Running head: PAIR
AND GROUP WORK IN TEACHING SPEAKING
Pair
Work-Group Work and Its Implementation
In
Teaching Speaking for 10th Graders of Public High Schools in Ho Chi Minh City
Supervisor: Ms. Vu Thi Lan, MA in TESOL
Students: Pham Thi Ha Mi
Nguyen
Kim Thanh
Ho
Chi Minh City University of Education
English
Department
Acknowledgements
The researchers
would like to acknowledge the assistance we received from a number of people in
the course of carrying out the research paper. We highly treasure the important
role they played in making the completion of this minor thesis a success.
First of all, we
are deeply indebted to our supervisor, Ms. Vu Thi Lan, for painstakingly
reading through our work from the beginning to the end and for her constant
advice and invaluable comments and suggestions. Without her continuous support
we may not have come this far.
Secondly, we
want to express our sincere gratitude to our Department of English, especially
Dr. Nguyen Thanh Tung, who supplied us with basic and useful knowledge about
how we could structure a research project and what we should write in each
chapter. Equally, many thanks also go to Mr. Tran Dinh Nguyen Lu, ELT
specialist from the Department of Education and Training, for his inestimable help.
Thirdly, we wish
to extend our special thanks to the teachers and the students from four
different public high schools in Ho
Chi Minh City : Bui Thi Xuan, Nguyen Chi Thanh, Nguyen
Huu Huan and Nguyen Huu Cau for their precious help and cooperation during our
survey at their schools. We are also grateful to our friends from the University of Education
Finally,
millions of thanks go to our beloved family whose financial support and
spiritual encouragement contribute a significant part to the completion of the
research.
Table
of Contents
Page
Acknowledgements............................................................................................... 1
Table of contents................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables............................................................................................................. 4
Abstract....................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction........................................................................................................................ 6
Conceptual
Framework....................................................................................................... 10
Pair
Work and Group Work – Some Theoretical Background............................... 10
The
Implementation of Pair Work and Group Work in Teaching Speaking........... 14
Methodology...................................................................................................................... 20
Subjects................................................................................................................... 20
Instruments............................................................................................................. 20
Procedures.............................................................................................................. 22
Presentation
of Findings and Data Analysis...................................................................... 23
Quantitative
Data................................................................................................... 23
Qualitative
Data...................................................................................................... 26
Discussion........................................................................................................................... 34
Conclusion
and Recommendations.................................................................................... 39
Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 39
Other
Suggestions and Trials’ Results.................................................................... 41
References.................................................................................................................. 43
Appendix A – Students’ Questionnaire......................................................................... 46
Appendix B – Teachers’ Questionnaire......................................................................... 53
Appendix C – Data collected from
Students’ Questionnaires....................................... 59
Appendix D – Data collected from
Teachers’ Questionnaires....................................... 62
Appendix E – Classroom Observation........................................................................... 65
Appendix F – Interview Questions for
Students........................................................... 69
Appendix G – Interview Questions for
Teachers.......................................................... 70
Appendix H – Tables..................................................................................................... 71
List of Tables
List of Tables
Page
Table
1 The Frequency of
the Activities
Used for
Pairs and Groups............................................................. 72
Table
2 Reasons why
Students Like to Work
in Pairs or Groups in Speaking Classes.......................................... 73
Table
3 Reasons why
Students Do Not Like to Work
in Pairs or Groups in Speaking Classes.......................................... 74
Table
4 The Benefits of
Pair Work and Group Work.................................. 75
Table
5 The Problems that
Pair and Group Work May Cause..................... 76
Table
6 The Obstacles to
the Implementation
of Pair and Group Work in Teaching Speaking............................. 77
Abstract
The adoption of the new series of
English textbooks throughout Vietnam
since 2000 has proved to be a big step in enhancing students’ communicative
skills. Among a great number of improvements that can be clearly seen in these
textbooks, the researchers have a noticeable interest in the use of pair work
and group work in teaching speaking. Therefore, this study aims to investigate
the feasibility and the effectiveness of the implementation of these two ways
of classroom management in teaching speaking for 10th graders of Ho
Chi Minh’s public high schools. The
survey is carried on 511 students and 30 teachers in four public high schools:
Bui Thi Xuan, Nguyen Chi Thanh, Nguyen Huu Cau and Nguyen Huu Huan. At first,
the respondents are delivered some questionnaires aimed at exploring their
attitudes towards the application of pair work and group work in teaching and
learning speaking. Next, the researchers invite some of the participants to
join in separate interviews as well as ask for permission of one teacher to observe
one of her speaking period. The quantitative data obtained through the
questionnaires – the most important basics for analysis – are supported by the
qualitative data which lie in the interviewees’ answers and the classroom
observation. The findings reveal not only a great number of merits but also
some problems and obstacles to the implementation of pair and group work. The
three interactive instruments – questionnaires, interviews and classroom
observation – show their values in conveying students’ and teachers’ thoughts
about the use of these two ways of classroom management, which may have a
strong influence on teaching and learning speaking in Vietnamese high school
context.
Pair
Work-Group Work and Its Implementation
In
Teaching Speaking for 10th Graders of Public High Schools in Ho Chi Minh City
As our country
is in the course of international integration, it is undeniable that people’s
ability to communicate in English is thought to be as important as ever,
especially in big cities like Ho Chi
Minh City . Consequently, our high school curriculum
has laid a great deal of stress on teaching and learning this widely-used
language in a communicative way. The Vietnamese Ministry of Education and
Training has recently put into practice a new series of English textbooks,
which focus on the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In order to apply
this method effectively, the use of pair work and group work in teaching
English language skills is emphasized, as is stated in the teacher’s guide
books. For this reason, we aim to provide students with an active learning
environment in which their communicative as well as collaborative skills are
enhanced.
However, before
we can make any achievements, we first have to take many problems into thorough
consideration. For a long time, the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) has been
of great influence on how Vietnamese teachers taught English to their students.
Simultaneously, the Audio-Lingual Method has comparatively affected the way by
which old English-versioned textbooks were structured. These traditional methods
are still popular and favored in many of our high schools. In other words, as
an article “Chung ta dang hoc Anh Van nhu the nao?” (2006) reveals, for many
years, we have been continuously paying too much attention to teaching grammar
and too little to teaching other communicative skills such as speaking or
listening. It is GTM and teaching-to-the-test method that contribute to
students’ inability to use English for communication. According to a survey carried
out on 200 students of a public high school in Ho Chi Minh City, an estimated
86.8 % of those students admit to their lack of speaking ability as well as
confidence while 25.3 % make a
confession of their failure to grasp the basics of what they have learned so
far (Kim Lien, 2006). The same negative results can be seen in the statement of
a foreign company’s director which discloses that among their job applicants,
the majority can only read simple documentary or are completely unable to
communicate in English (Quang Sum, 2004). The reason for this alarming
situation might be due to the use of our old high school textbooks which were published
long ago – in 1986. This out-of-date programme, as a result, no doubt has led
to inappropriateness in English teaching and learning. As Ms. Thuy Tien, a
teacher of Phan Dang Luu High School points out, most of the information as
well as the illustrations in those textbooks is not up-to-date at all (Kim
Lien, 2006). To tackle this problem head-on, a new set of English textbooks,
which contains a number of promising signs, has been introduced into our
schools for several years. An obvious significant improvement is the greater
use of pair work and group work in teaching all four skills, especially
speaking. However, as this set of textbooks is still new, it is very likely
that the implementation of pair work and group work will encounter a number of
obstacles and difficulties. Due to our strict syllabus, time restrictions make
it hard to exploit pair work and group work to their full capacity as well as
vary the communicative activities in speaking classes. With one period allowed
for developing one skill in each unit at year 10 and 11, both teachers and
students have to suffer the great pressure of catching up with the schedule or
falling behind, let alone spending time practicing speaking.
In order to
raise a solution to the above problem, our research proposes that teaching
speaking for 10th grade students of Ho Chi Minh public high schools
should focus on developing students’ ability to communicate in the target
language by operating communicative tasks for pair work and group work.
All in all, this
study is aimed at investigating the outcome of the implementation of pair work
and group work in teaching speaking for 10th graders of Ho Chi Minh’s
public high schools and pointing out the merits and the problems as well as
suggesting some possible solutions. We focus
on public schools because this is the most common type of schools and that the
ordinary levels of its students can help assure the generalizability of our
research. Additionally, although at the moment, students from Grade 10 as well
as from Grade 11 are being taught English via new English-versioned textbooks,
we choose 10th grade students over 11th grade ones as the
target subjects of our research for one reason: the former has been applied
throughout our whole country earlier than the latter, thus it is expected that teachers
have much more time and opportunities to get familiar with pair work and group
work in teaching speaking. Hence the results of investigating the
implementation of these two types of classroom management in teaching speaking
for 10th grade students are expected to be more comparatively
precise and reliable. To achieve this aim, the research addresses the
following questions:
1. Has pair work-group work (PW-GW)
been implemented in Ho Chi Minh’s public high schools to teach speaking for 10th
grade students?
2. What are the merits and the
possible problems of using PW-GW in teaching speaking for 10th grade
students in our public high schools?
3. Is the implementation of PW-GW
in teaching speaking for those students feasible and effective? Why or why not?
4. How can English teachers apply PW-GW
to teaching speaking for 10th graders effectively?
With a focus on
the current situation of the implementation of PW-GW in teaching speaking for
10th grade students in Ho Chi Minh’s public high schools, this study
is supposed to be a reliable source for teachers of English who desire to
investigate a variety of methods for a successful communicative classroom in
Vietnamese ESL teaching context.
The second
chapter will present the conceptual framework which serves as a solid
foundation for the survey.
Conceptual
Framework
This chapter is
devoted to building a conceptual framework for our research which centers on
the implementation of PW-GW in teaching speaking skills. It serves as a solid
grounding from which our research paper can develop.
Pair Work and Group Work – Some
Theoretical Background
Pair work-group
work has been incorporated into language teaching and learning in most parts of
the world since the emergence of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in
the early 1970s, and has taken firm root in many present-day ESL or EFL classrooms.
This approach came into being because of the ever-growing need for the use of
language for communicative purposes, and because of the fact that a lot of
educators and linguists became more and more dissatisfied with the Audio-Lingual
and Grammar-Translation methods of language teaching. In this context, there began
a movement away from traditional lesson formats where emphasis was put on the
mastery of different items of grammar, hence shifting practice from controlled
activities such as mechanical memorization of dialogs and drills towards communicative
activities, which can be successfully done through PW-GW. According to Brumfit (1984), group work is often
considered an essential feature of communicative language teaching. In favor of
it, Long & Porter (1985) hold
that PW-GW can promote students’ practice, the quality of their talk, their
motivation, and positive classroom atmosphere. Salmon (1988) supports Long
& Porter’s ideas and adds that PW-GW also helps increase students’
confidence.
Similar to CLT,
Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) also promotes learning through
communication in pairs or small groups. CLL is an approach to teaching that
makes maximum use of cooperative activities involving pairs and small groups of
learners in the classroom. This means each learner is held accountable for his
or her own learning and is motivated to increase the learning of others (Olsen & Kagan, 1992, p.8). The
concept “cooperative” in CLL emphasizes an important aspect: developing
classrooms that foster cooperation rather than competition in learning. That is
to say, students in pairs or groups work together towards a common goal instead
of competing with one another for individual ambitions.
Other benefits
which PW-GW may offer are mentioned below. First of all, it may maximize each
learner’s opportunity to speak and that practicing in pairs and groups will
reduce to some extent the psychological burden of public performance. Thanks to
PW-GW, students will also have more language practice opportunities and the
time they will have for interacting with one another in pairs and groups is
absolutely abundant. Second, pair and small group activities enable students to
take a more active role in their learning as well as to act as an important
resource person for one another (McGroarty,
1989). Last, students learn best when they are actively involved in the
learning process via pairs or groups.
According to Davis (1993), students working in small
groups tend to learn more of what is taught and retain it longer than when the
same content is presented in other instructional formats.
Besides the aforesaid
advantages, unfortunately, several possible problems and difficulties may arise
in a class using these two types of interaction patterns. Because a lot of
pairs and groups work at the same time, the first problem language teachers
might confront is that the class gets rather noisy and out of hand. We think it
is natural for a teacher to feel a need to keep control of the class, but we
need to differentiate between ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’ noises. The
former is exactly what most teachers want to achieve, not the latter. A
classroom full of students in pairs or groups talking and interacting in
English, even if it is really noisy, is surely what we wish. A high level of
noise during this session can be tolerated since this is a good sign signifying
that the students feel engaged, included and enthusiastic about learning itself
when communicating with their friends. Long
& Richards (1987) maintain that a learner-centered class like the
above, where learners do most of the talking in pairs or groups, and take
responsibilities for using communicative resources to complete a task, proves
to be more conducive to language learning than a teacher-centered class. Consequently,
the noise which seems to be an inevitable problem in any classrooms can
sometimes be very beneficial.
Difficulty in
monitoring the class is also a problem for teachers. As Kumar (1992) mentions,
large class size might make interaction and involvement difficult. It is
obvious that in Vietnam ’s
language teaching context, a classroom often houses approximately over 40
students. That is to say, a teacher has to monitor at the same time lots of
pairs and groups. As a result, he or she will not be able to equally give help
and advice to every pair or group.
Another trouble
that most language teachers may face is how they form pairs and groups at the
beginning. Should pairs or groups be of mixed ability, so more capable language
learners may help weaker ones? Or would same-ability pairs or groups be
preferable, so that faster learners can progress at their own pace, while the
teacher gives extra help to individual learners in the slower groups? Studies
indicate that mixed proficiency pairing or grouping may be optimal. In a
mixed-ability group, faster learners will consolidate their own understanding
of issues at hand when explaining these to slower learners, while slower ones
will benefit from peer tutoring by faster learners. However, in some cases,
this kind of pairing and grouping is likely to give rise to another problem:
not all members participate equally in discussions. For instance, a high-level
learner may not want to work with a weaker partner and tend to dominate and
monopolize most of the time. As a result, slow learners have the tendency to
withdraw and sit still listening to their domineering partners.
Furthermore, some
students complain that when they work in pairs and groups, they are greatly
concerned with face-losing when using the target language incorrectly or
inappropriately. In their mother tongue, learners have a wealth of strategies
at their disposal to avoid a difficult or embarrassing situation, to
self-correct, or to seek help in case of linguistic trouble. They also know how
to show others that they acknowledge and appreciate others’ opinions. On the
contrary, in the target language, they are not equipped with those kinds of
things mentioned above. Consequently, they are not confident enough to interact
with other members in the group.
Besides,
teachers fear that the potential chaos and conflicts may arise within pairs or
groups and that in classrooms where students share a common native language,
they have the tendency to overuse the mother tongue. With the former problem,
teachers ought to effectively manage the conflicts that are inevitable in pairs
or groups. Cognitive conflict among students, if managed effectively, can be
very constructive, leading to increased motivation and to higher levels of
cognitive development and moral reasoning, as Johnson & Johnson (1979) propose. With the latter problem,
because students feel more secure with their own language, they tend to turn to
mother tongue whenever they engage in a conversation or a discussion, and this
can be tolerated only for the first time.
All in all, PW-GW
can lose their meaning if they are utilized and handled in an automatic and
unthinking way on the part of the teachers. No technique is the panacea for all
our teaching problems and its value should be reconsidered from time to time. However,
we cannot deny the obvious merits that PW-GW can offer.
The Teaching of Speaking with
the Implementation of Pair Work and Group Work
Teaching
speaking is thought to be a crucial part of second language learning and
teaching. In an online article, Kayi (2006) indicates that the ability to
communicate in the target language clearly and efficiently makes an important
contribution to learners’ success at school and later in every stage of their
life. Therefore, it is essential that language teachers pay more attention to
teaching speaking.
Despite its
importance, for many years, teaching speaking has been undervalued and
deemphasized in Vietnam ,
and English language teachers have continued to teach “speaking” in the form of
a repetition of drills or memorization of dialogues. Rather than leading students
to pure memorization, teachers should provide a rich classroom environment
where meaningful communication takes place. Therefore, new English textbooks
from Grade 6 to Grade 11, in which speaking section receives more attention,
have already been in use. Obviously, teaching speaking is mainly based on having
students complete the tasks via pairs or groups. It is likely that the tasks in
these textbooks are mostly of discussion type, so they require joint effort
from students. Also, as stated in Tai
lieu boi duong giao vien (2006), Task-based Learning Approach (TBL) is
favored and adopted so as to create authentic language settings for learners
and engage them in purposeful communication activities. The term “Task-based Learning”
mainly originates from the literature on language education (Prabhu, 1987;
Nunan, 1989). In TBL, learning activities are organized around tasks instead of
around any single language items. Their focus falls on the meaningful use of
language within a social milieu. Theoretically, in a task-based lesson, the
teacher does not pre-determine what language will be studied; the lesson is
based around the completion of a central task and the language studied is
determined by what happens as the students complete it. TBL typically consists
of three stages as illustrated below:
This is a model of task-based
learning described by Jane Willis (1996). This model follows a three-phase
process. The first phase is called “pre-task” in which the topic is defined and
essential vocabulary are highlighted by the teacher. The second stage is called
“task cycle” with three sub-steps (task, planning, and report), in which the
students perform the task in pairs or groups, and then rehearse their report
before presenting it in front of the whole class. The last phase is “language
focus” with two distinct steps: analysis and practice, during which specific
language features that learners encountered in the task are examined and analyzed.
Some practice of language features and feedback on the students’ performance
are appropriate at this stage.
According to
some researchers and linguists, TBL is advantageous to students because it is
more student-centered and less teacher-centered. In all three stages, they must
use all their language resources rather than just practicing one pre-selected
item. The teacher plays the role of a facilitator who ensures the necessary
conditions for the learning to take place by providing exposure to the language
and guiding learners to use the correct language for fulfilling the task. It is
the learner doing the task who becomes the centre of the lesson. In addition,
it is a strong communicative approach where students spend a lot of time
interacting with each other in pairs or groups to fulfill the task assigned by
their teacher.
However, this
approach cannot be said to be without any limitations. Firstly, TBL, according
to the online article “The Practice of Learning Theories”, could be time-consuming, especially
when the task assigned by the teacher is complicated. Secondly, TBL is
considered very effective to intermediate-level learners and beyond.
Nevertheless, it proves to be quite demanding for slower or beginner ones,
which causes great concerns among many language teachers who have adopted this
approach into teaching speaking (“Teaching Tips: What is Task-based Learning”). In many public high schools in Vietnam , most
students of Grade 10, roughly speaking, are lower than pre-intermediate level.
As a result, they may find speaking tasks in the new English textbook rather
beyond their abilities. Such low levels of students together with limited time
(45 minutes for one speaking lesson) lead to the important realization that TBL
may not be suitable for teaching speaking for 10th graders in
Vietnam’s language teaching and learning context.
Therefore, on
this point, Harmer (1998) suggests using ESA trinity, which may help to solve
the problem. ESA stands for Engage, Study, and Activate – three important stages
of a lesson. During the Engage stage, the main job of teachers is to provoke
the students’ interest, curiosity and attention by a variety of activities such
as a game, a dramatic story, an amusing anecdote and so on. The second phase – Study
– primarily focuses on language and the construction of language. The teacher
does not need to present new language input but can cover revision or extension
of previously-taught materials. The last stage is Activate, which means giving students
chances to use the target language as freely and communicatively as possible
via such activities as role plays, debates, discussions and so forth. More
importantly, this model can create various effects if the elements E, S, A are
combined in different ways.
The Straight Arrows
(or E-S-A) is considered best for low-level learners. This characteristic of
Straight Arrows serves as a supplement for the second limitation of TBL. In a
Straight Arrows lesson, first, the teacher arouses students’ interest, then
focuses on presenting new language, and eventually lets the students activate
what they have just studied. Undoubtedly, this process may help low-level students
study better.
 |
|||||||
|
 |
 |
|||||
ESA Straight Arrows Sequence
The Boomerang
(or E-A-S-[A]), in contrast, proves to be more suitable for intermediate and
advanced learners. In this procedure, the teacher selects a topic of study and
will not present new language until the students demonstrate their needs for
it.
EAS(A)
Boomerang Sequence
Patchwork is the
last type. Like Boomerang, this pattern also works well with intermediate and
advanced levels. In a patchwork lesson, the three elements will appear more
than once and in varied orders. Compared with the two sequences above, this
sequence provides a balance between study and activation.
 |
EAASASEA
Patchwork Sequence
All in all, having numerous lesson
sequences in hand, teachers are the people who take the responsibility of
making the right choice of the ESA sequence appropriate to different learners’
levels.
In short, we
have mentioned and elaborated on the merits as well as the potential problems
and obstacles of pair and group work. Researchers, linguists, and language
teachers all over the world have discovered and studied in-depth these themes and
so far still have attempted to reach a consensus. Moreover, on presenting the
teaching of speaking with the focal point on TBL, we want to note that this
approach deserves our attention as most of the speaking tasks in the new English
textbook for 10th graders have their origins from TBL and require
the students to work in pairs or groups so as to fulfill a common goal – a
task. Also, to deal with the drawback of TBL for low-level learners, the ESA
model developed by Jeremy Harmer with its diversifying patterns should be taken
into consideration.
The next chapter
will wholly deal with the methodology we employed to investigate our research
thesis.
Methodology
Subjects
Schools. Our study is conducted in four
high schools in Ho Chi Minh City :
Bui Thi Xuan, Nguyen Chi Thanh, Nguyen Huu Cau, and Nguyen Huu Huan, as
suggested by Mr. Tran Dinh Nguyen Lu – ELT specialist of the Department of
Education and Training, who is very knowledgeable about our research matters. The
first two are inner-city schools while the others are situated in the suburbs.
The locations as well as the ordinary levels of these schools play an important
part in assuring the generalizability of our survey.
Students.
Five hundred and
eleven students, all from Grade 10, participate in the survey. Nguyen Chi Thanh
and Nguyen Huu Huan contribute more than 150 students each while Bui Thi Xuan as
well as Nguyen Huu Cau, each has more than 80 participants. The difference in
the numbers of students involved is due to the restriction of the principals of
these schools.
Teachers. Thirty teachers agree to join in our
investigation, including ten from Bui
Thi Xuan
High School
Instruments
Questionnaire. In order to address our
research matters, we design separate questionnaires for students and teachers,
each contains multiple choice, checklist, and open-ended questions in order to
obtain participants’ opinions about teaching speaking and the implementation of
pair work and group work. The employment of this method as our main data
collecting instrument is not only for later quantitative analysis but also for
helping us handle a large number of respondents in a limited amount of time.
Classroom
observation. With the permission of one teacher from Nguyen Chi Thanh High School
Interview. After the class finishes, the
teacher in charge and four students who have been suggested by this teacher are
invited to join in separate interviews. Each interview lasts about ten minutes.
Two types of interview sheets are prepared separately; one is for four students
while the other is for the teacher. The individual interviews are carried out
as a friendly conversation in which the respondents are allowed to convey to
others their situations from their own perspectives and in their own words. Our
aim is not only to validate data obtained in questionnaires and classroom
observation but also to give interviewees personal space in which they will feel
free to express their true feelings and thoughts. As suggested by the teacher,
no recording should be done so as not to make the students feel uncomfortable. Along
with classroom observation, the interview provides the researchers with more
in-depth information for later qualitative analysis.
Trial. Last but not least, the researchers
work out some possible solutions and manage to apply them into the class which
one of the researchers is in charge of during the practicum to see whether such
solutions may yield any results for our thesis.
Procedures
Questionnaires
for respondents are distributed to the four high schools mentioned above and
are all returned to the researchers, making up 100% response rate. This survey was
carried out within two weeks, from January 14, 2008 to January 28, 2008. The
quantitative data are analyzed during late February. Besides, classroom
observation was conducted in the third week of the practicum with the
permission of a teacher of Nguyen
Chi Thanh
High School
This chapter has
clarified the methods which are utilized for collecting data. In the next
chapter, the researchers will present as well as analyze the findings.
Presentation
of Findings and Data Analysis
Quantitative Data
Questionnaire
Five
hundred and eleven questionnaires for students and thirty questionnaires for
teachers are sent out and all are returned to the researchers, making up 100%
response rate.
All
of the teachers (100%) acknowledge the contribution of PW-GW to the success of
a speaking class and thus spare a certain amount of time for their students to
work in pairs or groups in their speaking classes (as illustrated in Appendix D; Q2, Q3 and Q5). However, there is
a difference between the respondents’ answers about how often they have pair
work and group work in their speaking classes. Most of the teachers (about 80%) state that PW-GW
is usually operated in their speaking classes whereas only more than 30% of
students say the same thing.
Only half of the
students agree that these two kinds of classroom organization have much effect
on their speaking ability (see Appendix C, Q4). Contrary to our common belief
that pair work and group work will motivate students and give them more time to
practice speaking English, many of those 10th graders admit having
used Vietnamese when working in pairs or groups, especially when they are not
under teacher’s observation. The reasons for this include the students’ lack of
vocabulary as well as confidence and their habit of using Vietnamese for everyday
communication (as shown in Appendix C, Q6).
When asked about
the sources of the activities used in speaking classes, the students and
teachers’ opinions are quite compatible. Most students and teachers agree that
the majority of these activities are taken from books (textbooks, reference
books, etc.). Although only a few of these activities are for free practice
(13.3%), it is clear from Table 1 (Appendix H) that many various kinds are designed
for pairs or groups. Obviously, discussion is most used as it receives the
highest percentage of frequency from both teachers and students. In addition, dialogue,
interview, and information gap are also frequently used as more than half of
the respondents state that these activities are usually or sometimes operated
in their speaking classes. However,
there is a remarkable difference between the respondents’ responses to the
option “role play”. Only a few students (3%) but a lot of teachers (more than
60%) say that role play is always or usually operated in their speaking classes.
Besides the in-class activities, most teachers (83.3%) also say that they give
pairs or groups of students projects as homework (as seen in Appendix D, Q8).
As the
researchers expected, more than half of students express their approval of
these kinds of classroom organization because PW-GW helps them communicate with
their friends, learn from each other and split the tasks with each other. As a
result, they have less work to do and more time to practice speaking. Working
with their peers also makes students feel more comfortable when speaking in
English.
In contrast, nearly
one fourth of the students give negative responses to the idea of using pair
work and group work. Their major reasons include their habit of working
individually, the inconvenience when changing seats, noisy class, and their
teachers’ inability to reach and help every student.
However, as
shown in Table 4, both teachers and students have the same opinion that PW-GW offers
a great number of merits such as students’ chances of exchanging ideas to learn
from each other, of solving tasks more easily and faster thanks to their
friends’ help, of learning how to cooperate and to split tasks equally, and more
time for practicing speaking. A high percentage of teachers (approximately 90%)
also point out some more merits of pair work and group work: promoting
students’ fluency and helping students feel more confident when speaking
English (see Appendix D, Q12).
In contradistinction
to the above merits, the respondents admit that some problems are inevitable in
the implementation of PW-GW. The findings reveal that the most noticeable
problems arising from pair and group work are noise and teacher’s less help and
attention given to individuals, as these options get more than 80% of
supporting responses from both teachers and students. Besides, the other
suggested problem – students’ inequality of splitting the responsibilities also
receives a relatively high rate of agreement (over 50%) from both teachers and
students. However, there is a contrast in the respondents’ answers to the
option “teachers’ little control of the whole class”. More than half of the
teachers consider it a problem, whereas half of the students do not. This
conflict between teachers and students’ opinions shows that while teachers
always regard controlling the whole class as one of their responsibilities,
most students dislike being controlled by teachers in speaking classes.
Additionally,
when asked about the obstacles for the implementation of PW-GW in speaking
classes, the majority of teachers and students agree that those obstacles
include the limited amount of time for speaking period, the students’
unfamiliarity with working in pairs or group, and their inexperience in
dividing equal responsibilities among partners in pairs or members in groups. Most
respondents consider the insufficient amount of time as the biggest problem, as
it receives the highest percentage of agreement from both teachers and
students. Also from Table 6, it is important to note that the option
“unsuitable seating arrangement” receives a very high percentage of agreement
from teachers (more than 90%) but nearly 50% of disagreement from students.
Consequently, it is reasonable to infer that while the seating arrangement seems
to be a significant obstacle to the teachers, it is little concern for most students.
Furthermore, the teachers also disclose two other obstacles: the students’ lack
of fluency as well as accuracy and their shyness when speaking in English.
At the end of
the teachers’ questionnaires, some solutions to the problems and obstacles are
suggested. It seems that teachers do not care much about re-arranging student’s
seating, giving students clearer instructions before organizing them into pairs
or groups, or splitting the task into equally smaller parts for the students
since only about 20% of them select these options. In contrast, the last two
suggested solutions about grouping students to enhance mutual help and moving
around the class during PW-GW are chosen by a large number of teachers (more
than 65%).
Qualitative Data
The research
findings also rely on the analysis of qualitative data collected from two major
devices – classroom observation and interview.
Classroom
observation
This data collecting
instrument is chosen because it allows better understanding of the context in
which the participants interact (Patton, 2002). On the day of observation, students
already finished Unit 3. The new lesson is Unit 4: Then and now. The focus of
the speaking lesson is about expressing ideas of various forms of
entertainment, especially watching TV. It is seen from observation that the
speaking lesson is made up of three phases (Pre-speaking, While-speaking, and
Post-speaking) in which pair work and group work are utilized nearly from the
beginning till the end. In the Pre-speaking stage which takes about five
minutes, the teacher has students discuss two questions (When was TV invented?,
What activities did people often do before TV was invented?) in pairs. Then,
two pairs are asked to give reports. The most important stage of the lesson is
While-speaking which covers thirty minutes out of forty-five minutes for one
speaking period. In this phase, the students have to carry out three tasks
which last six, eleven and thirteen minutes, respectively: (a) describing
pictures in pairs, (b) explaining word meanings in groups of four, and (c)
discussing five questions in different pairs (see Appendix E). After each task,
students are asked to make reports and teacher gives feedback. For Post-speaking
(ten minutes), the teacher has her students change their seats so that they may
form different groups of four. The task now is a role play, in which one member
acts as an advertiser while the others act as customers. Throughout the aforesaid stages, the teacher
rarely stands or sits still, but she often walks around the class to monitor pair
and group work and give the students help and advice.
In the class
observed, it is clear that the teacher does operate pair work and group work in
teaching speaking. It can also be seen quite clearly that when she asks students
to do the tasks in pairs or groups, they without hesitation either turn to the
partners to their left or right or
form groups of four in order
to complete those assigned tasks. This proves that the students in her class
are quite familiar with these two kinds of classroom management. During one
period of forty-five minutes, the students seem to talk most of the class time (approximately
70%) while the teacher gives instructions and offers some help or advice when needed.
In other words, student talking time overrides teacher talking time. As a
result, the students gain more chances for practicing speaking during PW-GW. It
can be also observed that the students feel quite comfortable and emotionally
secure when working with their peers since they are surrounded by an affective
climate formed by the intimacy among them. In fact, PW-GW helps to create a
supportive and relaxing classroom atmosphere in which even the shyest and
quietest students may stand a chance of voicing their own opinions.
Besides the
benefits that the researchers realize via direct observation, some problems arise
during PW-GW worth mentioning. The noise made when the students work in pairs
or groups can be said to be the first prominent and conspicuous problem.
Although noise is inevitable as a lot of pairs and groups talk at the same
time, it should be kept in mind to what degree noise is acceptable, so as not
to disturb the neighboring classes. In the class observed, the teacher in
charge is well aware of the existence of that problem in her own class. Thus,
as to deal with it, she sometimes reminds her students to lower their voice.
However, we think that doing so may obstruct the flow of their communication
and divert their concentration away from what they are engaging in. Another
problem the teacher has to face is the students’ extensive use of the mother
tongue (MT). It is obvious that the objective of pair and group work is to
afford the students more opportunities to communicate in the target language (TL).
Therefore, the use of MT seems to be a problematic and head aching issue to
most language teachers since speaking in MT is supposed to have the potential
effect of hindering students from speaking in TL. It is observable that at the
beginning of the speaking class, the teacher recommends students to use
English.
In the students’
questionnaires, when asked about the frequency with which they use MT during
pair and group work, about one half of the students questioned admit that they
sometimes talk in MT even under their teacher’s supervision. Likewise, a large
number of the students in the class under our observation have the tendency to
overuse the mother tongue while working in pairs or groups, although the
teacher does remind or even request them to use TL and actually monitors a few
pairs and groups to check whether they follow her order. One reason for this
situation can be drawn out from the situation that the teacher frequently
switches between Vietnamese and English when talking with her students. Thus, when
the students are accustomed to hearing the teacher code-switching so often,
they may become less inclined to persevere with the target language
interaction.
Interview
Interview
with the students. To begin with, the students questioned and interviewed
express the same opinion that their teacher does teach speaking by organizing
them into pairs or groups, and that PW-GW is carried out with high frequency in
their classes. Also in the interviews, all four students express their
preference for PW-GW, explaining that it gives individual students equal
chances to speak and display their thoughts and stances, makes them feel
comfortable and relaxed in the company of their friends, and frees them from
the fear of losing face in front of the whole class. Positive attitudes of all
the interviewees towards PW-GW are in accordance with the responses of the
students to the questionnaires.
Secondly, with
regard to the question about their use of Vietnamese during pair and group work,
all four students interviewed honestly admit that they often speak Vietnamese
rather than English when interacting with their peers. They also point out
various excuses for this. The first excuse they give is that they have difficulty
finding the suitable English equivalents while verbalizing their ideas due to
their limited vocabulary stock. In addition, they are used to communicating
with each other in their mother tongue, thus considering the use of TL when
speaking with their friends artificial. Moreover, the tasks in the textbook,
according to them, arouse little interest, so they easily revert to talking or
even chatting in MT, especially when they have finished the assigned tasks. The
last excuse for the use of MT, as they said, is they lack confidence when
interacting in TL for fear of making mistakes or making fools of themselves in
front of their friends. The first two reasons for MT overuse of the students
interviewed show consistency with the respondents’ answers in the questionnaires.
Thirdly,
concerning the teacher’s frequent switch between English and Vietnamese, the
students interviewed indicate that this, in some sense, probably has something
to do with their use of Vietnamese during pair and group work. Some of them
give the reason that on hearing the teacher code-switching from the target
language to the mother tongue or vice versa so often, they have the tendency to
do the same. They suggest one way to encourage the students to speak in English
is simply that the teachers themselves use TL as much as possible in class.
Fourthly, when
it comes to the issue of the problems arising from the use of pair and group
work, there are different responses from the interviewees. One of them thinks
noise is unarguably a major problem in almost every classroom while PW-GW is being
operated. It is the problem which approximately 80% of the students taking part
in the survey concur with. The other two students have the same comment that
the teachers are not able to give help and attention to every single student in
the class. The last one discloses, during PW-GW, to some extent, it may happen that
not all members of a pair or a group will work in harmony and cooperation with
one another, hence conflict and dispute may arise and divide that pair or
group.
The last
interviewing question is intended to discover the students’ perceptions of the
obstacles for the implementation of these two patterns of classroom management
as well as their suggested solutions to handle those obstacles. In reply to
this question, three out of four interviewees share the idea that the time allotted
to teaching speaking is not enough for PW-GW. This view coincides with the
responses of around 80% of the participants in the survey. They explain
although it is undeniable that PW-GW increases individual talking time, within
a short period of forty-five minutes for speaking, they can hardly finish all
of the tasks assigned by their teachers. Therefore, they suggest more time
should be invested in order to facilitate the implementation of PW-GW and allow
them to fulfill the tasks in the textbook as well. One student reveals that although
it is not the case in her class, seating arrangement, in her opinion, is perceived
as an obstacle for the use of PW-GW. Since most desks and benches in Vietnamese
high schools are unmovable, while pairing is easily set up, students may find
it hard to form groups of three or four due to the fact that they have to turn
their back so as to interact face to face with the other members of their
group. In order to cope with this obstacle, the student recommends language
teachers should think of some ways to make the best use of the existing seating
arrangements.
Interview
with the teacher. It is important to note that the teacher has five years
of teaching experience and has incorporated PW-GW into teaching speaking for
nearly three years. At the outset of the interview, we ask the teacher whether
she teaches speaking by having her students work in pairs or groups and if they
are interested in this kind of learning fashion. It is quite encouraging that
the teacher says yes to these questions.
Regarding the
issue of the native language use of the students, the teacher expresses her opinion
that when she first operates pair and group work, she feels rather annoyed
about her students’ frequent use of Vietnamese while they are interacting with
each other, and she does remind or even ban them from doing so. However, on the
one hand, she says little by little she accepts this fact, explaining that
prohibition of MT may hinder some students from expressing what they think,
especially when they feel their English is insufficient. On the other hand, she
believes the use of MT should be limited and TL must be the dominant language
in the class. In addition, she lists some reasons for the students’ use of MT:
students’ lack of confidence in using English, their tendency to avoid stress
caused by the efforts in using TL accurately and appropriately, and MT as a
helpful communicative strategy to compensate for deficiencies in the target
language.
Concerning the
question about whether she has ever faced with the situation in which the
students chat or gossip in Vietnamese during PW-GW, the teacher admits that she
herself often experiences this annoying phenomenon. She also indicates that
this situation may happen due to two reasons: (a) a mismatch between task
difficulty level and students’ level, and (b) students’ limited background
knowledge of the topic under discussion. As to dealing with it, she makes a
suggestion that the teachers should walk around the classroom in order to
monitor the students’ participation and prevent in time any undesirable
situations as above.
Furthermore, when
it comes to the issue of the problems that pair and group work may cause, the
teacher admits that noise is her great concern at the beginning, but now she
becomes more tolerant of it. She also says that noise is inevitable, so all a
teacher can do is ensure whether it remains within acceptable levels or not.
With regard to
the obstacles for the implementation of pair and group work, she indicates that
fixed seating arrangements and insufficient time for the speaking period are
the two main obstacles in most Vietnamese language classes. This view is shared
by the responses of a large number of the teachers surveyed (nearly 90% choose
these two options in the questionnaires).
Lastly, when
asked about the merits of pair work and group work, the teacher reveals that
the students benefit a great deal from these two configurations – pairs and
groups. First of all, every student has more time and a fair chance to express
their own opinions and thinking. In addition, working in pairs or groups creates
a comfortable and enthusiastic environment in which the students feel free to
talk. Another benefit, according to her, is the students can exchange ideas,
help each other and explain to one another what they still do not understand.
All of her viewpoints are quite similar to those of the teachers participating
in the survey.
To sum up, the
findings are analyzed from two major sources – quantitative data (including the
questionnaires for the students and the teachers) and qualitative data
(including classroom observation and interviews with both the students and the
teachers). The chapter that follows will deal with the discussion of our
findings.
Discussion
The research is intended as an investigation
into the outcome of the implementation of pair work and group work in teaching speaking
for 10th grade students. As it is evident from the data analysis,
teaching speaking is no longer neglected and tends to get increased attention
since the majority of the students surveyed admit that their teachers do spend
a certain amount of time for teaching speaking, and the teachers themselves
also show agreement to this. It is understandable because language teaching and
learning in Vietnam
has been based on the CLT, which puts great emphasis on enhancing learners’
communicative competence, and which can be successfully carried out when
learners work in pairs or groups.
The findings
reveal the negative responses of half of the students to the effect of PW-GW on
their speaking ability as well as the discrepancies between teachers’ and
students’ answers to two matters: the frequency of the operation of (a) PW-GW
in their speaking classes, and (b) role play. This means that the feasibility
and effectiveness of the implementation of PW-GW in teaching speaking may have
to be questioned.
However, a large
number of students still show their positive attitudes towards PW-GW. This view
is shared by over 90% of the teachers. The reasons for students’ liking for
these patterns of classroom organization are various. First, according to
students, when they work in pairs or groups, they can share their ideas with
each other. In that role, they can learn quite a lot from their peers since
their friends may know something that they do not and help them to understand
the matter more. Second, PW-GW enables students to have more chances to
interact with their partners in pairs or other members in groups. It is obvious
that with pair and group work, the picture of a teacher standing on the dais
and giving long lectures while students sit in rows listening attentively and
patiently and take note hurriedly appears to be replaced by the image of most students
being engrossed in discussing with their friends. Students are by no means
passive recipients of knowledge, but rather active participants. Third, every
single student’s talking time will be increased. Last, pair and group work make
students feel comfortable and relaxed because of the supportive climate formed
by the intimacy among their peers.
Besides, it is
worth mentioning that from both the students’ and the teachers’ perspectives, pair
and group work are quite beneficial. According to students, when working in
pairs or groups, they gain more chances of exchanging ideas and experience with
their friends and contributing to each other’s learning. Also, the time allotted
for their practicing speaking English will be raised since simultaneously they
are able to talk with several people. However, in case students who are shy or
quiet or not confident enough by nature do not come of their own shells and do
not dare to speak up their minds, it is hard for them to stand a chance of
getting a word in edgeways during pair and group work. The students add that
these two kinds of classroom management give more flavor to their class in a
way that the classroom ambience becomes more relaxing and dynamic as well as
conducive to learning. In addition, partners in pairs and members in groups,
when working together, certainly will provide assistance to each other; hence
the tasks assigned by the teachers will probably be accomplished faster and
more easily. During the ongoing process of carrying out pair work and group
work, students will get more experience about cooperating in a fluid way
towards shared goals and dividing labor equally among members in order to be
sure that there is no “hitchhiking” or “freeloading’ for anyone in pairs or
groups. The students’ aforesaid opinions about the benefits of pair and group
work are in agreement with those of the teachers. According to the teacher, PW-GW
also offers such merits as helping students to improve fluency and to feel more
confident when talking in English. These opinions of the students and teachers
about the merits of PW-GW match with the literature review.
Furthermore, the
analysis of the data reveals that pair and group work may bring about some
undesirable problems which can be categorized into four. The first problem that
most teachers find annoying is the occurrence of noise in their speaking
classes when the students do pair and group work. Some teachers feel extremely
stressful about this, so they expect the classrooms to be quiet and orderly and
insist on a well-organized and well-disciplined class. The problem of noise
naturally gives rise to another one, that is the teachers’ little control over
the whole class. Most of them feel the tension of having their students carry
out communicative activities and maintaining the control over pairs or groups.
Teacher’s less help and attention to each individual student is the next
problem worth mentioning. When the whole class is divided in pairs or groups,
the teachers cannot monitor and give help and advice to all of these pairs or
groups. The last problem arises when students are not capable of splitting the
responsibilities among partners in pairs and members in groups.
Moreover, from
the findings, it is rather disappointing to note that still about a quarter of
the students do not find much interest in working in pairs or groups. What cause
this attitude towards PW-GW can be put down to the problems mentioned earlier
as well as a number of obstacles which are going to be elaborated on as
follows. To begin with, it is inarguably that the seating arrangements in most
Vietnamese classrooms are inappropriate for the implementation of PW-GW since a
large number of desks and benches are unmovable, except for the case of
multimedia classrooms which are often equipped with unfixed desks and benches.
Nevertheless, those modern classrooms in reality seem to be limited in number
compared with the number of classes in each high school. Needless to say, this
obstacle causes difficulties for the teachers when setting up pairs and groups,
especially with large classes. More specifically, if the teachers want each
group to form a circle when doing tasks, with the existing classroom
arrangement like this, it is quite hard to operate group work. Or when the
teachers ask them to change partners, all the students will have to leave their
seats and move to another place in order to pair with a new one. Sadly enough,
it not only is time-consuming but also creates lots of noise and chaos in the
class. In addition, teaching speaking is allotted just one period in the
syllabus and pair and group work only cover a part of that period.
Consequently, these two types of classroom management will not be satisfactorily
carried out as the time for them is not sufficient. Besides, the conceptual framework
reveals that Task-based Learning requires a good deal of time so as to complete
the tasks – a part of forty-five minutes is too little for pairs or groups to
do so. Another impediment is the students’ widespread use of Vietnamese during PW-GW.
Since they share the same mother tongue, they do not feel the need to
communicate in English, which fails to help them convey fully their thoughts
and opinions. It is obvious that PW-GW is meant to maximize the amount of
student talking time in TL, but if the students keep on interacting with each
other in MT, the above rationale of pair and group work appears to be useless.
In short, it is
satisfying and encouraging to conclude that pair and group work after two years
of being implemented in most high schools in Vietnam have been favored and
welcomed by the majority of the 10th form students and teachers. It
is undeniable that although there are a number of benefits to be gained from pair
and group work, there are some pitfalls too as have been discussed above.
The next chapter
will come to some conclusions and put forward several trial recommendations.
Conclusion
and Recommendations
Conclusion
In
order to examine the implementation of PW-GW in teaching speaking for 10th
graders of Ho Chi Minh’s public high schools, the researchers have addressed
four main questions as have been indicated in the beginning. Therefore, after
in-depth analysis and discussion of the findings, the following conclusion can
be drawn:
1. Pair work and group work have
been implemented into teaching speaking for 10th graders and have
gained a great deal of favor among both teachers and students. However, most of
the activities designed for pairs and groups are still controlled.
2. The use of pair work and group
work has proved to have a great number of merits. It is clearly seen that PW-GW
can create a relaxing learning environment in which students feel more
confident to speak English and have more chances for practicing and exchanging
ideas with each other. As a result, students’ speaking ability and fluency are
much improved. They also help students learn more about how to share their
responsibilities while working in pairs or groups in order to solve tasks
better and faster.
However,
the researchers find it very necessary to take quite a lot of problems into
thorough consideration. The most common problem is the students’ use of MT.
Additionally, as student talking time increases, noise and teacher’s less help
and attention given to individuals are inevitable problems. Besides, conflicts
and inequality of splitting the responsibilities among members in groups or
between partners in pairs also need to be dealt with.
3. Since the new English 10 textbook
has been used for a couple of years, teachers and students appear to be quite
familiar with the implementation of pair work and group work in teaching
speaking. However, it cannot be concluded that the implementation of PW-GW is feasible
and effective since language educators still have to face a number of
obstacles. Firstly, the 10th graders are still shy when talking with
each other in English and are also inexperienced in cooperating and sharing
responsibilities with other people. Furthermore, the amount of time suggested
in the syllabus as well as the seating arrangements of Vietnamese high school
classrooms are not suitable for encouraging the full potential of pair work and
group work.
4. The study has implied a number
of suggestions about how to make the implementation of pair and group work into
teaching speaking a success. Firstly, it is true that PW-GW puts heavier demand
on teachers than usual. It is pointed out by most of the participants that
teachers need to spend a great deal of time not only preparing materials,
tasks, exercises and games for pairs or groups at home but also going around
the class more often when students are working to check their work, give help
if they need it and prevent their using Vietnamese. Secondly, on mentioning how
to prevent students’ use of their mother tongue, it is also advisable for
teachers to provide their students with vocabulary or grammatical structures
that may help them to solve the tasks. When students have enough background knowledge,
they do not have the need to use
MT.
Other
Suggestions and Trials’ Results
The researchers
also work out some other suggestions and put them on trial to see if there will
be any promising results.
Trial one – The whole class stand when asked
to work in pairs and groups. With this classroom management, individuals
will have more space and more freedom to reach out to new partners, which
promises an increase in students’ enthusiasm and interest. Nevertheless, as one
of the researchers carried this way out in her speaking class, some problems
should be taken into deep consideration. Obviously, giving students more
freedom and space means teachers’ dealing with much more noise. In addition,
some students may remain passive, as they are used to working with the partners
next to them and are not willing to find new partners.
Trial two – Teacher finds the most suitable
positioning during pair and group work. As Griffiths (2005) mentions, it is very
essential that while operating PW-GW, teachers should choose suitable positions
in the classrooms, maybe in the middle or at the front, so as not neglect any
students or impede student-student communication due to too much control. In the class trialed, the teacher stays in
the middle of the class and does not get involved too much in any pairs or
groups’ activities. Such teacher’s positioning shows her availability to all
the students and does not distract students from working. Consequently, the
result appears to be quite promising. The students do not feel under too much teacher’s
control and have more space to freely express themselves. Additionally, with
such a place from which every individual can reach, the teacher leaves no one
in the class neglected.
Trial three – Teacher applies ESA sequence
into speaking lessons. Last but not least, one of the researchers carried
out the Straight Arrow, as suggested in Harmer’s famous book How to teach
English (1998) and gained a very promising result. As students’ interest is
raised during the Engage stage, it is more likely that students will learn new
knowledge and apply them into solving tasks or exercises in pairs or groups in
the following Study and Activate steps more enthusiastically.
This chapter has
summarized the results of the whole process of doing research: the explicit
answers to the four research questions in which the merits, the obstacles and
the problems of the implementation of pair work and group work in teaching
speaking for 10th graders of Ho Chi Minh’s public high schools are addressed.
Moreover, the presentation of some suggestions and the results of the trials
that were carried out by the researchers during their practicum are also
elaborated on.
References
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching.
Cambridge : Cambridge University
Chung ta dang hoc Anh van nhu the nao? [How
have we been learning English?] (2006, August 2). Message posted to Forum about
accounting, archived at http://danketoan.com/forum/showthread.php?t=321
Davis, B.
(1993). Tools for teaching. San
Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Griffiths, B. (October 31, 2005). Teacher
positioning in the classroom. BBC British Council Teaching English.
Retrieved April 19, 2008, from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/teacher-positioning-classroom
Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Harlow :
Longman.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom:
Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-70.
Kayi, H. (2006). Teaching speaking: Activities to promote speaking in a
second language. The Internet TESL
Journal, 12. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kayi-Teaching Speaking.html
Kim Lien (2006, October 12). 7 năm học ở
phổ thông: Tại sao không biết nói tiếng Anh? [7 years of learning English at
school: Why still unable to speak English?]. Tuoi Tre Online Newspaper. Retrieved December 9, 2007, from
http://www.tuoitre.com.vn/tianyon/Index.aspx?ArticleID=166558&ChannelID=13
Kumar, K. (1992). Does class size really make a
difference? Exploring classroom interaction in large and small classes. RELC
Journal, 23(1), 29-47.
Long, M. & Porter, P.
(1985). Group work, interlanguage talk and second language acquisition. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 207-228.
Long, M.
& Richards, J.C. (1987). Methodology in TESOL. Boston : Heinle&Heinle.
McGroarty, M. (1989). The benefits of
cooperative learning arrangements in second language instruction. National
Association for Bilingual Education (NABA) Journal, 13(2), 127-143.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom.
Cambridge : Cambridge University
Olsen, R. & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C.
Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative Language
Learning: A Teacher’s Resource Book (pp. 1-30). New York : Prentice Hall.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods.
Thousand Oaks :
Sage.
The Practice of learning
theories/TBL (n.d.). Wikibooks. Retrieved February 24, 2008, from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Practice_of_Learning_Theories/TBL
Quang Sum, Ta (2004, November 3). Học Anh văn trong
nhà trường: 60% sinh viên không thể giao tiếp bằng tiếng Anh [Learning English
at school: 60% of students are incapable of communicating in English]. Thanh Nien Online Newspaper. Retrieved
December 9, 2007, from http://www1.thanhnien.com.vn/Giaoduc/2005/4/4/79767.tno
Richard, K. (2003 ). Qualitative
inquiry in TESOL. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Salmon,
P. (1988). Psychology for teachers. London :
Hutchinson .
Teaching tips: What is Task-based
learning? (n.d.). Pearson Longman. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.pearsonlongman.com/teaching-tips/task-based-learning.html
The Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training. (2006). Tài liệu bồi dưỡng giáo viên thực hiện
chương trình sách giáo khoa lớp 10 trung học phổ thong môn Tiếng Anh [Training
materials for teaching English textbook, Grade 10] (1st ed.). Ho Chi Minh
City : Education Publishing House.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow , U.K.
Appendix
A
Students’
Questionnaire
Chúng tôi là Phạm Thị Hà Mi và
Nguyễn Kim Thanh – sinh viên lớp 4A thuộc khoa Anh, trường Đại học Sư Phạm TP.Hồ
Chí Minh. Hiện nay chúng tôi đang thực hiện đề tài nghiên cứu về vấn đề làm
việc theo cặp và theo nhóm trong giờ luyện nói Tiếng Anh (speaking) trong lớp
10 các trường phổ thông công lập ở TP.Hồ Chí Minh. Để có thể hoàn thành tốt đề
tài, chúng tôi rất mong nhận được ý kiến đóng góp của các bạn đối với những vấn
đề dưới đây. Xin chân thành cảm ơn.
Bạn là học sinh trường:
____________________________________
Năm sinh:
_______________________________________________
1 Nam 1 Nữ
Xin bạn đánh dấu (ü)
vào ô bạn cho là thích hợp nhất.
Q1.
Bạn có được học riêng một tiết luyện nói
(speaking) theo như phân bố trong sách giáo khoa (SGK) không?
1 Có 1
Không
Q2.
Giáo viên môn Anh văn của bạn có tổ chức cho học sinh làm việc theo nhóm hoặc
theo cặp trong giờ luyện nói (speaking) không?
1
Có 1 Không
Nếu bạn chọn “có”, xin bạn tiếp tục trả lời câu 3. Nếu bạn chọn “không”,
xin mời bạn trả lời từ câu số 10.
Q3.
Bạn có thường được làm việc theo cặp hoặc theo nhóm trong giờ luyện nói
(speaking) không?
1 Luôn luôn 1
Thường xuyên 1
Thỉnh thoảng
1 Hiếm khi 1
Chưa bao giờ
Q4.
Làm việc theo cặp hoặc theo nhóm có tác động nhiều đến khả năng nói tiếng Anh
của bạn không?
1
Rất nhiều 1Nhiều 1 Không nhiều lắm
1
Ít 1Không rõ
Q5.
Khi làm việc theo cặp hoặc theo nhóm trong giờ luyện nói (speaking), bạn có
thường sử dụng tiếng Việt để trao đổi với bạn bè không?
|
|
Luôn luôn
|
Thường xuyên
|
Thỉnh thoảng
|
Hiếm khi
|
Không bao giờ
|
|
Khi có sự quan sát của GV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Khi không có sự quan sát của GV
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q6.
Theo bạn, lý do nhiều bạn học sinh vẫn thích dùng tiếng Việt để trao đổi với
nhau khi làm việc theo cặp hoặc theo nhóm trong giờ luyện nói (speaking ) thay
vì dùng tiếng Anh như thầy/cô giáo yêu cầu là:
(1 = Hoàn toàn không đồng ý, 2 = Không đồng ý, 3 = Đồng ý, 4 = Hoàn
toàn đồng ý)
|
Lý do
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
a. Vốn từ vựng ít.
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. Các bạn đã quen dùng Tiếng Việt để nói chuyện với nhau.
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. Các bạn còn thiếu tự tin khi nói Tiếng Anh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. Sử dụng Tiếng Việt để dễ trao đổi, đỡ mất thời gian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
e. Các bạn sợ nói Tiếng Anh sai, bị bạn bè trêu chọc.
|
|
|
|
|
à
Những lý do khác: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q7.
Những hoạt động thầy/cô tổ chức cho các cặp/nhóm trong giờ luyện nói (speaking)
thường là có sẵn trong SGK hay là được thầy/cô bạn tự soạn thêm?
1 Có
sẵn trong SGK 1 Do
thầy/cô tự soạn thêm
Q8.
Thầy/cô của bạn có giao cho các cặp/nhóm đề án để làm ở nhà và sau đó trình bày
ở lớp không?
1 Có 1
Không
Q9. Những hoạt động nào thầy/cô thường áp dụng
khi tổ chức cho các bạn làm việc theo cặp/ nhóm?
|
Hoạt động
|
Luôn luôn
|
Thường xuyên
|
Thỉnh thoảng
|
Hiếm khi
|
Chưa bao giờ
|
|
Đóng kịch (role play)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thảo luận (discussion)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Đối thoại (dialogue)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phỏng vấn (interview)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hỏi đáp để điền thông tin vào chỗ trống (gap-filling)
|
|
|
|
|
|
à
Các hoạt động khác:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q10.
Bạn có thích được làm việc theo cặp hoặc theo nhóm trong giờ luyện nói
(speaking) không?
1 Rất thích 1Thích
1Không
thích lắm 1Ghét
Nếu bạn chọn rất thích/thích, xin bạn trả
lời câu số 11. Nếu bạn chọn không thích lắm/ghét, xin bạn trả lời câu 12.
Q11.
Lý do bạn thích làm việc theo cặp hoặc theo nhóm trong giờ luyện nói (speaking)
là:
(1 = Hoàn toàn không đồng ý, 2 = Không đồng ý, 3 = Đồng ý, 4 = Hoàn
toàn đồng ý)
|
Lý do
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
a. Bạn được giao tiếp với bạn bè.
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. Khối lượng công việc ít hơn vì đã chia đều cho mỗi thành viên
trong cặp hoặc trong nhóm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. Cả lớp có nhiều thời gian để luyện nói hơn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. Bạn học được nhiều từ bạn bè (từ vựng, ngữ pháp, …)
|
|
|
|
|
|
e. Bạn cảm thấy thoải mái hơn khi nói Tiếng Anh với bạn bè.
|
|
|
|
|
à
Lý do khác:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mời bạn trả lời tiếp từ câu 13 (bỏ qua câu
12).
Q12.
Lý do bạn không thích làm việc theo cặp hoặc theo nhóm trong giờ luyện nói
(speaking) là:
(1 = Hoàn toàn không đồng ý, 2 = Không đồng ý, 3 = Đồng ý, 4 = Hoàn
toàn đồng ý)
|
Lý do
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
a. Bạn đã quen làm việc cá nhân từ trước đến giờ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. Làm việc theo cặp/nhóm dễ gây ồn ào trong lớp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. Bạn phải di chuyển bàn ghế, chỗ ngồi, …
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. Giáo viên không tiếp xúc và giúp đỡ được cho từng cá nhân.
|
|
|
|
|
à
Lý do khác:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q13.
Theo bạn, những lợi ích của việc tổ chức làm việc theo cặp hoặc theo nhóm trong
giờ luyện nói (speaking) là gì?
(1 = Hoàn toàn không đồng ý, 2 = Không đồng ý, 3 = Đồng ý, 4 = Hoàn
toàn đồng ý)
|
Lợi ích
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
a. Bạn được giao tiếp trao
đổi ý kiến với bạn bè nhiều hơn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. Bạn có nhiều thời gian
để luyện nói hơn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. Không khí lớp học thoải
mái và năng động hơn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. Bạn giải quyết bài tập
(tasks) thầy/cô cho nhanh hơn và tốt hơn (vì được sự giúp đỡ của các bạn khác
trong cặp/nhóm).
|
|
|
|
|
|
e. Bạn được giao lưu và học
tập những điểm mạnh từ các bạn khác trong lớp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
f. Bạn học tập được cách
thức hợp tác và phân chia công việc một cách đồng đều trong cặp/nhóm.
|
|
|
|
|
à
Lý do khác:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q14.
Theo bạn, làm việc theo cặp hoặc theo nhóm trong giờ luyện nói (speaking) có
thể làm nảy sinh những vấn đề gì?
(1 = Hoàn toàn không đồng ý, 2 = Không đồng ý, 3 = Đồng ý, 4 = Hoàn
toàn đồng ý)
|
Vấn đề nảy sinh
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
a. Lớp học ồn ào.
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. Thầy/cô khó có thể quan
tâm và giúp đỡ từng cá nhân.
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. Thầy/cô khó có thể điều
khiển tốt hoạt động trong lớp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. Khối lượng công việc
không được chia đều cho các bạn trong cặp/nhóm gây tình trạng bạn làm nhiều,
bạn làm ít.
|
|
|
|
|
à
Các vấn đề khác:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q15.
Theo bạn những điều gì có thể gây trở ngại cho việc luyện tập theo cặp hoặc
theo nhóm trong giờ luyện nói (speaking)?
(1 = Hoàn toàn không đồng ý, 2 = Không đồng ý, 3 = Đồng ý, 4 = Hoàn
toàn đồng ý)
|
Trở ngại
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
a. Bố trí lớp học chưa phù
hợp để ngồi theo cặp/nhóm (bàn ghế, vị trí chỗ ngồi, …)
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. Thời lượng tiết học
không đủ để tổ chức làm việc theo cặp/nhóm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. Các bạn còn chưa có
kinh nghiệm tổ chức và phân công công việc trong cặp/nhóm.
|
|
|
|
|
à
Các trở ngại khác:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BẢNG KHẢO SÁT ĐẾN ĐÂY LÀ HẾT.
XIN CHÂN THÀNH CẢM ƠN SỰ CỘNG TÁC CỦA CÁC
BẠN.
Appendix
B
Teachers’
Questionnaire
We are Phạm Thị Hà Mi and Nguyễn
Kim Thanh – students of class 4A of English Department, University of Education Ho Chi Minh City ”. This
questionnaire aims to investigate the implementation of pair work and group
work. We would very much appreciate it if you could spend time providing us
with the necessary information. It is confirmed that your personal identity
will remain strictly confidential.
I. Respondent’s background.
1.
Gender:
1 Male 1
Female
2.
Teaching experience: How long have you been teaching English?
1
1-5 years 1
6-10 years 1 11
years+
3.
Name of the high school in which you are working now: ________________
4.
Which grade are you teaching? 110th 111th 112th
5.
Have you ever taken part in any workshops or training sessions on teaching
speaking?
1
Yes 1 No
II. Pair work and group work in teaching speaking.
Please tick (ü)
the most appropriate boxes.
Q1. Do you spare a certain amount of time
for teaching the speaking section in the textbook?
1 Yes 1 No
Q2.
In your opinion, what factors may decide the success of a speaking class?
|
Factors
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
a. Interesting tasks
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. Students’ level
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. Organizing students
into pairs/groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. Teacher’s preparation
|
|
|
|
|
à Others (please specify):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q3.
Do you operate pair work and group work in your speaking classes?
1
Yes 1 No
If you choose “Yes”, please go on to question 4. If you choose “No”, please move to question 12.
Q4.
How often do you operate pair work and group work in your speaking classes?
1
Always 1 Usually 1 Sometimes 1 Rarely 1 Never
Q5.
How much time does pair work-group work usually take up over the total time of
your speaking class per unit?
1
1’-10’ 1 11’-20’ 1 21’-30’ 1 31’-40’ 1 41’+
Q6.
Do your students like to work in pairs or in groups in your speaking classes?
1
Yes 1 No
Q7.
Are most of the activities for pair work and group work in your speaking
classes designed by yourself or taken from books (textbooks, reference books
…)?
1
Designed by yourself 1
Taken from books
Q8.
Do you give pairs or groups projects as
homework besides in-class activities?
o Yes o
No
Q9.
Are most of your speaking activities controlled, less controlled, or free?
1
Controlled 1
Less controlled 1
Free
Q10. Which of the following tasks are often
assigned to pairs and groups in your speaking classes?
|
Tasks
|
Always
|
Usually
|
Sometimes
|
Rarely
|
Never
|
|
a. Role play
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. Discussions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. Dialogues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. Interviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e. Information-gap
|
|
|
|
|
|
à
Others (please specify):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q11. In
your opinion, what are the obstacles in the implementation of pair work and
group work in your speaking classes?
|
Obstacles
|
Strongly agree
|
Disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
a. The seating arrangement
is not suitable for pair work and group
work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. The amount of time
suggested in the syllabus is not sufficient for the implementation of pair work and group work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. Students are not
familiar with working in pairs/groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. Students don’t know how
to share equal responsibilities among members in groups or between partners
in pairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
e. Students lack fluency
and accuracy when talking to each other in English.
|
|
|
|
|
|
f. Students are still shy
when talking to each other in English.
|
|
|
|
|
à
Others (please specify): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q12. In your opinion, what are the benefits
of having students work in pairs or groups?
|
Merits
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
a. It creates a relaxing
learning environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. It helps students solve
tasks better and faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. It gives each student
more time for speaking practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. It gives students more
chances to exchange ideas with each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
e. It enhances students’
effective use of English when talking to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
f. Students give more help
to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
g. Students learn more
about how to share the responsibilities when working in pairs/groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
h. It helps improve
students’ fluency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
i. It helps students feel
more confident when speaking English.
|
|
|
|
|
à
Others (please specify):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q13. In
your opinion, what kind of problems pair work and group work can cause?
|
Problems
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
a. Noises
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. Teacher’s less help and
attention given to individuals
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. Teacher’s little
control of the whole class
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. Inequality of splitting
the responsibilities among members in a group or between partners in a pair
|
|
|
|
|
à
Others (please specify):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q14. What do you think can be the solutions
to the problems and obstacles mentioned above? (You can choose as many options as you like.)
1
Ask students to re-arrange
the tables and chairs before the speaking lessons.
1
Give students clear
instructions about how to work in groups/pairs.
1
Split the task into equally
smaller parts and give students clear instructions about what they are supposed
to do in each part.
1
Form groups/pairs of
students that have different strong points so that they can help and learn from
each other.
1
Go around the class more
often when the students are working in pairs or groups to check their work and
give help if they need it.
1
Others (please specify):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THIS IS THE END OF THE
QUESTIONNAIRE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COOPERATION.
Appendix
C
Data
Collected From Questionnaires for Students
Gender: Male: 39.9% Female: 60.1%
Q1. Do you have a separated
period for speaking section as assigned in the textbook?
Yes: 78.1% No:
21.9%
Q2. Does your English teacher
operate pair work and group work in
your speaking classes?
Yes: 91% No:
9%
Q3. How often do you work in pairs
or groups in your speaking classes?
Always: 15.7% Usually: 37% Sometimes:
41.3%
Rarely: 6% Never:
0%
Q4. How much effect do pair work
and group work have on your speaking
ability?
Very much: 13.3% Much: 35.4% Not much: 33.1% Little: 4.9% Not know: 13.3%
Q5. How often do you use Vietnamese
while working in pairs or groups in your speaking classes?
- Under teacher’s observation:
Always: 4.7% Usually:
18.7% Sometimes: 47.9%
Rarely: 18.7% Never:
10%
- Not under teacher’s observation:
Always: 10.5% Usually: 32.7% Sometimes: 42.5%
Rarely: 9.2% Never:
2.4%
Q6. In your opinion, the reasons
why many students still like to use Vietnamese, instead of English as
requested, to communicate while working in pairs or groups in speaking classes
are:
a. Lack of vocabulary:
Strongly disagree: 4.9% Disagree: 12.5%
Agree: 57% Strongly agree: 25.6%
b. Habit of using Vietnamese:
Strongly disagree: 4.5% Disagree: 17.2%
Agree: 51.8% Strongly agree: 26.5%
c. Lack of confidence:
Strongly disagree: 8% Disagree: 17%
Agree: 54.8% Strongly agree: 20.2%
d. Time saving:
Strongly disagree: 9% Disagree: 27.1%
Agree: 44.3% Strongly agree: 19.6%
e. Scare of making mistakes and
being made fun of by your friends:
Strongly disagree: 24.5% Disagree: 37.8%
Agree: 24.2% Strongly agree: 13.5%
Others: lack of ability (0.8%),
lack of knowledge about the topics (1.9%), laziness (1.1%)
Q7. Are most of the activities for pair
work and group work in your speaking classes designed by your teacher or taken
from books (textbooks, reference books …)?
Designed by teachers: 21.2% Taken
from books: 78.7%
Q8. Does your teacher give pairs or
groups projects as homework besides in-class activities?
Yes: 53.1% No:
46.9%
Q9. Which of
the following tasks are often assigned to pairs and groups in your speaking
classes?
Shown in Table 1
Q10. Do you like to work in pairs
or in groups in your speaking classes?
Very much: 21.5% Much: 54.2%
Not much: 22.3% Little: 2%
Q11. The reasons why you like to
work in pairs or groups in speaking classes are:
Shown in Table 2
Q12. The reasons why you don’t like
to work in pairs or groups in speaking classes are:
Shown in Table 3
Q13. In your opinion, what are the benefits of
having students work in pairs or groups?
Shown in Table 4
Q14. In your
opinion, what kind of problems pair work and group work can cause?
Shown in Table 5
Q15. In your
opinion, what are the obstacles in the implementation of pair work and group
work in your speaking classes?
Shown in Table 6
Appendix
D
Data
Collected From Questionnaires for Teachers
I. Respondent’s background
1. Gender:
Male: 16.7% Female:
83.3%
2. Years of teaching:
1-5: 13.3% 6-10:
13.3% 11+: 73.4%
3. Grade teaching:
10th: 60% 11th: 66.7% 12th: 70%
4. Speaking training session
participation:
Yes: 93.3% No:
6.7%
II. Pair work and group work in teaching speaking.
Q1. Do you spare a
certain amount of time for teaching the speaking section in the textbook?
Yes: 96.7% No:
3.3%
Q2. In your opinion, what factors
may decide the success of a speaking class?
a. Interesting task: Agree: 36.7% Strongly agree: 63.3%
b. Students’ level: Agree: 83.3% Strongly agree: 16.7%
c. Organizing students into
pairs/groups: Agree: 73.3% Strongly
agree: 26.7%
d. Teacher’s preparation: Agree:
23.3% Strongly agree: 76.7%
Others: Number of students in the
class (3.3%)
Q3. Do you operate pair work and
group work in your speaking classes?
Yes: 100% No:
0%
Q4. How often do you operate pair
work and group work in your speaking classes?
Always: 6.7% Usually: 80%
Sometimes: 13.3% Rarely
+ Never: 0%
Q5. How much time does pair work or
group work usually take up over the total time of your speaking class per unit?
1-10’: 16.7% 11-20’:
33.3% 21-30’:
30%
31-40’: 20% 41+: 0%
Q6. Do your students like to work
in pairs or in groups in your speaking classes?
Yes: 96.7% No:
3.3%
Q7. Are most of the activities for pair
work and group work in your speaking
classes designed by yourself or taken from books (textbooks, reference books
…)?
Designed by yourself: 33.4% Taken from books: 83.3%
Q8. Do you give pairs or groups
projects as homework besides in-class activities?
Yes: 83.3% No:
16.7%
Q9. Are most of your speaking activities controlled, less controlled, or free?
Controlled: 40% Less
controlled: 46.7% Free: 13.3%
Q10. Which of
the following tasks are often assigned to pairs and groups in your speaking
classes?
Shown in Table 1
Q11. In your opinion, what are the obstacles
in the implementation of pair work and group work in your speaking classes?
Shown in Table 6
Q12. In your
opinion, what are the benefits of having students work in pairs or groups?
Shown in Table 4
Q13. In your opinion,
what kind of problems pair work and group work can cause?
Shown in Table 5
Q14. What do you think can be the solutions to the problems and obstacles mentioned
above?
a. Re-arrange the tables and chairs
before the speaking class: 20%
b. Give students clear instructions
about how to work in pairs/groups: 20%
c. Split the task into equally
smaller parts and give students clear instructions about what they are supposed
to do: 23.3%
d. Form groups/pairs of students
that have different strong points so that they can help and learn from each
other: 66.7%
e. Go around the class more often
when the students are working in pairs or groups to check their work and give
help if they need it: 73.3%
Appendix
E
Classroom
Observation
Date: March 4,
2008 Time: 9:35 – 10:20 a.m. Place: 10A4, Nguyen Chi Thanh High
School
Unit 4: THEN AND
NOW
(Countdown to
First Certificate, Oxford
University
Speaking section:
ENTERTAINMENT
|
Content
|
Teacher’s activities
|
Students’ activities
|
General judgements
|
|
Pre-speaking (5’)
|
- Raises questions and asks students to work in pairs:
+ When was TV invented?
+ What activities did people often do before TV was invented?
- Asks two pairs to report and gives feedback.
|
- Work in pairs for 2’.
- Two pairs answer orally.
|
|
|
While-speaking (30’)
Task 1. Describe pictures of some activities:
reading, playing piano, playing cards,
and sewing.
(6’)
|
- Asks students to work in pairs and describe the pictures.
- Goes around and gives help to some pairs.
- Asks two pairs to report and gives feedback.
|
- Work in pairs and describe the pictures to each other for 3’.
- Two pairs report in front of the class.
|
- Noise: some students chat in MT.
- Some pairs do not work àTeacher reminds them
- Students speak in MT, and then translate it into TL. Teacher also
explains in MT then translates into TL.
- Teacher cannot reach all the pairs.
|
|
Task 2. Explain the meaning of some words: Drama, Comedy, Nature programme, Current
affairs, Documentary, Game show, Soap opera, Chat show, and Cartoons.
(11’)
|
- Gives a model example.
- Asks students to work in groups of four.
- Goes around and gives help to some groups.
- Asks representatives from two groups to report.
- Gives feedback.
|
- Listen to teacher’s example.
-Work in groups of four for 5’.
- Representatives of two groups report in front of the class.
|
- Teacher talks TL most of the time and dominates the correction
stage.
- Students pay little attention.
|
|
Task 3. Answer the following questions in the
textbook:
1/Which do you prefer
radio or TV? Why?
2/How often do you watch
TV or listen to radio?
3/Do you often have
family arguments about what to watch on TV? Who usually wins?
4/What is your favorite
TV programme? Why?
5/What is the TV
programme you don’t enjoy?
(13’)
|
- Asks students to change partners (by turning back).
- Asks students to work in pairs and answer the questions.
- Goes around and gives help.
- Elicits answers from two pairs and gives feedback.
|
- Turn back and form pairs.
-Work in pairs for 7’.
- Two pairs give answer orally.
|
- Noise when changing partners and
time-consuming (2’)
- The same problems as seen in Task 1.
|
|
Task 4. Ask students to look at some pictures
of other activities in the textbook, choose 3 best, and then try to advertise
them to their friends so that they will take up those activities instead of
watching TV.
(10’)
|
- Asks students to change seats.
- Asks students to work in groups of four.
- Sets time limit (5’).
- Goes around and gives help.
- Asks students to do the task at home as homework.
|
- Change seats.
- Work in groups of four for 5’.
|
- Changing seats: new partners à more interest but more noise,
disorder, and time-consuming (2’).
- Same problems as seen in the above task.
|
Appendix
F
Interview
Questions for Students
Date: March 4,
2008 Time: 10:20 – 11:00 a.m. Place: 10A4, Nguyen Chi Thanh High
School
1. Does your teacher operate pair
work and group work in your speaking classes? How often?
2. Do you like to work in pairs or
groups in your speaking classes?
3. Do you use Vietnamese to discuss
with your friends when working in pairs or groups? If yes, can you tell us why?
4. Does
your teacher often switch between English and Vietnamese when talking to you?
In your opinion, does this have any effect on your using English while doing
pair or group work?
5. Can you tell us the merits of
working in pairs or groups?
6. In your opinion, what problems pair work and group work can cause?
7. What are the obstacles to working in pairs or groups? Can you suggest some solutions to those obstacles?
6. In your opinion, what problems pair work and group work can cause?
7. What are the obstacles to working in pairs or groups? Can you suggest some solutions to those obstacles?
Appendix
G
Interview
Questions for Teachers
Date: March 4,
2008 Time: 10:20 – 11:00 a.m. Place: 10A4, Nguyen Chi Thanh High
School
1. Do you operate pair work and
group work in your speaking classes?
2. Do your students like to work in pairs or groups?
3. When your students are working in pairs or groups, do they often use Vietnamese to discuss with each other? What are your solutions to this problem?
4. When doing pair work and group work, do your students gossip in Vietnamese? What are your solutions to this problem?
5. In your opinion, what are the merits of pair work and group work?
2. Do your students like to work in pairs or groups?
3. When your students are working in pairs or groups, do they often use Vietnamese to discuss with each other? What are your solutions to this problem?
4. When doing pair work and group work, do your students gossip in Vietnamese? What are your solutions to this problem?
5. In your opinion, what are the merits of pair work and group work?
6. What are the problems that pair
work and group work can cause?
7. In your opinion, what are the obstacles to operating pair work and group work? Can you suggest some effective solutions to solve those obstacles?
7. In your opinion, what are the obstacles to operating pair work and group work? Can you suggest some effective solutions to solve those obstacles?
Appendix
H
Tables
Table
1
The Frequency of the Activities Used for Pairs and
Groups
|
The frequency
|
|
Always
|
Usually
|
Sometimes
|
Rarely
|
Never
|
|
Role play
|
S
|
1.3%
|
1.7%
|
9.7%
|
17.6%
|
69.7%
|
|
T
|
13.3%
|
50%
|
30%
|
6.7%
|
0%
|
|
|
Discussion
|
S
|
21.3%
|
46.7%
|
26.9%
|
3.9%
|
1.2%
|
|
T
|
10%
|
50%
|
36.7%
|
3.3%
|
0%
|
|
|
Dialogue
|
S
|
16.1%
|
45.4%
|
27.3%
|
10.5%
|
0.7%
|
|
T
|
3.4%
|
33.3%
|
33.3%
|
30%
|
0%
|
|
|
Interview
|
S
|
3.2%
|
11.6%
|
35.9%
|
30.6%
|
18.7%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
10%
|
66.7%
|
23.3%
|
0%
|
|
|
Information
gap
|
S
|
12.9%
|
33.1%
|
29.7%
|
12.5%
|
11.8%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
10%
|
43.3%
|
36.7%
|
10%
|
Table 2
Reasons
why Students Like to Work in Pairs or Groups in Speaking Classes
|
Reasons
|
Strongly
disagree
|
Disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly
Agree
|
|
a. You can communicate
with your friends
|
3.9%
|
7.2%
|
67.2%
|
21.7%
|
|
b. You have less work
to do because you split it with your friends
|
7%
|
18.9%
|
53.7%
|
20.4%
|
|
c. Your class has more
time to practise speaking
|
4.2%
|
8.5%
|
58.9%
|
28.4%
|
|
d. You can learn from
your friends
|
4.6%
|
2.6%
|
53.5%
|
29.3%
|
|
e. You feel more comfortable
when talking to your friends in English
|
3.4%
|
22.2%
|
48%
|
26.4%
|
Table 3
Reasons
why Students Do Not Like to Work in Pairs or Groups in Speaking Classes
|
Reasons
|
Strongly
disagree
|
Disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly
Agree
|
|
a. You are used to working individually
|
21%
|
30.6%
|
30.6%
|
17.8%
|
|
b. Pair work and group work cause a
lot of noise
|
5.4%
|
8.2%
|
57.9%
|
28.5%
|
|
c. You have to move your seat
|
33.1%
|
38.7%
|
16.9%
|
11.3%
|
|
d. Teacher can’t reach and help
everyone
|
2.8%
|
3.9%
|
72.5%
|
20.8%
|
Table 4
The
Benefits of Pair Work and Group Work
|
The
benefits
|
|
Strongly
disagree
|
Disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly
agree
|
|
a. Students can exchange ideas with
their friends more
|
S
|
4.7%
|
6.7%
|
63%
|
25.6%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
3.3%
|
86.7%
|
10%
|
|
|
b. Students have more time for
practicing speaking
|
S
|
3.2%
|
8%
|
63.6%
|
25.2%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
6.7%
|
90%
|
3.3%
|
|
|
c. Classroom atmosphere is more
dynamic and relaxing
|
S
|
5.3%
|
8.8%
|
52.2%
|
33.7%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
0%
|
76.7%
|
23.3%
|
|
|
d. Students can solve tasks more
easily and faster thanks to their friends’ help
|
S
|
3.9%
|
13.5%
|
53.1%
|
29.5%
|
|
T
|
6.7%
|
0%
|
90%
|
3.3%
|
|
|
e. Students can learn from their
friends
|
S
|
3.9%
|
12.1%
|
54.6%
|
29.4%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
3.3%
|
86.7%
|
10%
|
|
|
f. Students can learn how to cooperate
and to split tasks equally
|
S
|
3.9%
|
12.1%
|
58.5%
|
23.5%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
0%
|
63.3%
|
36.7%
|
Table 5
The
Problems that Pair and Group Work May Cause
|
Problems
|
|
Strongly
disagree
|
Disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly
agree
|
|
a. Noise
|
S
|
7.2%
|
14.5%
|
56.2%
|
22.1%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
0%
|
50%
|
50%
|
|
|
b. Teacher’s less help and attention
given to individuals
|
S
|
0%
|
13.6%
|
50%
|
36.4%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
10.1%
|
50%
|
39.9%
|
|
|
c. Teacher’s little control of the
whole class
|
S
|
8.8%
|
33.5%
|
45.4%
|
12.3%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
46.7%
|
53.3%
|
0%
|
|
|
d. Students’ inequality of splitting
the responsibilities
|
S
|
9.4%
|
30.7%
|
41.1%
|
18.8%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
33.3%
|
60%
|
6.7%
|
Table 6
The
Obstacles to the Implementation of Pair and Group Work in Teaching Speaking
|
The
obstacles
|
|
Strongly
disagree
|
Disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly
agree
|
|
a. The unsuitable seating arrangement
|
S
|
10.4%
|
32.5%
|
41.3%
|
15.8%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
3.3%
|
30%
|
66.7%
|
|
|
b. The insufficient amount of time
|
S
|
5.7%
|
13.3%
|
54.8%
|
26.2%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
0%
|
76.7%
|
23.3%
|
|
|
c. Students’ unfamiliarity with
working in pairs/groups.
|
S
|
5.9%
|
19.8%
|
57.1%
|
17.2%
|
|
T
|
0%
|
50%
|
50%
|
0%
|
|
|
d. Students’ not knowing how to share
equal responsibilities
|
S
|
5.9%
|
19.8%
|
57.1%
|
17.2%
|
|
T
|
10%
|
20%
|
60%
|
10%
|
|
|
e. Students’ lack of fluency and
accuracy when using English
|
S
|
________
|
________
|
________
|
________
|
|
T
|
3.3%
|
10%
|
50%
|
36.7%
|
|
|
f. Students’ shyness when talking in
English
|
S
|
________
|
________
|
________
|
________
|
|
T
|
0%
|
13.3%
|
83.3%
|
3.4%
|
Komentar
Posting Komentar