INTRODUCTION
Background of the problem
Proficiency in English has become increasingly essential in Vietnam, serving as a key requirement for studying abroad, securing employment, and daily communication As a result, English is now a compulsory subject across all educational levels, from elementary school to university, although the total hours dedicated to studying can vary between schools.
The current English education in schools is often insufficient for meeting the demands of international communication in today's interconnected world As a response, numerous language centers have rapidly emerged in Ho Chi Minh City, all aiming to help learners develop effective English communication skills To maintain high learner motivation, most of these schools utilize foreign textbooks and implement communicative language teaching (CLT) strategies, incorporating various interactive activities These activities align with modern, student-centered teaching trends that prioritize learner interaction and engagement Consequently, teachers frequently organize group work (GW) activities in the classroom, particularly when focusing on developing speaking skills, to enhance communication practice and effectiveness.
The flexible scheduling, adaptable chair arrangements, and teacher involvement in lesson planning create an ideal environment for implementing Group Work (GW) in language schools, as it promotes increased student practice, discussion, negotiation, and problem-solving—key steps toward authentic communication GW can also help address the challenges of mixed-ability classes by enabling learners to support each other more effectively in groups However, concerns persist regarding GW potentially being a waste of time, as many students revert to their native language to complete tasks, with stronger members dominating and others becoming passive or disengaged Teachers often face difficulties ensuring active participation, supporting weaker learners, and maintaining challenge for advanced students, which hampers GW’s effectiveness as a truly communicative teaching method Consequently, GW may fail to improve speaking skills and could inadvertently widen the gap between strong and weak learners, issues frequently discussed and criticized in teachers’ workshops.
It is a loss if the supposed advantages of GW for teaching Speaking cannot be exploited fully in the classroom Teachers need to learn new ways to conduct
Implementing GW activities significantly enhances learners’ speaking skills Therefore, a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of using GW in teaching English speaking at IWEP is essential The study's findings offer valuable insights and practical implications for improving speaking instruction through GW activities, ensuring more effective language learning outcomes.
Setting of the study
IWEP has been successfully operating for over ten years, establishing a strong presence across six campuses in Ho Chi Minh City These campuses are strategically located in District 10, District 11, two in Binh Thanh District, Tan Binh District, and Phu Nhuan District, providing accessible education options throughout the city Currently, IWEP serves approximately [insert number] learners across all six locations, demonstrating its commitment to quality education and community engagement.
IWEP's English training program offers multiple levels, from basic to advanced, catering to diverse learner needs Students can select from General English, Grammar, or exam preparation courses for TOEIC, IELTS, and TOEFL Each course typically lasts three months, with classes held three times a week for ninety minutes, ensuring comprehensive and flexible language learning.
Class sizes typically range from eighteen to twenty-five students, fostering an engaging learning environment The classrooms are well-equipped with air-conditioners, CD players, whiteboards, and easily-movable chairs, providing all necessary facilities to support effective teaching and learning.
Figure 1.1 depicts a classroom at IWEP 1, located at 262-264 Ba Thang Hai Street, District 10 The facility includes a dedicated video room where learners engage in lessons through film viewing, with each class scheduled to use it once a month Additionally, a computer room is available on-site; however, it is less frequently utilized by students. -Enhance your article with AI-powered SEO rewriting tools for clear, coherent content—[Learn more](https://pollinations.ai/redirect/2699274)
While learners complete a placement test for grammar and speaking at the beginning, it does not guarantee that all class members are at the same proficiency level The general English classes, particularly C3 and C4, tend to have the largest number of students, as most learners begin their journey at these levels to build foundational knowledge before progressing to higher levels Consequently, the research focused on the pre-intermediate levels of C3 and C4 to address this diversity effectively.
The general English courses primarily focus on developing speaking and listening skills, with learners studying twice a month with native speakers, though Vietnamese teachers play a crucial role in their progress In Base 1, 2, C1, and C2 classes, students focus on listening to lectures, memorizing grammar, and pronunciation, often working in pairs or groups with limited expectations due to their language proficiency At the C3 and C4 levels, there is a greater emphasis on group work (GW) activities, aiming to maximize learning benefits as students can hold basic conversations and are prepared for more advanced communication However, the varied proficiency levels caused by poorly designed end-of-course tests hinder the effectiveness of GW, making it challenging to meet learning objectives at higher levels.
After completing the C4 course, learners can choose to pursue TOEIC, TOEFL, or IELTS preparation classes based on their language proficiency levels While some students opt to continue with C5 and C6 classes to enhance their speaking and listening skills without pursuing certification, this group represents a smaller portion of learners The primary focus of the study is on students aiming for formal certification rather than those solely interested in improving communication skills.
The main textbook for C3 and C4 is Step Forward 3 by Jenni Currie Santamaria, which is the continuity of Step Forward 1 and 2 in the previous classes
Step Forward 3 is an integrated language book designed to develop grammar and the four essential skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing, with a primary focus on speaking The book offers comprehensive support for oral communication through diverse elements such as vocabulary, grammar, listening exercises, and pronunciation practices Structured into twelve engaging units, Step Forward 3 provides an effective approach to enhancing overall English proficiency, making it a valuable resource for learners aiming to improve their communicative skills.
Step Forward Step-By-Step Lesson Plans 3 is also given to the teachers at the beginning of the courses
At IWEP, learners come from diverse backgrounds and span various age groups, including teenagers, young adults, and adults This variety enriches the learning environment and highlights the center's inclusive approach to language education across different ages and cultural experiences.
Teenagers aged 14 to 17 and young adults aged 18 to 29 constitute the primary target groups learning English in Ho Chi Minh City They include high school students, non-English major university students, graduate job seekers, high school graduates aspiring to study or work abroad, and working professionals Despite their diverse backgrounds, most of them have a basic foundation in English from high school, university, or prior courses Their main goal is to enhance their English communication skills to achieve greater efficiency and confidence for future academic and professional success.
The adult population aged between thirty and forty is relatively small, including working professionals, housewives, and retirees They visit the center with the goal of learning English to enhance their daily communication skills This demographic seeks practical language skills to improve their personal and professional interactions.
Most learners are highly motivated and actively participate in their education Despite limited time for at-home review, they adapt well to new teaching and learning methods introduced by teachers Their enthusiasm and flexibility contribute to a positive and effective learning environment.
Teachers at IWEP hold either a bachelor’s or master’s degree, with most being high school or university instructors Many work in foreign companies during the mornings, dedicating their afternoons to teaching Young teachers are often assigned to general English classes due to their enthusiasm and energy, which helps them deliver engaging lessons They possess proficiency in English and effectively conduct classes, although limited exposure to English-speaking communities sometimes leads to uncertainty in teaching Nonetheless, these teachers are eager to learn new teaching methods and continuously improve their skills.
Aims of the research
This study aims to evaluate the implementation of Group Work (GW) in teaching Speaking to pre-intermediate general English students at IWEP It investigates the strengths and weaknesses of the entire GW process to identify areas for improvement The findings will provide practical suggestions for enhancing the effectiveness of GW in this specific educational context, ultimately promoting better speaking skills development among students.
Research questions
The research proceeded based on one guiding question:
“How effective is the use of GW in teaching Speaking to pre-intermediate general English classes at IWEP?”
This study explores the implementation of Group Work (GW) in pre-intermediate general English classrooms at IWEP, addressing three key questions: what do teachers and learners do before, during, and after GW activities; what are the strengths and weaknesses of GW in these classes; and how can its effectiveness be enhanced in this specific educational context The research highlights the roles and actions of both teachers and students throughout the GW process, identifying factors that contribute to successful collaboration and areas needing improvement Findings reveal that GW promotes student engagement and language practice but faces challenges such as insufficient planning and unequal participation To improve GW's effectiveness, targeted strategies and recommendations are proposed, aiming to optimize collaborative learning outcomes in pre-intermediate English settings at IWEP.
The significance of the study
The benefits of cooperative learning, particularly Group Work (GW), have been widely demonstrated globally, but these theories may not directly apply to the Vietnamese educational context Therefore, providing a practical framework and detailed guidelines for teachers to effectively implement GW in teaching Speaking skills in general English classes at foreign language centers is essential Additionally, there is a lack of research on the processes of learning and teaching English at language centers in Ho Chi Minh City, and this study contributes valuable insights into applying GW within that environment Crucially, this research emphasizes the importance of classroom management in enhancing teaching effectiveness, ensuring that weaker students receive support while strong students remain challenged through well-managed GW activities.
Limitations and delimitations
Vietnamese students often find questionnaires challenging and may provide answers that do not reflect their true thoughts, making it difficult to obtain fully reliable data Despite these challenges, the data collection process was conducted meticulously and supplemented with observations and interviews to ensure acceptable validity and reliability Due to time constraints, the study focused solely on observable and explicitly explainable factors, leaving implicit aspects like mental factors unexamined.
This research was conducted exclusively within the context of IWEP Language School, focusing solely on pre-intermediate general English classes Consequently, caution should be exercised when applying these findings to broader populations, as their generalizability remains uncertain.
Overview of the study
The study comprises five chapters in sequence as follows:
Chapter I : Introduction – gives an introduction of GW as integral parts in the current trend of teaching Speaking at language schools in order to serve the need for learners’ communication This section also describes the learning environment and the learners’ and teachers’ characteristics for an understanding of what will be addressed in later parts The researcher’s motivation to undertake this study is also explained in this chapter The research questions are included in logical relation to the aims of the study
Chapter II : Literature Review – provides the theoretical bases and critical overview of the existing work in this field
Chapter III : Research Methodology – includes a presentation of the research questions, followed by a description of the subjects, instruments and data collection procedure
Chapter IV : Findings and Discussions – presents the study results after the collected data were analyzed and discusses the findings
Chapter V : Conclusion and Recommendations – summarizes some important findings and provides recommendations for using GW in teaching Speaking at language schools Besides that, suggested areas for further research are also included
In this chapter, the literature relevant to the study is reviewed in three separate sections: teaching Speaking in the new era, cooperative learning, and theory of GW
This article explores the applicability of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and learner-centered approaches in English classrooms at language schools, emphasizing the critical role of cooperative learning in modern teaching methods It defines cooperative learning, discusses its various styles and the conditions necessary for effectiveness, and introduces Group Work (GW) as a specific cooperative learning strategy The discussion covers GW’s definition, stages of group development, the roles of teachers and learners, and effective speaking activities within groups Additionally, it highlights the advantages and potential challenges of GW, proposing solutions to common problems The article concludes with a review of recent studies on the implementation of GW in teaching English as a foreign language in Ho Chi Minh City, demonstrating its relevance and effectiveness in current educational contexts.
2.1 Teaching Speaking in the new era 2.1.1 Teaching Speaking with CLT
In language teaching, communication is comprised of four essential skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing Listening and reading are classified as receptive skills, while speaking and writing are productive skills (Davies & Pearse, 2000: 74) All four skills are equally important, and developing proficiency in each is crucial for mastering a language.
Vietnam’s current open-door policy has attracted significant foreign investments and collaborative ventures, leading learners to prioritize developing practical speaking skills Modern English education emphasizes not only grammatical accuracy but also the ability to use language effectively in real-life situations Vietnamese learners need to make quick decisions and adapt their conversations when faced with unexpected challenges Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) effectively meets these demands, making it the primary approach for teaching English speaking skills in Vietnam.
Since 1980, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been widely adopted in language education across numerous countries, emphasizing the development of learners’ communicative competence Its primary focus is on enabling students to effectively use the language for real-life communication, as highlighted by Davies and Pearse CLT prioritizes interactive and practical language use over rote memorization, making it a popular approach for fostering functional language skills.
According to (2000), learners need to develop communicative competence, which involves more than just mastering grammatical rules; it requires understanding when, where, and with whom to use language effectively Larsen-Freeman & Long emphasize that true communicative competence encompasses not only sentence formation but also the appropriate context and social aspects of language use.
(1991) have divided it into sub-skills necessary to master it These are linguistic competence, pragmatic competence, discourse competence, strategic competence and fluency (p 56)
Communicative competence is a challenging goal for learners to achieve, and Harmer (1990) expressed skepticism about whether teachers can effectively teach these skills in the classroom, given that they reflect authentic language use outside the learning environment He argued that it might be an impossible and unnecessary goal, suggesting instead that the focus should be on developing communicative efficiency, which he defined as learners being able to express their intended messages In the Vietnamese educational context, emphasizing communicative efficiency should be the primary goal, achieved through increased participation in interaction-based classroom activities that foster real communication skills.
Effective language learning goes beyond listening to and speaking with teachers alone; it requires learners to engage with peers for practice and experimentation Cooperative learning fosters collaborative communication, making it a key component of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) By working with classmates, students can enhance their speaking skills, build confidence, and apply language skills in real-life contexts Incorporating peer interactions through cooperative learning strategies is essential for a well-rounded, communicative language acquisition process.
The development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) shifted the focus from teacher-centered to learner-centered approaches, emphasizing that learners' needs are the top priority In this model, learners decide the course of their learning process by focusing on communication skills that are relevant and important for real-world interactions The learner-centered approach has received positive feedback from both students and teachers, as it fosters greater responsibility and independence among learners Additionally, it boosts learners’ confidence by creating a relaxed, respectful environment that encourages openness and values their opinions and ideas.
Learner-centeredness emphasizes communication fluency over accuracy, encouraging classroom activities such as discussions, dialogues, role-plays, and games rather than just drills and pattern practice Authentic language and materials related to learners’ real-life experiences are prioritized to enhance genuine daily communication Most classroom time is dedicated to learners practicing orally in groups and pairs, fostering interactive speaking skills The new trend in language teaching strongly focuses on cooperative learning to promote collaborative communication and peer support.
2.1.3 The applicability of CLT and learner-centeredness at language schools
Though CLT and learner-centeredness are new concepts in Vietnamese classrooms, they are the target of language teaching in Vietnam, especially teaching speaking skills
CLT and learner-centered approaches are particularly effective for young and adult learners at language centers, who tend to differ from traditional students with higher motivation and expectations According to Knowles (1975), adult learners are self-directed, goal-oriented, and focused on practical relevance, requiring the freedom to guide their own learning process They know their learning goals and seek knowledge that directly applies to their work or personal responsibilities, emphasizing usefulness over mere interest in the subject Additionally, adult learners bring valuable life experiences and prior knowledge into the classroom, enhancing the learning experience.
Implementing the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and learner-centered approaches remains challenging for students, who require significant guidance from teachers to initiate meaningful change Emphasizing communication skills without adequately focusing on language accuracy can hinder learners’ ability to use English effectively in real-life situations Cooperative learning, being learner-centered and essential for developing communicative speaking skills, plays a vital role, but determining how to optimize its effectiveness in this context continues to be an important area for consideration.
Cooperative learning
There are three primary types of learning: individual, competitive, and cooperative learning, each with its own advantages and disadvantages While individual and competitive learning have been extensively studied and implemented over the years, the focus has shifted toward cooperative learning due to its effectiveness in meeting the modern demands of language education.
Cooperative teaching, as defined by Richards (1993), is an instructional approach where classrooms are organized to facilitate students working collaboratively in small teams The core of this method hinges on the concept of “cooperative,” emphasizing the importance of teamwork in the learning process This approach promotes active student engagement and fosters a collaborative learning environment, making it an effective strategy for enhancing student outcomes.
Johnson & Johnson (1987) identified three interconnected types of cooperative learning to enhance student engagement and achievement Informal cooperative learning is a short-term strategy used to reinforce direct instruction through brief, peer discussion, helping students process material cognitively Formal cooperative learning involves students working collaboratively over a period of one class session to several weeks to complete shared tasks and achieve common learning goals Cooperative base groups are long-term, stable groups lasting an entire course, dedicated to providing ongoing support, encouragement, and academic progress for each member Implementing these cooperative learning types can improve classroom dynamics, student understanding, and overall academic success.
These three types of cooperative learning support each other and might all be used in a single class session
2.2.3 Conditions for effective cooperative learning
It is only under certain conditions that cooperative learning can bring benefits to language learning and teaching According to Johnson & Johnson
(1987: 12), group learning is called “cooperative” learning when they have the following characteristics: a Positive interdependence
Group members must fulfill two key responsibilities: mastering assigned materials and ensuring all members understand them, fostering effective team learning Each member contributes their strengths and compensates for others' weaknesses, promoting collaborative success According to Deutsch (1962), learners need to see that their ability to achieve personal learning goals depends on the success of their peers in the group, highlighting the importance of mutual support While language school settings may have less intense grading than high schools or universities, it's crucial for learners to recognize the value of working together, which can be achieved through clear instructions and thorough preparation from teachers Incorporating cooperative learning strategies enhances group cohesion and improves overall language acquisition outcomes.
Effective group collaboration is fostered through strategies such as dividing resources and assigning complementary roles, ensuring each member has a unique and essential part in the overall task These methods help establish positive interdependence within the learning group, motivating members to work collaboratively Additionally, promotive face-to-face interaction plays a crucial role by encouraging active communication and support among group members, further enhancing group cohesion and learning outcomes Implementing these strategies promotes a productive and engaging group dynamic that benefits all participants.
Effective group work requires members to actively support, encourage, and praise each other's efforts while providing constructive face-to-face feedback Group interactions involve problem-solving discussions, knowledge sharing, and mutual assistance After activities, teachers should facilitate self-evaluation and group evaluations to help learners reflect on their level of support and set positive attitudes for future collaboration Emphasizing individual accountability ensures that each member takes personal responsibility for their contributions, fostering accountability and enhancing overall group success Optimizing group dynamics with clear communication, reflection, and personal responsibility contributes to a more productive learning environment.
Individual accountability is crucial, as each group member is responsible not only for their contributions but also for supporting others Effective group work relies on everyone actively participating to achieve shared goals The primary objective of group work (GW) is to strengthen each member as an individual, fostering personal growth and independence Therefore, it is essential that no member relies solely on others or remains passive; every individual must contribute their fair share to ensure the success of the team.
To promote fair participation, teachers should maintain small group sizes and randomly assess students by calling on individual members to present their group’s work, observe contributions, and record individual efforts Assigning roles such as a checker within each group encourages accountability, as team members explain their reasoning with peer support Developing interpersonal and small-group skills is essential for fostering effective collaboration and ensuring every student actively contributes to group activities.
To achieve mutual goals, learners need to build strong relationships by getting to know each other, communicating clearly and effectively, accepting and supporting one another, and resolving conflicts constructively Since interpersonal and social skills are not innate, it's essential to teach learners how to interact efficiently, fostering high-quality cooperation and teamwork Developing these skills enhances collaboration and ensures a positive learning environment.
Teachers can facilitate ice-breaking activities that encourage learners to discuss their interests and get to know each other better, fostering a supportive learning environment Additionally, instructors can equip learners with essential teamwork skills such as time management, decision-making, problem solving, leadership, negotiation, and conflict management, which can be integrated into speaking exercises or taught individually These skills are accessible and manageable for adult learners, promoting effective collaboration Incorporating group processing further enhances learning by helping learners reflect on their teamwork experiences and improve their interpersonal skills.
Group processing is defined as reflecting on a group session Group members will decide together what actions were helpful or unhelpful, and what actions should be continued or changed
Effective group work in the classroom involves teachers observing student interactions, analyzing collaboration challenges, and providing targeted feedback to enhance teamwork Encouraging cross-observations and evaluations by group members promotes accountability and peer learning It is essential to foster good working relationships, ensure constructive feedback on individual participation, celebrate group successes, and reinforce positive behaviors to create a supportive and productive learning environment.
A group is considered more cooperative when it meets five key criteria, which are essential for effective classroom learning Both teachers and students must understand these requirements to foster a collaborative and productive learning environment Recognizing and achieving these criteria can significantly enhance cooperation within group settings, leading to more engaged and successful classroom experiences.
GW
GW is a form of cooperative learning Therefore, cooperative learning’s definition, types and criteria for being effective applied to those of GW
A group is defined as a collection of individuals who interact and are physically aware of each other, perceiving themselves as a unified entity (Handy, 1976) The primary purpose of forming a group is to work collaboratively towards a common goal (Lewis and Slade, 1994: 172) Creating effective groups enhances teamwork, improves communication, and facilitates goal achievement, making it essential for organizational success.
In language teaching, Group Work (GW) is defined as a learning activity where a small group of learners collaborate, either working on a shared task or different components of a larger project Tasks are typically chosen collaboratively by group members, promoting active engagement and learner autonomy (Richards, 1993) Implementing effective GW enhances communication skills, fosters teamwork, and encourages peer learning, making it a vital component of communicative language teaching methodologies.
“particular value in the practice of oral fluency.” (Ur, 1996: 32)
Group Work (GW) is a collaborative classroom activity involving three or more students working together on a communicative speaking task These tasks can range from simple activities like exchanging ideas to more complex tasks such as performing a play Implementing GW enhances students' communication skills and promotes active participation in language learning This approach fosters teamwork, critical thinking, and conversational fluency, making it an effective strategy for engaging students and improving language proficiency in the classroom.
Cooperative learning in the classroom can involve forming groups that last for a short period or the entire course, depending on the activity While group contributions can be assessed through formal grading, practical constraints like short lesson durations, student absences, and limited grading systems often lead teachers to create informal groups for specific activities Typically, these groups are temporary, but they can also be maintained for several weeks to foster better student relationships or complete longer projects, though rarely for the entire course duration.
The five criteria of cooperative learning mentioned above must be met for
GW to be truly effective
In 1965, Tuckman described the five stages that a group can go through, which are:
Stage 1: Forming – the stage when members get together Individuals will gather information about each other, about the task, and how to approach it This is a simple preliminary stage before the learners discuss the task
Stage 2: Storming – members begin to find out ways to solve the task together As the name suggests, some minor or serious conflicts may arise when roles and responsibilities are approached in this stage It is important for the teacher to give clear instructions and rules to solve conflicts and help the group to get past this difficult step
Stage 3: Norming – rules and responsibilities are clear and agreed in the group Having argued, group members now understand each other better They start to listen to each other, appreciate, and support one another However, they have to work hard to attain this stage and go to the next one or else they will revert back to the storming stage
Stage 4: Performing – group members work together as a team with interdependence and flexibility Members know each other very well Every one takes part equally and performs their roles effectively
Stage 5: Adjourning – the stage when individuals are proud of having fulfilled the task successfully and glad to have been part of a wonderful job They may move on with the group or take another one
Not all groups progress to stages 4 and 5; many remain at stage 1, highlighting the importance of understanding group development to effectively guide them Recognizing the current stage enables teachers to implement strategies that help groups reach the high-performing “performing stage.” Additionally, keeping group members together for an extended period fosters better understanding and collaboration, essential for successful group dynamics and optimal learning outcomes.
2.3.3 Roles of teachers and learners in GW 2.3.3.1 Roles of teachers in GW
Effective guidance in cooperative group work (GW), as outlined by Johnson & Johnson (1987), involves preparing students by outlining the benefits, criteria, and potential challenges of GW at the outset Teachers must make critical pre-instructional decisions regarding group size, formation, roles, materials, and seating arrangements, ensuring clear understanding of the task, goals, vocabulary, strategies, and social skills required Forming heterogeneous groups promotes peer learning and shared responsibility, though grouping by ability can also be effective with tailored materials During the activity, teachers monitor progress, provide assistance as needed, and facilitate the presentation of group results, encouraging turn-taking Finally, teachers assess group performance and foster constructive peer feedback to enhance collaborative learning outcomes.
These stages are considered steps of Guided Work (GW) instruction, with teachers adapting the order and timing based on each class's needs As a learner-centered approach, students actively contribute to selecting discussion topics, identifying skills to develop, and deciding on presentation methods, ensuring their needs are prioritized Although it may require time for learners to become comfortable making these decisions, this process guarantees that their individual learning goals are addressed and met.
To achieve the five criteria of effective Guided Writing (GW) outlined in section 2.2.3, learners must assume more active and responsible roles in their learning process According to Wright (1987: 37), learners' responsibilities in GW include actively engaging in their writing tasks, taking ownership of their progress, and demonstrating commitment to improvement Emphasizing learner responsibility is essential for fostering effective GW and ensuring meaningful language development.
The learner consistently demonstrates a proactive attitude by encouraging others to stay motivated and persist in their efforts They are willing to challenge the majority decision when necessary, showcasing independent thinking, and willingly accept leadership roles within group settings The learner actively participates in brainstorming sessions to generate innovative ideas for tasks, fostering collaborative problem-solving Additionally, they openly discuss and exchange ideas on task solutions, contributing to effective group communication When the group decides on a new role or responsibility, the learner embraces it enthusiastically, supporting team cohesion and collaborative success.
Many Vietnamese language learners are naturally shy and hesitant to actively participate in language practice, often believing that they should be constantly corrected by the teacher or that the teacher should control the entire lesson As a result, these responsibilities cannot be fulfilled immediately, highlighting the need for more encouraging and interactive teaching approaches to motivate students to become more active language learners.
Assigning clear roles to each group member clarifies expectations and enhances learner engagement in the collaborative process Depending on learners’ language proficiency and personalities, they can assume various roles that foster active participation According to Mallard, four essential roles are vital for the success of most group activities, ensuring effective communication and teamwork.
- Leader / Facilitator is responsible for keeping the conversation going, for calling on the quiet member, and for helping to monitor those that tend to monopolize the conversation
Research questions
The research proceeded based on one guiding question:
“How effective is the use of GW in teaching Speaking to pre-intermediate general English classes at IWEP?”
This article explores the activities of teachers and learners before, during, and after Guided Writing (GW) tasks in pre-intermediate general English classrooms at IWEP, highlighting key practices that facilitate language development It evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of GW in these classes, providing insight into how the method supports student engagement and learning outcomes Additionally, the article offers targeted suggestions to enhance the effectiveness of GW in this specific educational setting, aiming to optimize classroom processes and improve learner proficiency.
The study design
To address the research questions and sub-questions, a mixed-methods approach was employed, combining surveys with questionnaires for teachers and learners, classroom observations, and interviews This comprehensive study design integrates both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods to ensure a thorough analysis of the research topic.
Surveys are an effective research tool for exploring, describing, and explaining people’s characteristics, views, and opinions, as highlighted by Brown (1994) This method was selected for the study due to its efficiency in managing a large number of participants To enhance data validity, the study also incorporated a critical analysis of class observations and interviews, forming a comprehensive approach known as triangulation This multi-method strategy ensured a more accurate and reliable understanding of the research questions.
This section describes the design of the study in three parts: the subjects, the instruments, and the data collection procedures
The study was conducted from April to June 2008, during which the locations of the campuses and the number of pre-intermediate learners at each site were meticulously documented.
Table 3.1 Numbers of pre-intermediate classes at IWEP
IWEP 1 262-264, Ba Thang Hai Street, District 10 9 classes
(168 learners) IWEP 2 349, Hoang Van Thu Street, Tan Binh
(88 learners) IWEP 3 488, Dien Bien Phu Street, Binh Thanh
(158 learners) IWEP 4 1579-1579A, Ba Thang Hai Street,
(132 learners) IWEP 5 207-209, Phan Dang Luu Street, Phu
(65 learners) IWEP 6 310, Xo Viet Nghe Tinh Street, Binh
It was observed that IWEP 1 and 4 were on the same street, and IWEP 3 and
IWEP 1, 2, 5, and 6 were identified as representative samples of the entire population due to their proximity Specifically, IWEP 1 and IWEP 6 had larger learner populations, leading to the selection of two C3 classes and two C4 classes from these sites In contrast, IWEP 2 and IWEP 5, with smaller populations, were represented by one C3 class and one C4 class each.
To select participants for the study, a fishbowl draw technique was used due to the small overall population of eighty classes Twelve random classes from the C3 and C4 categories were chosen by numbering each class on slips of paper, placing them into a box, and drawing them sequentially without looking until twelve classes were selected This method ensured a fair and unbiased selection process The twelve selected classes comprised a total of 266 learners, forming the first participant group for the research.
Table 3.2 Classes involved in the study IWEP 1 262-264, Ba thang Hai Street, District 10 2 C3 classes
2 C4 classes (46 learners) IWEP 2 349, Hoang Van Thu Street, Tan Binh
( 22 learners) IWEP 5 207-209, Phan Dang Luu Street, Phu
(23 learners) IWEP 6 310, Xo Viet Nghe Tinh Street, Binh
The second group of participants consisted of twelve teachers responsible for these classes, along with eight experienced teachers who had taught pre-intermediate general classes Some teachers taught both C3 and C4 classes, while others managed same-level classes across different school branches; therefore, the researcher ensured to select twelve distinct classes taught by different teachers This targeted selection, rather than a random choice from the second group, was intended to provide a comprehensive understanding of the sample population.
The data in this study were collected primarily from the questionnaires, observations, and interviews These instruments will be formulated in the following sections
Two questionnaires were specially designed for learners and teachers to collect data addressing the research questions, utilizing multiple-choice items and open-ended questions for suggestions on improving GW To ensure clarity and reliability, the questionnaires were written in Vietnamese, facilitating understanding regardless of learners’ proficiency levels and preventing response bias Both questionnaires were anonymous, and the use of ordinal numbers for options simplified the coding process The complete questionnaires, along with their English translations, are included in Appendix 1.
The learner’s questionnaire had two main groups of thirty-three questions in total
The first group of questions (Questions 1 to 6) aimed to gather essential personal information from learners, including gender, age range, occupation, duration of study at IWEP, primary motivations for learning, and self-assessment of speaking skills This data was crucial for creating comprehensive learner profiles to better understand the participants involved in the study.
The second group of the questionnaire consisted of three smaller parts, each of which served their respective purposes
This section explores learners’ perspectives on how group work (GW) was implemented in the classroom It examines the frequency of GW activities for teaching speaking skills, the typical size of student groups, and whether groups were student-formed or teacher-assigned The analysis also considers the duration students remained in the same groups and the length of individual activities Additionally, it evaluates the types and sources of activities frequently organized within groups, along with challenges students faced when skipping certain steps The study investigates whether learners felt equipped with the necessary vocabulary, structures, and GW skills for both activities and group processes Furthermore, it examines the presence of role division within groups, the common roles students assumed, and the criteria used for assigning these roles, providing a comprehensive view of group work dynamics from the learners’ perspectives.
The second part of the study (Questions 21-32) assessed the effectiveness of using Google Workspace (GW) to enhance speaking skills in the classroom, addressing research sub-question b) Learners reported the percentage of time they used English in group work (Question 21), the number of active participants in each group (Question 22), and the reasons for decreased activity levels (Question 23) They highlighted the advantages of GW for teaching speaking (Question 24) and described the improvements in their speaking skills resulting from group work (Question 25), specifying which aspects GW helped improve (Question 26) Participants also indicated whether their GW skills had improved (Question 27), and identified main challenges such as varying English abilities within groups (Questions 28-30) Additionally, they discussed strategies employed by teachers and students to address these issues (Questions 30 and 31) Finally, learners expressed their overall preference for working in groups (Question 32), providing insights into the impact of GW on collaborative learning.
Question 33, an open-ended inquiry, was designed to gather learners' suggestions for improving GW in the future, effectively addressing research sub-question c) This feedback provides valuable insights into learners' perspectives and areas for potential development, contributing to the ongoing enhancement of GW.
In the questionnaire for teachers, there were twenty-eight items also arranged in two groups
The first group with four items was the background information which asked about the teachers’ gender, age, teaching experience, and degrees
The second group had four parts
Part 1 was the personal evaluation of teachers on learners’ speaking skills in his/her C3 or C4 classes (Question 5), as well as the variation in knowledge among them (Question 6) If the class had the problem of mixed ability, Question 7 found out what the reasons were Teachers were also asked if it was necessary to organize speaking activities in group for these classes (Question 8)
The research investigated the implementation of Guided Work (GW) by examining how frequently teachers conduct it (Question 9), the specific part of the lesson during which it occurs (Question 10), and the typical duration of these activities (Question 11) Additionally, the study explored whether teachers utilize activities from textbooks or supplementary materials, and identified the common types of activities employed for GW, providing a comprehensive understanding of its practical application in the classroom.
Questions 14 to 18 focused on group dynamics, including the number of group members, decision-making processes for group formation, whether members were chosen intentionally or randomly, teachers’ preferences for optimal grouping methods, and the frequency of group member changes Questions 19 and 20 outlined the steps involved in conducting group work (GW), allowing teachers to identify which steps they typically skip or find challenging The final question in this section, question 21, sought teachers’ opinions on learners’ collaborative skills when working in groups.
The research aimed to evaluate teachers’ perceptions of the GW process, with data collected through specific survey questions Questions 22 and 23 assessed the extent of English usage by learners and the appropriateness of their grammar and vocabulary for the context Questions 24 to 26 explored the effectiveness of GW, its classroom advantages, and the challenges teachers encounter when using it to teach Speaking Additionally, Question 27 identified the methods teachers employ to enhance knowledge variation among group members.
Part 4 (Question 28) was an open question which got teachers’ ideas about how to make GW better These suggestions helped to answer sub-question c)
To further investigate what teachers and learners did in class before, during and after a group activity, classroom observations were carried out
Summary
Chapter 3 has presented the methodology used in the study so as to investigate how GW was conducted to teach Speaking in pre-intermediate general English classes at IWEP and how effective it was The instruments to collect data were questionnaires for teachers and learners, class observations, and interviews with some participants from both groups of samples The results from these sources of data will be analyzed and discussed in the next chapter.