NGUYEN THI BAO TRANG STUDENT CODE: M1622066EXPLORING ENGLISH-MAJORED UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT IN PREPARING FOR COLLABORATIVE ORAL PRESENTATIONS MASTER’S THESIS PRINCIPLES AND M
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Collaborative learning is viewed as an occasion when individuals can interact with different viewpoints in a reciprocal manner, according to Sills (1988) Meanwhile, Nunan
Collaborative learning is defined as a process where learners collectively take responsibility for knowledge development through structured activities, with teachers facilitating and participating in the learning process (1992) While the terms collaborative learning and cooperative learning are often used interchangeably, they can be distinguished based on various researchers' perspectives, as noted by Greenfield (2003) and Nguyen et al (2005), as well as Bruffee (1995) and McInnerney and Roberts.
(2009) However, no matter how it is defined by different researchers, the common point is that collaborative learning enables students to work together.
Collaborative learning is a vital teaching method that offers numerous benefits for learners According to Gillies (2007), the interactive nature of collaborative learning fosters individual accountability, encouraging students to engage actively and build shared knowledge (Barron, 2000) Additionally, it enhances self-efficacy, boosts motivation and attitudes, and leads to improved learning outcomes (Huang & Wu, 2011) As noted by Xu et al (2023), this approach is increasingly utilized in higher education globally, as it significantly enhances students' knowledge and social skills.
Collaborative learning has gained traction in Vietnamese education, as highlighted by Bui (2019), in alignment with national educational policies Research by Tran et al (2019) and Tran (2019) demonstrates the positive effects of collaborative learning on language acquisition among Vietnamese students Group oral presentations exemplify collaborative learning, requiring students to collaborate for a unified presentation This approach offers numerous benefits for language learners, including the integration of language skills, increased opportunities for speaking English, enhanced decision-making abilities, knowledge acquisition through English, and a focus on learner-centered education (Al-Issa & Al-Qubtan, 2010) Consequently, group oral presentations are widely adopted in higher education institutions worldwide (Tsang).
2020) and viewed as a crucial part of language learning in university environments (Ho et al., 2023).
Oral presentations can either be spontaneous or carefully prepared, as noted by Al-Issa and Al-Qubtan (2010) When conducted spontaneously in class, students benefit from teacher supervision, which enhances their engagement in collaborative learning Conversely, when students prepare for presentations outside of class without teacher oversight, it raises concerns about their level of engagement in the collaborative process Lack of engagement can hinder their ability to acquire essential knowledge and skills (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012) Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how students engage in preparing for collaborative oral presentations outside the classroom.
When preparing for a group oral presentation, it's essential to divide responsibilities among members, ensuring each person has a specific role This division raises questions about whether students will focus solely on their individual tasks or remain engaged with the entire group's efforts Various factors can influence student engagement throughout this collaborative process Previous studies, including those by Aubrey et al (2020), Dao and McDonough (2018), and Qiu and Cheng (2021), have explored these dynamics in detail.
(2022), only found out the factors affecting students’ engagement within classroom contexts There is hardly any research on factors influencing students’ engagement in collaborative work outside the classroom.
This study aims to investigate the characteristics of student engagement and the factors that influence their involvement in preparing for collaborative oral presentations outside the classroom.
Research aims and research questions
This study investigates the characteristics of student engagement during the preparation of collaborative oral presentations outside the classroom, while also examining the factors that influence their involvement in this collaborative learning experience.
Based on the research aims, two research questions are implemented for this study:Research question 1: How do English-majored undergraduate students engage in preparing for oral presentations?
Research question 2: What factors affect their engagement in preparing for oral presentations?
This research offers valuable insights for school administrators, teachers, and students regarding the implementation of collaborative learning approaches, highlighting the importance of student engagement in such activities While numerous studies have explored student engagement in language learning within the classroom, research on engagement in outside-classroom activities remains limited This study aims to fill that gap by examining how students engage in collaborative learning activities beyond the classroom, particularly in preparing for oral presentations The findings will enable schools and teachers to understand the characteristics and influencing factors of student engagement, allowing them to develop effective strategies to enhance participation and address potential disengagement in collaborative learning activities.
This research enhances the existing literature on student engagement by exploring collaborative learning outside traditional classroom settings, where students independently manage their learning without teacher supervision While previous studies focused primarily on school environments, this study offers new insights into how students engage with peers during collaborative tasks, thereby broadening the understanding of engagement in educational contexts The findings will serve as a valuable resource for future researchers seeking to investigate student engagement in collaborative learning activities.
This study consists of five chapters, including (I) Introduction, (II) Literature Review, (III) Research Methodology, (IV) Results and Discussion, and (V) Conclusion.
Chapter I presents the rationale, the significance of the research, and the organization of the study.
Chapter II reviews the literature related to the current study It starts with the conceptual framework, which describes the definitions of the key terms Besides, some previous related studies were discussed, and the research gaps were clarified Some theories are also mentioned for the sake of further discussion.
Chapter III presents the research aims and research questions Besides, it describes the participants and informs research design, data collection instruments, data analysis, and ethical considerations.
Chapter IV reports and analyzes the quantitative and qualitative results.
Chapter V gives a summary of the key findings, then, these results are discussed by relating them to the previous studies Additionally, the interpretation of the results by the theories mentioned in Chapter II is also presented Finally, some pedagogical implications are withdrawn and the limitations and suggestions for further research are proposed.
This chapter introduces the conceptual framework outlining the essential concepts of the research, followed by a review of related studies that highlight the existing research gap Finally, it presents a theoretical framework that serves to interpret the collected data and elucidate the findings.
Gary Natriello was among the first to formally define student engagement, describing it as participation in school (Natriello, 1984), focusing solely on behavioral aspects Expanding on this, Finn (1989) linked student dropout and completion rates to the long-term processes of engagement and disengagement, incorporating both behavioral participation and emotional connections to school Despite these contributions, a consensus on the definition of engagement and its subtypes remains elusive, as highlighted in studies by Christenson and Anderson (2002) and Fredricks et al.
In recent years, the understanding of engagement has evolved to encompass multiple dimensions Initially, behavior, cognition, and emotion were identified as core components (Appleton et al., 2004; Appleton et al., 2006) Subsequent research expanded this framework by introducing additional dimensions; for example, Philp and Duchesne (2016) included a social dimension, while Oga-Baldwin (2019) introduced an agentic dimension A recent study by Yanbo et al (2023) identifies five key dimensions of engagement: behavioral, emotional, cognitive, cultural, and social.
Engagement is a multidimensional concept that is often confused with motivation and self-regulation Oga-Baldwin (2019) emphasizes that engagement is distinct from motivation, as students may be motivated to learn a foreign language yet fail to complete learning tasks He argues that while motivation represents will and intention, engagement is the transition from intention to action Additionally, Ben-Eliyahu et al (2018) highlight that self-regulation requires a baseline level of engagement; learners must first be engaged with a task before they can effectively regulate their learning, adjust strategies, and monitor their progress towards goals.
Engagement in education has evolved significantly due to its critical role in academic success, as highlighted by Klem and Connell (2004), who emphasize that high learner engagement correlates with numerous positive educational outcomes Christenson et al (2012) note that engaged students exhibit greater academic persistence, achievement, aspirations, improved mental health, lower dropout rates, and reduced high-risk behaviors Skinner and Pitzer (2012) further assert that constructive engagement is essential for learners to acquire knowledge and skills, positioning it as the sole pathway to long-term achievement They also indicate that high-quality engagement enhances students' feelings of academic competence.
Engagement is characterized by consistent action, as highlighted by Hiver et al (2021), emphasizing the importance of transforming thoughts into practice for effective learning This active participation enables learners to solve problems, self-regulate, and ultimately master knowledge and skills, fostering a sense of achievement that propels their ongoing learning journey Moreover, engagement is significantly influenced by various contexts, including teachers, peers, schools, classrooms, and tasks, demonstrating its malleability and responsiveness to changes in the learning environment (Sun et al.).
2022) With these characteristics, teachers can shape students’ engagement by changing the context or related factors.
The definitions of engagement and its subtypes remain controversial and are often confused with related concepts like motivation and self-regulation Variations in definitions across research studies indicate that the same term can have different meanings, influenced by context and potential overlap In this study, I adopt a three-dimension model of engagement—cognitive, behavioral, and emotional—since these dimensions are consistently recognized in the literature Following a detailed exploration of these definitions, I aim to propose clear distinctions among them that align with the context of this research.
Cognitive engagement is defined by researchers in varying ways, with some emphasizing the importance of psychological investment in learning According to Lawson and Lawson (2013), this perspective highlights the depth of mental involvement that students exhibit in their educational activities.
Cognitive engagement is defined by 6 al (2004) as the thoughtfulness and willingness to invest effort in understanding complex ideas and mastering challenging academic skills Christenson et al (2008) emphasize that perceived relevance of school contributes to cognitive engagement Additionally, other researchers highlight that cognitive engagement encompasses students' mental effort and activity during the learning process For example, Helme and Clarke (2001) describe it as sustained attention and mental effort, often incorporating self-regulation strategies, while Svalberg (2009) notes that it involves maintaining focus to achieve learning goals.
Cognitive engagement in students is defined as the mental effort they dedicate to learning activities, emphasizing the importance of their thoughts and attention during the process This internal cognitive process is crucial for effective learning and reflects the level of involvement students have in their educational experiences.
LITERATURE
Flow Theory
Flow theory, developed by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in the 1970s, describes a mental state where cognitive, physiological, and emotional elements converge In this optimal condition, individuals experience heightened concentration, profound engagement, and a seamless integration of action and awareness They feel a sense of control over their actions, derive enjoyment from the activity, and perceive time in a distorted manner.
Group flow, as discussed by Cziksentmihalyi (1990) and Biasutti (2011), is a collective state that emerges from the collaborative interactions among group members, who must focus on a shared goal to achieve optimal results This dynamic fosters a reciprocal relationship where group flow energizes individuals, enhancing their personal flow, which in turn benefits the group To effectively manage group flow, it's essential to establish clear, attainable goals and minimize competition, while encouraging support and constructive feedback among members Ultimately, achieving flow leads to heightened concentration and engagement, with the quality of the experience enhanced through collaboration with others who share the same objectives.
Flow theory illustrates the intense concentration, actions, and emotions experienced by individuals in a flow state, highlighting three key dimensions of student engagement This framework helps explain the varying levels of student engagement across these dimensions Additionally, the interplay between individual flow and group flow provides insight into students' engagement levels during both individual and collaborative tasks.
Ecological System Theory .16 2.6 Summary
Ecological System Theory, introduced by Urie Bronfenbrenner in 1979, highlights how various environmental layers impact language teaching and learning This framework consists of five interconnected layers: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem, as outlined by Bronfenbrenner in 1994 The microsystem represents the immediate environment where individuals interact, emphasizing the importance of these interactions in the learning process.
The article discusses the various systems influencing a developing person's interactions within their environment It describes the microsystem as the immediate setting, such as family and school, where direct engagement occurs The mesosystem highlights the connections between different settings, like home and school, while the exosystem involves indirect influences from other social contexts The macrosystem encompasses broader cultural and subcultural factors that shape beliefs and lifestyles, extending beyond the classroom Lastly, the chronosystem addresses changes over time in both the individual and their environment This theory offers valuable insights into the contextual factors that impact the learning and teaching process, relevant to teachers, students, and their relationships within educational activities.
Ecological System theory identifies five distinct environments that influence students' learning, providing a framework to understand the various factors impacting their engagement By categorizing these influences, the theory offers valuable insights into how different environments affect student involvement in the learning process.
This chapter outlines the conceptual framework that defines essential terms for this research, such as engagement, cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and collaborative oral presentation Additionally, it explores the factors that influence student engagement and provides a critical review of relevant literature.
This article reviews 16 prior studies before identifying a research gap It concludes by discussing and justifying the application of Flow Theory and Ecological System Theory to interpret the research findings effectively.
This chapter outlines the research methodology utilized in the study, structured into ten distinct sections It begins with the presentation of the research aims and questions, followed by an explanation of the research design Next, details regarding the research context and participants are provided, leading into the data collection and analysis procedures The chapter concludes with a comprehensive overview of the entire research process to enhance reader understanding, accompanied by a brief summary of the section.
3.1 Research aims and research questions
This study investigates the characteristics of student engagement during the preparation for oral presentations outside of class, as well as the factors influencing their participation in this collaborative learning experience.
Based on the research aims, two research questions are implemented for this study:
Research question 1: How do English-majored undergraduate students engage in preparing for oral presentations?
Research question 2: What factors affect their engagement in preparing for oral presentations?
This research utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data gathered through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews As noted by Fraenkel et al (2012), employing both methods offers a more thorough insight into research issues than relying on a single approach.
In the initial phase of the study, questionnaires were distributed to students to gather quantitative data on the engagement levels of English-majored students in preparing for oral presentations Utilizing questionnaires serves as an effective and economical method for collecting substantial quantitative data (Fraenkel et al., 2012).
In the second stage, semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data, aimed at analyzing the questionnaire results and identifying the factors that affect students' engagement in preparing for collaborative oral presentations.
18 Fraenkel et al (2012), semi-structured interviews allow the interviewers to ask further questions for clarification and deeper information about what interviewees say.
Utilizing a mixed-method approach that combines questionnaires and semi-structured interviews enhances the reliability and depth of data collection, enabling researchers to better address and clarify research problems.
RESEARCH
Participants for questionnaires
The study utilized a purposive sampling technique to select participants, leveraging the researcher’s prior knowledge of the population and the specific research objectives (Fraenkel et al., 2012) To ensure relevance, participants were required to meet two key criteria: they must be undergraduate students majoring in English and possess experience in collaborating on group presentations.
The participants in this study were 139 English-majored students (103 females and
The study involved 36 male students from a university in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, comprising 79 third-year and 60 second-year students majoring in English teacher education With over 80% of participants having completed more than 10 collaborative oral presentations, and around 20% reporting around 10 presentations, they were deemed suitable for the research Furthermore, aligning with Frankel et al (2012), the study's participant count exceeds the minimum requirement of 100 for descriptive studies, ensuring its validity.
19 Table 3.1: Summary of the information of the participants for questionnaire (N9) Variables
Participants for interviews
The study included an optional section in the questionnaires for participants to provide their contact information if they were willing to partake in interviews After data collection, 62 students expressed interest in being interviewed The researcher conducted one-on-one semi-structured interviews with randomly selected participants until data saturation was reached Ultimately, 10 students participated in the interviews, comprising four second-year students (two females and two males) and six third-year students (three females and three males).
Table 3.2: Summary of the information of the participants for interview (N) Participant
Age Gender Self-rated proficiency Academic year 1 20 Male B2 Second 2 21 Female B1
Third 3 20 Female B2 Second 4 20 Female B2 Second 5 21 Male B2 Third 6 20 Male B2
Second 7 21 Male B2 Third 8 21 Female B2 Third 9 21 Female B2 Third 10 21 Male B2
Instruments
To answer the two research questions, a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were used as the data collection instruments Table 3.1 will show how data collection instruments support the findings.
Table 3.3: Research questions and instruments
1 How do English-majored undergraduate students engage in preparing for oral presentations?
2 What factors affect their engagement in preparing for oral presentations?
- Semi-structured interview - Semi-structured interview
The descriptions of each instrument will be presented in more details below.
The questionnaire was designed to gather quantitative data on English-majored undergraduate students' involvement in preparing for collaborative oral presentations, drawing inspiration from the questionnaire used in Xu et al (2023) This choice was made because Xu et al aimed to investigate student engagement in collaborative learning, aligning with the current study's objectives Both studies focused on undergraduate participants, and their data collection processes shared significant similarities Consequently, lecturers employing collaborative learning methods were invited to participate, after which the researcher discussed the implementation of collaborative activities with them to ensure alignment with research criteria Thus, the compatibility in research aims, target participants, and data collection methods justified the adaptation of the questionnaire from Xu et al (2023) for this study.
This study does not replicate Xu et al (2023) but instead introduces a revised questionnaire tailored to the current research context The author redefined engagement dimensions, categorizing the item “If I don't understand the materials related to my group work, I ask someone for help” as behavioral engagement rather than cognitive engagement, as observable actions are emphasized Additionally, while Xu et al (2023) assessed general group work engagement across 11 activities, this study focuses on specific tasks within collaborative oral presentations, proposing new items that capture the nuances of individual contributions Furthermore, the research aims to investigate both individual and group engagement during the preparation for collaborative oral presentations, addressing a gap in Xu et al (2023) that concentrated solely on group dynamics.
21 same extent Thus, the items would be divided into engagement in individual work and engagement in group work.
The current questionnaire differs from the one developed by Xu et al due to three key changes: the reorganization of items, the use of more specific item descriptions, and the separation of items into categories for individual and group work engagement.
(2023) With such changes, the current questionnaire consists of 36 items which are grouped into three clusters (cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement).
Cluster 1 explores students’ cognitive engagement including 12 items (from 1 to 12). Cluster 2 explores students’ behavioral engagement including 12 items (from 13 to
24) Cluster 3 explores students’ emotional engagement including 12 items (from 25 to
In each cluster, the first six items explore students’ engagement in individual work and the second six items explore students’ engagement in group work.
Table 3.4: Summary of three clusters in the questionnaire
Clusters Items Cognitive engagement in individual work 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in group work 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12 Behavioral engagement in individual work 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 in group work 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24 Emotional engagement in individual work 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 in group work 31, 32, 33, 34,
The questionnaire utilizes a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) Never to (5) Always, to assess responses effectively To ensure reliability and clarity, all items were translated into Vietnamese, the students' native language, minimizing ambiguity and misunderstanding Additionally, an optional section at the end allows participants to provide their contact information, including names, genders, courses, emails, and phone numbers, should they consent to participate in follow-up interviews.
Prior to piloting, both the Vietnamese and English versions of the questionnaire underwent thorough verification by the supervisor to guarantee their accuracy and reliability Subsequently, the questionnaires were distributed to the researcher’s classmates in the Master program for testing and feedback This collaborative effort allowed for necessary modifications to be made, ensuring the questionnaires were ready for the piloting phase.
The questionnaire was tested with English studies students, selected for their similar background to the target participants Their experience in making oral presentations made them ideal candidates for the pilot study.
The researcher reached out to lecturers to explain the research objectives and requested their assistance in distributing the pilot questionnaires to selected students through Google Forms After a two-week period, the total number of participants in the pilot study reached 41.
The data collected were analyzed using SPSS software (version 20), and a Scale test was performed to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire The results demonstrated that the questionnaire is reliable, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.90.
Table 3.5: Result of the Scale test on the questionnaire
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 904 363.5.2 Semi-structured interview
3.5.2.1 Description of semi-structured interviews
Semi-structured interviews were utilized to collect qualitative data on student engagement and the factors affecting their preparation for collaborative oral presentations As noted by Fraenkel et al (2012), interviews allow researchers to clarify unclear questions and encourage respondents to elaborate on significant answers In this study, seven interview questions were crafted in alignment with the research objectives and translated into Vietnamese during the interview process to ensure clarity and prevent misunderstandings.
The initial interview question, "When was the last time you collaborated in a group for an oral presentation, and what was the process like?" is designed to guide participants in the interview while revealing key aspects of their group dynamics By analyzing the participants' responses, the researcher can delve deeper into subsequent questions, enhancing the understanding of their collaborative experiences.
The second interview question, “Based on your experience, what do you think makes the process of preparing for oral presentations effective?” seeks to identify key factors that enhance the preparation for collaborative oral presentations Follow-up questions will then investigate how these positive factors influence student engagement during the preparation process.
The third interview question, “Based on your experience, what do you think makes preparing for oral presentations ineffective?” seeks to identify the obstacles that hinder effective preparation for collaborative oral presentations Subsequently, follow-up questions are posed to explore how these negative factors impact student engagement during the preparation process.
The fourth interview question“Apart from the aforementioned factors, according to your own experience, what other factors can affect you in the process of preparing for oral
23 presentations? How?”aims to explore more factors influencing the participants’ engagement in the process of preparing for collaborative oral presentations.
The fifth interview question, "How do you prepare before your group’s rehearsal?" seeks to explore students' approaches to the initial preparation phase for collaborative oral presentations It aims to determine whether they focus on preparing their individual contributions or if they consider the overall group work in their preparation efforts.
The sixth interview question, "What do you do during your group’s rehearsal?" seeks to understand students' involvement in the rehearsal phase of collaborative oral presentations It aims to clarify whether they focus on preparing their individual contributions or on the overall group effort.
The seventh interview question, “What do you do after your rehearsal?” seeks to explore students' engagement in the final phase of preparing for collaborative oral presentations This inquiry helps to clarify whether students focus on preparing their individual contributions or the overall group work.
Data analysis procedures .25 1
This research study utilized a two-stage data analysis process, beginning with the quantitative analysis of questionnaire responses, followed by the qualitative analysis of data gathered from semi-structured interviews.
The quantitative data collected from the questionnaires were coded into numbers and analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software version 20.0.
A scale test was performed to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire items The reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α), with a value exceeding 0.7 indicating that the questionnaire is reliable.
Descriptive statistics tests were utilized to assess student engagement levels, reporting means, maximums, minimums, and standard deviations This analysis offers a thorough insight into students' responses on a 5-point Likert scale.
A Paired-Samples T test was employed to compare the level of students engagement in individual work and in group work.
An Independent-Samples T-test was conducted to assess the engagement levels of second-year and third-year students in preparing for collaborative oral presentations Additionally, a separate Independent-Samples T-test was performed to compare the engagement of female students with that of male students.
Interpretation of the mean scores
The mean score levels are categorized according to Oxford's scale, which includes four classifications: low, medium, high, and very high Significant differences in mean scores are identified when P