process of exchanging ideas among two or
more persons. Whereby, participants can share opinions on certain issues. From
another angle, which focuses on the purpose of the activity, Richards (2006)
defined group discussion as a task to derive new information from the given one
through the process of practical reasoning. Meanwhile, as stated by Ewens (2000,
as cited in Dallimore, Hertenstein & Platt, 2004), discussion is “a diverse body of
teaching techniques that emphasize participation, dialogue, and two-way
communication” (p. 103). As the focus of the present study is put on the
interaction and the exchange of ideas among students, the definition of Hoover
(1964) was adopted by the researcher. Put in the context of EFL speaking class,
group discussion in this study is referred to as an activity that requires a small
number of students to use the target language to exchange opinions on given
topics.

1.2 Benefits of group discussion in teaching speaking
Putting students into small groups in the classroom opens up possibilities of
interaction, which are not usually available in a whole-class approach. A review of
literature illustrates the following benefits of group discussion.

The facilitation of interactive language
Prior scholars, namely Nunan (2003) and Dimelow (2013), shared the same
opinion that group discussion can maximize learners‟ opportunities for interactive
6


language exposure. By virtue of group discussion, students have more chances to
speak, hence opportunities for language practice as well as interaction increase,
compared to the whole-class practice.

Positive affective climate

As a matter of fact, it is a real challenge for many students, especially the
shy ones when being called to speak in front of the class. Meanwhile, a small
group of peers provides an intimate atmosphere and a more supportive
environment in which they will find it much easier to share their point of view. As
figured out by Dunn (1993), an important benefit offered by group discussion is to
make learners feel secure when speaking in public.
The promotion of learners‟ responsibility and autonomy
When students participate in a group discussion which places responsibility
upon each member equally, they are allowed to make their own decisions in the
group without being told what to do by the teacher. Exley and Dennick (2004, as
cited in Edmunds & Brown, 2010) revealed that group discussion strengthens
students‟ decision-making power and learning autonomy. In other words, they can
adopt positions which teachers usually preserve so that they can practice a range
of language functions.

1.3 Concerns about group discussion in teaching speaking
As presented above, group discussion is an incentive for language learning,
which encourages students to use the target language and promotes their joint
learning. However, if it is not well managed and organized, the intended
objectives of the lesson may not be achieved. Whilst there is evidence in support
of the benefits of group discussion for students‟ learning, there exist certain
obstacles that may impede its efficiency.

7


Conservative educational ideology
Teacher-centered approach in class, which is formed by traditional attitudes
and beliefs is a deterrent to cooperative activities like group discussion. Acat and
Dönmez (2009) supposed that in teacher-centered learning environment, students

have fewer opportunities to think aloud or interact, hence the promotion of
cooperative activities may be hindered. Besides, the implementation of group
discussion is also a challenge to teachers who hold conservative educational
ideology as they need to devote comparatively more time and effort. This can be
attributed to the fact that group discussion emphasizes learners‟ different
perspectives on the same situation, hence, the teachers who want to implement this
activity have to explore comprehensive aspects of issues and spend more time on
preparation for the same lesson.

The isolation of shy and weak students in the practice
Some students with lower level of language proficiency can be excluded
from the practice because of individuals who tend to dominate in the discussion.
Arifin (2017) pointed out that this situation occurs as the group members are
formed from different rates of learning ability, which may defeat the purpose of
the joint learning expected to be performed in the group discussion.

The habit of using native language
Brooks-Lewis (2009) noticed that the inclusion of L1 in L2 classrooms is
unavoidable, and it may positively contribute to L2 learning to some extent.
However, from a different perspective, Littlewood and Yu (2011) argued that if it
is not well controlled, the use of L1 may result in inappropriate transfer from the
first language to the target one. In group discussion activity, this viewpoint seems
to be applicable because it is challenging for teachers to supervise all groups at the
same time. Thus, the habit of using native language may hinder the purpose of
group discussion, which aims to maximize the practice of target language.
8


2. STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN GROUP DISCUSSION
2.1 Definition of students’ participation

According to Lee (2005, as cited in Abdullah, Bakar & Mahbob, 2011),
classroom participation can be sorted into verbal and non-verbal participation.
While verbal participation usually involves speaking activities in class, such as
answering, asking questions and making comments, non-verbal participation refers
to behavioral responses like head nodding and eye contact. From another
viewpoint, Dancer and Kamvounias (2005) viewed participation as an active
engagement with five categories: “preparation, contribution to discussion, group
skills, communication skills, and attendance” (p. 448). Among these categories,
while preparation and attendance imply behavioral participation, the others are
related to verbal participation.
As the title suggests, this study puts the focus on group discussion in
speaking lessons, and thus aims at students‟ verbal participation rather than their
behavioral one. To be specific, drawing on scholarly definitions of classroom
participation as reviewed above, the term “participation” in this study refers to
learners‟ verbal contribution to group discussion.
2.2 Indicators of participation in group discussion
As discussed above, students‟ participation in this study is operationalized
in terms of the verbal expressions. There have been several studies attempting to
pinpoint the indicators of oral participation. In an investigation into the role of oral
participation in student engagement, Frymier and Houser (2015) used the 7item Oral Participation Scale which looks at two main criteria: volunteering to
answer the questions or express opinions and asking follow-up questions.
Meanwhile, in another study into oral participation in EFL classes in Malaysian
tertiary context, Sayadi (2007) focused on six types of oral participation behaviors,
among which, three behaviors involve the interaction with instructor, and the
9


others emphasize the interaction with peers. Specifically, these behaviors include
volunteering to respond to lecturer‟s questions, responding to lecturer‟s questions
after being prompted, asking questions to the lecturer, asking questions to other

students, giving comments to peers and expressing opinions without being asked.
Examining the features of group discussion activity, which highlights the
exchange of ideas among students, the researcher adopted three indicators from
previous research for the present study: expressing opinions, posing questions and
giving comments to peers.

2.3 Aspects in the evaluation of participation level in group discussion
As mentioned in the scope of the study in Chapter 1, an investigation
conducted by Loftin, Davis, and Hartin (2010) introduced various types of
classification to evaluate the level of oral participation. Some typical ones are
classifications into passive and spontaneous participation, negative and positive
participation, participation quality and frequency. Among these classifications,
the categorization into participation frequency and quality was indicated as the
most commonly used one. The current study also adopted these aspects to reflect
students‟ participation in group.

2.3.1 Participation frequency
Participation frequency refers to the number of times students contribute to
group discussion. Based on the indicators of participation reviewed in the previous
part, the frequency of participation in this study is operationalized based on three
behaviors: expressing opinions, posing questions and giving comments to peers.

2.3.2 Participation quality
With reference to participation quality, which is assessed based on the
quality of three specific indicators above, some previous studies used cognitive
levels in the evaluation of oral contribution. Regarding participation quality of
10


expressing opinions and giving comments, Pontefract and Hardman (2005, as

cited in Song, 2015) used two levels. One is “information statement”, which
represents low cognitive level. The other is “providing an explanation” or
“reasoning”, which simplifies responses at a higher cognitive level and shows the
ability to elaborate on ideas. This level may include different strategies such as
hypothesizing, comparing, explaining (Chin, 2006).

While “information

statement” simply refers to the utterance of predetermined information or a
viewpoint based on previously learned knowledge or daily experiences,
“reasoning” is the way speakers explain, or clarify how to reach a conclusion and
illustrate thinking process (Chin, 2006). In the current study, students‟
contributions were also sorted into “information statement” and “reasoning” to
reflect the quality of students‟ opinions and comments in group discussion.
In terms of posing questions, Graesser and Person (1994) explained that the
quality of questions is determined by their cognitive levels. To be specific, they
described quality questions as those encouraging elaboration of ideas and
involving multi-step reasoning. For example, questions for „causal antecedent‟
(Why …?), „causal consequence‟ (What happens if …?), „goal orientation‟ (What
is the purpose of …?), or „procedural enablement‟ (How …?) are regarded as high
cognitive (p. 112). Meanwhile, the questions to initiate speaking turns without
close reference to the elucidation and clarification of ideas are regarded as low
cognitive. In the current study, the researcher also adopted these two cognitive
levels to investigate the quality of students‟ questions in group discussion.

2.4 Factors affecting students’ participation in group discussions
There have been a range of reasons named in previous studies as having
impacts on students‟ participation. Prior researchers have managed to discover a
variety of factors explaining why some language learners choose to remain silent
while others actively engage in discussions in class. A review of related research

reveals the following noteworthy factors.
11


2.4.1. Students’ attitude towards the value of group discussion activity
As figured out by Woods (2003), one possible factor exerting influence on
students‟ learning decision and action in classroom is what they believe about the
value of the activities. In other words, students only willingly participate when
they acknowledge the value of the activities. To motivate students to join group
discussion, it is important that students understand how this activity aids their
speaking skills and why they should practice holding different views about the
same situation or a set of facts.

2.4.2. Linguistic factors
Low English proficiency has been proved to be one of the main reasons
leading to the reluctance in oral participation in EFL classes. With the sample of
more than 300 university students, Abebe (2015) came to conclusion that what
keeps a majority of students quiet is the poor English proficiency. This finding
was similar to the previous one of Jackson (2002), who identified low English
proficiency including lack of vocabulary, poor pronunciation and incorrect
grammar as the deterrent to students‟ participation.

2.4.3. Socio-cultural factors
As what Liu and Jackson (2009) described, socio-cultural factors including
face-saving strategies, politeness and respects to teachers are cited as the major
factors that hinder students‟ oral participation in class. Those factors have been
proved to be heavily influenced by cultural backgrounds and educational
experiences in the home countries. For example, due to the culture of appreciating
the respect for the elderly, Korean students are not used to speaking freely in
language class, and they consider teachers as authority figures (Lim, 2003).

Shimizu (2006), in a study about Japanese students‟ reluctance to express their

12


opinions, supposed Japanese cultural values of self-restraint inhibit students from
conveying their opinions.

2.4.4 Pedagogical factors
Impact of the instructor
As noted by Fritschner (2000), there is an abundance of evidence
supporting that instructors contribute to students‟ level of participation by the way
they communicate with students. Explicitly, if a teacher pays equal attention to all
members of the class, encourages everybody to take part in classroom activities,
and gives enough time for students to express themselves, he or she can
considerably enhance the students‟ willingness to speak. On the contrary, the
teachers who tend to take the floor and impose their viewpoints to the learners
demotivate them.

Topic of the discussion
It is apparent that the topics of discussion with fundamental features like
topic familiarity, topic interest, and topic preparation influence students‟
engagement to a great extent. Learners in a study by Riasati (2012) reported to
have an inclination for discussing a topic that is controversial enough as well as a
topic they feel comfortable with. According to Kang (2005), some particular
topics may bring about greater responsibility to involve. By way of explanation,
those are the topics making students feel the need to discuss because they are
intrinsically and instrumentally interesting to students.

Students‟ understanding of the given task

Having adequate knowledge about a certain topic may enhance one‟s
linguistic self-confidence, while the lack of knowledge about a topic and its
appropriate register results in one‟s avoidance of communication. Hamouda
13


(2012) mentioned that students‟ reluctance to participate stems from the fact that
they do not know what to say. In other words, the lack of knowledge and
preparation for a certain topic can greatly influence one‟s perceived competence
since one feels he or she has nothing to contribute, hence prefers to remain silent.

2.4.5 Personality
Personality has been identified as a main cause for reticence in oral
language class. Weaver and Jiang (2005) noted that students may feel intimidated
in front of their classmates, and thus choose not to participate. Students in this
study also even identified confidence as the most influential factor to their
participation. As claimed by Ortega (2009), extroverted people are more willing to
interact with others while the introverted and shy ones prefer to be quiet and listen
to others. Additionally, another source of students' reluctance to speak is selfesteem. Liu (2011) pointed out those students with low self-esteem say less in
class and sit further back in the classroom compared to students with high selfesteem.

3. SUMMARY
This chapter reviews the literature on the implementation of group
discussion in EFL classes. The literature review explores fundamental features of
group discussion, aspects of students‟ participation needed to be examined and the
affecting factors as well. The next chapter presents the methodology that was
employed for this study.

14

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
1. RESEARCH DESIGN
In consideration of the study‟s aims, mixed method was chosen. In detail,
two phases were conducted: quantitative followed by qualitative. In the first phase,
quantitative method was used to capture students‟ general participation behaviors
and the affecting factors from students‟ viewpoints. The qualitative data was
collected and analyzed second in the sequence to demonstrate students‟ level of
participation and help to triangulate with the quantitative results obtained in the
first phase. As indicated by Weinreich (1996, as cited in Isaias, 2012), the use of
qualitative method not only allows researchers to have a direct interaction with the
subjects under study but also helps generate rich, detailed data that leaves the
participants‟ perspectives intact.
In order to elaborate on two research questions, the researcher was in need
of different types of data. Regarding research question 1, it was the statistical
evidence of participation frequency and linguistic data to reflect the quality of oral
contribution. As for research question 2, the needed data was figures and ideas
about factors affecting participation level as perceived by students.
With a view to gaining data for question 1, the two instruments involved
were questionnaires and observation. In the first phase, quantitative approach was
implemented by using questionnaires to obtain statistical results of students‟
participation behaviors from their perception. As stated by Nguyen (2009),
questionnaires tend to be used frequently by virtue of efficiency of time, effort and
financial resources. However, he also added that there is certainly a disjunction
between reported behaviors and the real ones, so he suggested qualitative
approach, including observation, should follow to ensure the validity of the study.
According to Wilkinson and Birmingham (2003), observation is an immensely
handy tool allowing researchers to understand much more about what goes on in
15

complex real-world situations than what they can ever discover by asking
questions and looking at questionnaires. In this sense, observation sessions allow
the researcher to investigate the level of students‟ participation through their
observed behaviors in natural learning settings.
To gain data for research question 2, the researcher utilized two
instruments, including questionnaires and interview. Specifically, students were
asked to express their level of agreement to the factors given in the questionnaire.
This data was the basis for the analysis of factors having impacts on students‟
participation from their perception. After that, interviews were carried out to
enrich the final findings as the interviewees were required to provide more indepth explanation on the discovered patterns. Best and Kahn (1986) assumed that
the use of interview can bring the advantage by building rapport with the
interviewees and validating the findings from observation and questionnaires.

2. SAMPLING
2.1 Participants
As introduced in the scope of the study, the subject pool of the study was
the mainstream first-year students at FELTE – ULIS – VNU, who were going to
finish the second semester at the university in eight weeks. The population of this
study consisted of 101 students from 4 classes.
Class No.1

Class No.2

Class No.3

Class No.4

Class code

QH2019E3

QH2019E2

QH2019E6

QH2019E8

Male

3

3

3

2

Female

24

21

24

30

Table 1: Basic information about participants
The participants had at least seven years of formal English education at

their junior and high schools prior to entering this university. The precise levels of
the students‟ English proficiency were not measured. However, conforming to the
16


teaching and learning plan issued by the faculty, at the end of the semester, these
participants are supposed to have a rather concrete language foundation equivalent
to B2- (CEFR). In alignment with CEFR descriptors, learners at this level are able
to “take an active part in discussion in familiar contexts” and “explain a viewpoint
on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options”
(Council of Europe, 2018, p. 6). Hence, their contribution to group discussion in
speaking lessons could be expressed clearly.

2.2 Study site
- Courses and textbooks
For first-year mainstream students, there are two sections in the compulsory
English program, including social English and academic English, and each
accounts for 4 credit points. Section one, social English employs Speakout
Intermediate Students‟ Book by Claire and Wilson (2nd edition) and the textbooks
designed by the faculty, including Listening & Speaking 2A and Reading &
Writing 2A. Section two, academic English, employs Academic English 2B,
which is also designed by the faculty. In each section, students have two lessons
per week, one for listening-speaking skills and the other for reading-writing skills.
The data was collected in listening-speaking lessons.
- Class Organization: The classes are assigned by the faculty with around
25-30 students per class.

3. DATA COLLECTION
3.1. Instruments
Questionnaire

The questionnaire consists of two main parts. Part 1 with five statements
based on indicators of participation, was designed by the researcher for students‟
self-evaluation of participation in group discussion. The purpose of part 2 was to
17