Luận văn dealing with upper secondary school students' anxiety in speaking lessons through a cooperative learning environment

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOL UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES wea NGUYÊN THỊ TINH CẢNH DEALING WITH UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDE

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOL UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

wea

NGUYÊN THỊ TINH CẢNH

DEALING WITH UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’

ANXIETY IN SPEAKING LESSONS THROUGH A COOPERATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

NGHIÊN CUU VE VIỆC GIÚP HỌC SINH TRUNG HOC PHO TITONG GIAM LO LANG TRONG CAC GIỜ HỌC NÓI QUA MỘT

MOI TRUONG CO TINH HOP TAC TRONG LGP HOC

MA MINOR THESIS

FIELD: METHODOLOGY

CODE: 601410

HANOI - 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAT, UNIVERSITY, HANOT

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

xo ®œ

NGUYÊN THỊ THANH CỈNH

DEALING WITH UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’

ANXTETY IN SPEAKING LESSONS TITROUGII A COOPERATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

NGHIEN CUU VE VIEC GIUP HOC SINH TRUNG HOC PHO

‘THONG GIAM LO LANG TRONG CAC GIO HOC NOI QUA MỘT

MOI TRUONG CO TINII IGP TAC TRONG L.GP TOC

MA MINOR THESIS

FIELD: METHODOLOGY

CODE: 601410

SUPERVISOR: TU TH] MINH THUY (MA)

HANOT - 2010

1.1.5 Related studies ơn language anxiety in speaking skill 8

1.2 Cooperative loaming

1.2.1 Definitions of cooperative leaming

1.2.2 Components of cooperative learning

1.2.2.4, Interpersonal and small-group skills

1.2.2.5, Group processing

1.2.3 Effectiveness of cooperative learning

1.2.4 Why using a cooperative learning environment to deal with speaking anxiety?

2.1.2 Description of the program

2.1.3 Description of the course

3.1.1 From classroom observations

3.1.2 From staff consultations

3.1.3 From questionnaires for students

3.2.3 Research question 3

CHAPTER 4; THE COURSE

4,1 Structuring students m cooperative learning,

PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS

1 Summary of major findings

2 Recommendations

2.1, Recommendations on teachers & students interaction

2.2 Recommendations on students & students interaction

3 Limitations of the Sindy

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Appendix |: Observation sheet

Appendix 2: Staff consultations

Appendix 3: English version of Forcign Language Classroom Anxicty Scale

Appendix 4: Pre-intervention survey questionnaire

Appendix 5: Sample lessen plans

Appendix 6: Post intervention survey questionname

Appendix 7: Scores and levels of speaking anxiety

Appendix 8: Students’ feedbacks and evaluation on the intervention techniques

LISTS OF TABLES

‘Table 1: Criteria to identify groups of foreign language anxiety levels

Table 2: Student self assessment on their linguistic background

Table 3: The level of student anxiety

Table 4: Levels of anxiety caused by intrinsic factors

Table S: Levels of anxiety caused by extrinsic factors

Table 6: Students’ feedbacks and evaluation on the intervention techniques

LISTS OF FIGURES

Vigure 1: Scores and levels of FLA

Figure 2: Score of students’ facdlucks om the intervention techniques

10

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale for the study

Homer & Redmond (2002) state in a humorous way that “learning a language can be exciting for some but for others it can be a nightmare” Such feelings have been researched as forcign language anxiety for decades This phenomenon has been the research focus of many

linguists and psychologists in recent years Anxiety has been regarded as one of the most important affective factors that influence foreign language acquisition Much research (¢.g., Bailcy, 1983, Horwitz & Cope, 1986, MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994, Young, 1991), especially

in westem countries, has been conducted to find the relationship between anxiety and achievements in the learning of different forcign languages Most studios (Horwitz & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994) arrive at a conclusion that anxiety and achievement are negatively correlated In Vietnam, similar research has also been conducted with different groups of people, mostly with college students The problem of language learning anxiety facing USS students has almost becn overlooked

In EEL environment, anxiety is one of the persistent factors hindering many leamers to

to feel shy and tense; therefore, itis difficult for them to communicate ‘The point that counts is that if we leave this problem unsolved, there will he a likelihood of pushing them into silence ina speaking lesson, which is completely undesirable, Many teachers even felt discouraged when they failed to get their students to participate in their intended activities simply because they were too reserved T have beon wondering about whal the governing factors underlying

anxiety are, From my actual teaching, | have come to realize that anxiety is not only the problem of less-able students but also the able ones This fact has given me an impetus to seek for the causes of anxicty faced by my leamers with the hope to help them out of anxicty and to enhance the classroom atmosphere through a cooperative leaming environment

11

2, Aims of the study

+ To investigate the potential sources of students’ anxiety in English speaking lessons experienced by upper secondary students

| ‘To test how a cooperative leaming environment really works in reducing students” anxiety in speaking lessens

+ To provide some suggestions for teachers to deal with the problem of students’ anxiety in teaching English speaking skill

3 Significance of the study

This study is hoped to provide more insights into the nature of anxiety in learning forcign languages Tl is bound to beiler my own teaching by offering me a more thorough understanding of my students Furthermore, its application may give other teachers some suggestions to get students more involved in speaking lessons by gradually building up their self confidence On the part of students, the research is expected to raise their awareness of the sources of anxicty they cncounter in speaking lessons so as to help them find out the ways to minimize its negative impacts on their academic performance

4 Scope of the study

It would be umpossible for this study to cover all the facets of such a broad issue as students’ anxiety in foreign language leaming due to time constraints as well as the complexily of the walter under consideration, As the thesis title suggests, Testricted this study

to finding the possible causes of student anxiety in speaking lessons, thereby proposing ways

of dealing with this problem through a CLE with vivid explanations and concrete illustrations

of how cach stop is carried out in th

mặc that they arc comprehensible enough fo bo a haruly reference for those who are concerned

5 Method of the study

In this resoarch, a combination of obscrvational and survey mothods wers utilized These two methods were supplemented and strengthened via the use of staff’ consultation approach to make a more realistic and reliable overview of the instructional situation Throughout the stages of the rescarch, the following instruments were cmployed to collect the primary data: Classroom observation, Staff consultation, and Questionnaires,

6 Organization of the study

The study consists of four chapters exclusive of the Introduction and Conclusions

Chapter 1: Literature review provides a theoretical background concerning the factors causing SA in learning I'L including: definition of anxiety, classification, the relationship betwen anxicly and FT caring, causes of learning mxiely, anxicly in speaking skill, anxiety management strategies as well as the related studies on cooperative leaming with its definitions, components, the effectiveness of CL and the bases for applying a CLE in dealing with SA

Chapter 2: Research methodology describes the overall picture of how the research was carricd oul including the rescarch questions, subjects of the study, the instruments employed, data collection and analysis procedures

Chaprer 3: Results and Discussions presents the research results obtained form classroom observations, staff consultations, and questionnaires which were discussed according to thematic units (qualitatively) and in the form of tables (quantitatively) in rclation

to the research questions

Chapter 4 The empirical course

This chapter specifies the practical steps in implementing a speaking lesson in light of a CLE such as how to structure students, what decisions should be made when applying CL, ete logether with two sample tesson plans for illustration

PART TWO: DEVELOPME

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Anxiety in language learning

1.1.1 Definition of ansicty

Anxiety is generally viewed as a psychological concept and has been defined by a grcat many rescarchers Lesse (1970) portraits anxiety as “a phenomenon cxpericnecd as a foreboding dread or threat to the human mechanism whether the threat is generated by intemal real or imagined danger"(p.13) With more mechanical coloring, Spielberger (1983) sees

anxiety as “am unplessant cmotianal siale or condition which is characterized by subjective feelings of tension, apprehension, and worry, and by activation or arousal of the automatic nervous system that accompany these feelings” (p.182) In a similar manner, Ilorwitz (1986) defines anxicty as a kind of troubled fecling in the mind, It is a subjective fecling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the automatic nervous

1.1.2 The classification of anxiety

As recognized by many scholars, anxiety is such a complex issuc that it still requires more endeavors to figure it out, Horwitz (2001) found that anxiety, like self-esteem, can be experienced at various levels At the global level, tralt anxiety is a more permanent inclination lo be anxious Some people are predictably and generally anxious aboul many things At a situational levcl, state anxiety is expcticnecd in relation to some particular act or event, From these findings, it is implied that in a classroom, it is important for a teacher to try

lo determine whether students’ anxiely stems front a more gtobat or situational to deal with it properly, According to Maclntyre & Gardner (1991), as trait anxiety has somewhat ambiguously defined nature, in terms of language teaching, it seems more useful to look into the aspect of state anxicly.

14

‘Yet another important insight to be applied to our imderstanding of anxiety lies in the distinction between debilitative and facilitative anxiety (Scovel, 1978), or what Oxford (1999) called “harmful” and “helpful” anxiety We may be inclined to view anxiety as a negative factor, something to be avoided at all costs, But the notion of facilitative anxiety, in the form of sen concern or approhension over a task 10 be accomplished is a positive factor

In Bailey’s (1983) study of competitiveness and anxiety in second language leaming, facilitative anxiety was one of the keys to success, clo’

Assuredly, anxicty is multi-faccted

1.1.3 Anxiety and FL learning

sly related to competitiveness

Rarly researchers Chastain (1975), Swain & Burnaby (1976) regard language anxiety

as a simple transfer of other types of anxiety such as trait anxiety to language leaming, Some scholars, more recently, view language anxiety as a special and distinctive phenomenon cansed bự the unique stresses imposed on students in language classes In this light, Horwitz st

al, (1986) offers a definition of FL anxicty as “a distinct complex of sclf perceptions, belicf, and behaviors, related to classroom Ieaming arising from the uniqueness of the language

learning process” and Gardhior & Macintyre (1994), put it as “the apprchonsion oxpericnecd when a situation requizes the use of SL with which the individual is not fully proticient’ In this view, the cause of anxiety is somewhat related to students’ Ievel of proficiency Llowever,

il still remains questionable as it may be tre for what is meant by oral proficioney only,

The questions that arise here are: Why should anxiety be a special problem for language leamers? Aren’t students anxious about other subjects? ‘The answer here may lie in

1.1.4 Causes of language learning anxiety

The major concer of the earlier studies was the causes of language anxiety As early

as 1983, Bailcy, through the analysis of the diarics of 11 Icarnezs, found that competitiveness can lead to anxiety Besides, he also found that tests and learners’ perceived relationship with

their teachers also contributed to learners’ anxiety These three asneets that Dailey idenfified were supported in subsequent studies, especially in Young’s study, According to Young, (1991), there are six potential causes of language anxiety which include personal and interpersonal, learner beliefs about language leaming, instructor belief about language caching, instructor-lcamer interactions, classroom procedures and language tesls, From this list we can see that Young, in fact, identified the causes ftom three aspects, that is, the aspects

of lsarners, teachers and instructional practice, with which Bailey's findings also complied

However, up to now, findings by Horwitz and Cope (1986) have been the most influential They identified three causes of language anxiety, that is, commmnication apprehension, fest anxicly and fear of nogalive evaluation Based on those three components they also designed a Foreign Language Classroom Anniety Scale mcluding 33 items This seale was later widely used by researchers to measure I'L leamers” anxiety and examine the effect of anxiety on leaming in different contexts

1.1.5 Related studies on language anxiety in speaking

Up to now, nat many research studies concerning students’ anxiety in speaking have been carried oul, though spoaking has been reputed as the most anxiety-prone of all, Some scholars (Bailey, 1983, Horwitz et al., 1986) share the view that students experience the highest level of anxiety in speaking In a study in 2005, Batista comes to a conclusion that speaking skilt revealed twice the level of anxicty than wriling did, and were four times higher than listening skill According to Morwitz et al (1986), the manifestations of students showing anxiety are observed as distortion of sounds, inability to reproduce the intonation of the

language, poor rs

performances, etc, Other studies (Cheng, et al., 1999; Kitano, 2061; Meilua Liu, 2006) on the relationship between anxiety and oral performance have quite consistent findings showing that

eval of items from memory under various condilions such as cxams, oral

SA negatively affects the process of FI learning, In partionlar, they are reluolant, to express personally relevant information and, in more severe cases, they may keep silent instead of participation for fear of making mistakes,

16

1.1.6 Anxiety management strategies

‘As language anxiety has affected leamers a great deal, some researchers have attempted to work out the coping strategies to deal with this Usefull suggestions can be found

in Ilorwitz (1986), and Young (1991) In a vivid and very practical way, Young (1991) categories the recormmendations under a wide variety of FL variables, ranging from instructor behaviors to various activities and practices in the classroom as follows

* To deal with personal and interpersonal anxieties as well as erroneous beliefs and attitudes about language learning and teaching, he proposes that the teacher ask students to verbalize any fears and then to write them down on the board in this way students oan see that

they are not along in their anxiety

* To reduce anxiety related to teacher-student interaction, he suggests that teachers

create a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere, which is an important prerequisite to language leaming success [Je also emphasizes that instructors should deal with corrections in a non- threatening way and devclop an cncouraging attitude to lamers

* To minimize the anxiety associated with classroom procedures, teachers are advised

lo tailor their solo activilics 10 suil the affective needs of their students In addition, 19 avoid calling individuals randomly in front of then peers, group work and pair work in specific situations should be encouraged

1.2 Cooperative learning

1.2.1 Definitions of cooperative learning,

The terms ‘cooperative leaming’ has been gaining widespread concem as is has proved

lo be virtually productive in Janguage toaching In a very clear way, Stith (1995) defines cooperative learning as “working together to accomplish a shared goal” In the same year, Roschelle and ‘Teasley label cooperative work as a task that is accomplished by dividing it among parlicipanis, where “cach person is respansibls for a portion of the problem solving”

In his book in 1997, Jacobs sees the spirit of CL as ‘a body of concepts and techniques for helping to maximize the benefits of cooperation among students in education’ Put it another

way, students’ cooperation skill can be best enhanced my means of CL.

17

Ina simply sense, CI is a typs of instruction whereby stidents work together in small groups to achieve a common goal, CL has become increasingly popular as a feature of Communicative Language ‘Teaching (CLI) with benefits that include increased student interest dus to the fast pace of cooperative tasks, improves critical thinking power, and the opportmily lo practice both speaking and listening skills in a natural context The range of benefits goes far beyond increased language learning to include increased self’ esteem and

tolerance of diverse points of view (lohnson & Johnson, 1989)

1.2.2 Components of cooperative learning,

Nonmally, students can interact with each other as they leam in three basie ways ‘They can compete with onc another; thoy ean work individualistically on their own toward a goal without paying attention to other students, or they can work cooperatively with a shared interest in each other's learning Whatever interaction patterns they use, it is important that students leam to interact effectively in each of these pattems

It is advisable for instructors to bear in mind that only under certain conditions may cooperative efforts be expected to be more productive than competitive and individualistic efforts Roger & Johnson (1994) propose five basic clements which lic in all healthy cooperative relationships as follows

1.2.2.1 Positive Interdependence

In an effectively structured cooperative lesson, it is required that students hold the belief that they "sink or swim together." Within CL situations, in Roger & Johnson (1994)’s view, sindenls have hwo responsibilities: loam the assigned material and ensure that all gronp members leam the assigned material The technical term for that dual responsibility is positive interdependence which exists when students perceive that they are linked with group mates in such a way that they cannot succeed unless their group mates do and that they must coordinate their efforts with those of them group members to complete a task Positive interdependence promotes mutual benefits and maximizes the learning effectiveness of all members When positive inferdepsndence is clearly understood, il sstablishes that

18

\ Rach group member's efforts are required and indispensable for group success (i

there can be no "free-riders")

te Each group member has a unique contribution to make to the joint effort hecause of his

or her resources and/or role and task responsibilities

1.2.2.2, Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction

Promotive interaction which results ftom positive interdependence may be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating cach other's efforts to achieve, complete tasks to reach the group's goals (Roger & Johnson, 1994) Promotive interaction is characterized by individuals providing each other with sfficient help and as

to gain mutual benefit; and maintaining a moderate level of arousal characterized by low

anxiely and stress

CL groups aim to make each member a stronger individual in his or her own right Individual aocœumlabilily is csscntial to onsure that all group members are actually

Interpersonal and small-group skills

The fourth clement of CT to mention is the proper use of interpersenal and sirall-group skills, In order to coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals, students must: 1) get to know and trust each other, 2) comummicate accurately and unambiguously, 3) accept and support each other, and 4) resolve conflict constructively (Johnson & Jonson, 1991), Placing socially unskilled students in a group and telling them to cooperate does not guarantee that they have the ability lo do so effectively We are nol born instinctively knowing how to interact effectively with others, Thus, students must be taught the saciat skills required for high quality collaboration and be motivated to use them if cooperative groups are to be productive It is believed that the more socially skillful students are and the more attention teachers pay to teaching and rewarding the usc of social skills, the higher the achicvement that can be expected, Social skill is claimed to yield higher leaming achievement,

1.2.2.5 Group processing

The fifth essential component of CL is group processing The effectiveness of group work is judged by the way it functions A process, in this sense is an identifiable sequence of events taking place over time, and process goals refer to the sequence of events instrumental in achieving outcome goals (Johnson & F Johnson, 1991) Group processing may be defined as reflecting on a group session to describe what member actions were hetpful and unhelpful, and

to make decisions about what actions to continue or change The purpose of group processing,

is to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the members in contributing to the collaborative efforts lo achiove the group's gouts

There are two levels of processing known as small group and whole class In order to ensure that small-group processing takes place, teachers allocate some time at the end of each

class sion for cach coupsrative group to process how effectively members worked logether

20

The keys to snecessfuul small-group processing are allowing sufficient time for it to take place, providing a structure for processing, emphasizing positive feedback, making the processing, specific rather than general, maintaining student involvement in processing, reminding students to use their cooperative skills, and communicating clear expectations as to the purpose of processing

In addition to small-group processing, the teacher should sometimes engage in whole-

1) Students achieve more in cooperative interaction than in competitive or individualistic imeraction It is indicated that cooperation in comparison with competition and individualistic learning seems to be much more powerful in producing achievement than the

other interaction pattems

2) Students are mare positive about schoal, subject areas, and teachers or professors

when they are stiuctured to work cooperatively.

21

3) Shkdsnls are more posbive about each other when they leam cooperatively than when they learn alone, competitively, or individualistically - regardless of differences in ability, ethnic background, handicapped or not

4) Students are more effective interpersonally as 2 resull of working cooperatively than when they work alone or competitively Students with cooperative experiences are more able

to take the perspective of others, are more positive about taking part in controversy, have bolter developed interaction skills and a more positive expectation about working wilh oth than trom individualistic settings

in ‘higher level reasoning, more frequent gencration of new ideas and solutions, and greater

transfer of what is leamed within one situation to another’

The fact that working together to achieve a stared goal produ

gtcaler productivity

than does working alone is so well confirmed by so much research that it stands as one of the

strongest principles of social and organizational psychology ‘Iherefore, it is rational to

establish that CT is one of the most efficient stralggies for any instructor

1.2.4 Why using a CLE to deal with speaking anxicty?

take tisks, he also adds that ‘each step forward is made possible by the feeling of being safe, of operating out into the unknown fiom a safe port’ With regard +o this issue, Silberman (1966) makes it clearer that one of the ways to attain a feeling of safety is to be connected to other people or a sense of being in a group The feeling of group member enables students to face the challenges ahead When Ieaming wilh others, they ars provided with emotional and intellectual support that allows them to surpass their own level of knowledge and skill

One more viewpoint that strongly supports the value of working cooperatively is that

of Bruner (1966) He proposcs the notion of reciprocity, that is ‘a deep human need to respond

to others and to operate jointly with them toward an objective’ He sees reciprocity as a source

of leaning tnotivation According to him, ‘where joint action is neaded, where reciprocity

required for the group to mamtain an objective, then there seem to be processes that carry the individual along into leaming” By working with peers to fulfill their social needs, students are more likely to engage in active learning, especially speaking

1.2.4.2, Pedagogical basis

Considering the notable points of the hypotheses about L1 acquisitions, a CL environment can be beneficial for students bath in terms of linguistic input and outpul According to Input Hypothesis, Krasshen (1983) shows that we acquire a language as we access to writen and spoken inputs and comprehend meaning conveyed in that language Our cognitive process occurs when the input is slightly beyend the erent level of learners” competence This ean be formularized as / + 7 On this basis, a CL environment helps increas the quantity of comprehensible input from the more able peers Students’ getting input from their peers acts as a potential aid in reducing stndsnts* fear of having Hs lo talk, And the

from the production of thsir partners Moreover, the prineiple Fiqual Participation of Cl ensures the even participation of group members

Being in such an accommodating environment, students are apparently offered a chance to upgrade their language capacity through the enjoyment of leaning and sharing with other peers, In this way, some shy studenls may find the greal encouragement to ovcroumne their inhibition and fear of making mistakes

In summary, this chapter is the review of the principle theoretical bases for the study

Despite the previous studics on different aspects of language anxicty, it sccms that Little

research has been done to work out the solutions to this problem through the use of a CLE in oral English lessons Therefore, the prosont study focused on this promising arca to find seme coping strategies for the current issue

24

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.1 Rescarch setting

2.1.1 Description of the school

Thave been teaching ar Hoang Van Thu Specislizing USS, Hoa Binh Province It is a mountainous province in the North of Vietnam, in which the ethnic minorities account for approximately 80% of the population This is a typical feature of the area It seems that its geographical conditions arc not favorable for FL learning Students here have few chances to contact with native speakers, which is very disadvantageous

By nature, the majority of sludents in these and not se confident

ro Tas comparcd with those from the sity This characteristic strongly aiToels their porformance in speaking, even for the students of a specializing school like ours Most of them experience a rather high level of anxiety during speaking lessons From my actual teaching, I have come to realize that anxicty is not only the problem of less-able students but also the able ones Many

of the students with high test scores still express frequent signs of anxiety when being exposed

lo individual speaking

The school itself is well-equipped with all the needed facilities like Lab, Audio Center, ete, It possesses a quite update library, with accessible intemet sources In fact, the Linglish teaching staff here is qualified enough [lowever, there is a regrettable lack of cooperation of some teachers of other subjects when English classes make any noise Therefore, when teaching we have to be very cautious about the noise being made in order not to disturb other ctasses though we fully understand thal noise, in many cases, is considered a healthy and indispensable part of teaching and learning languages

2.1.2 Description of the program

With rogards 10 curriculum, the official texlbocks assigned by the Ministry of Education poses a quite heavy workload on both teachers and non- English majors to meet the established objectives of each school year, One of the reasons is that the textbook is rather challenging for most students, as a tesull, many teachers have painstakingly adapted this

source of material to suit the teaching context The time allocated to speaking skill is 20% of

each unit Tlowever, in reality, it often takes the teacher at least half of the allowed time to explain the related content in this part to get students ready for speaking practice

‘Asa matter of fact, tests of all levels at USS are written ones Students’ oral skills have been rathsr neglscted, Students work much more on reading and grammar exercises than speaking practice, Duc to the Jack of needed exposure to speaking along with other causes, most students are often puzzled and anxious when using English commumacatively,

Taking everything mentioned above into consideration, different factors of the study context may affect the issue under investigation- studcnts* anxicty- to different degrees

2.1.2 Description of the course

+ The class mecls on 3 lessons per week One in five lessons is speaking Usually, speaking is also taught ntegratively with other skills,

| ‘The goal of the course is to get students familiarize with working cooperatively through witch they can partly getrid of the feeling of anxiety and gain more confidence to use English orally

+ ‘The focus of the course was the use of a CLE to reduce SA, in which both the icacher and the students make an offorl to facilitale the learning process by cooperative with each other in different aspects of learning

2.2 Research questions

The final aim of the research is to cxamine the effectiveness of the application of a CIE to

reduce stndent’s SA ‘Io achieve this goal, we have undergone various stages of investigation on Jeaming situation, students’ behavior, the manifestations of anxiety in classroom setting, and so

ou thai possibly have uegalive eflecls on student involvement aud perfounance Based on the initial findings, the following research questions are set forth,

| To what extent do the students experience awxiely in an oral English classroom?

2 What factors contribute to students” anxiety in English speaking lessons?

3, How does the application of a cooperative learning environment work in reducing anxiety in an oral linglish classroom?

26

2.3, Participants

+ Teachers; Being an empirical research, it is necessary to include the co-operation of other teachers ‘I'hree upper secondary school English teachers with over eight years of teaching experience were invited to complete a consulting note ‘Iwo of them have a B.A and

one has an M.A

+ Students; are a group of 32 non- English major upper secondary male and female students, aged 17 years old, 4 out of 32 are ethnic minorities Their English proficiency level ranges from pre-intermediate to intermediate with about three years of academic English experience by the time they reach this course They come from different districts of Hea Binh province, The sindy look placa in Hoang Van Thu spocialiving USS whers they have been Jeaming for a year and a half

2.4, Instruments

2.4.1 Classroom observations

During the first threc wecks (2 speaking lessons), the researcher kept a record of students’ behavior in the class The observations aimed to identify the students’ signs of ansioty and lovels of participation in di(fercnt activilics involving their oral performance - pair work, group discussions, especially the situations m which anxiety was intensely generated like presentations, answering questions, etc This was carried out via the use of classroom observation shoot (Appendix 1) Rach intended ilem to exploit the needed data was completed either during or right after each lesson, This instrument was mainly used before the intervention stages

2.4.2 Stall consultations

‘As most of my eight colleagues have been teaching English for more than six years, they are certain to have useful experience working with upper secondary students Three of ther were chosen to contribute their ideas to the problems of student anxicly and the ways they have used to manage with their students They were asked to make some notes expressing their experience in identifying the common signs of students’ SA the major causes for this

This

phenomenon as well as suggesting the ways they have uscd to reduce students’ anxict

was done in week four, shortly after classroom observation stage (Appendix 2)

27

2.4.3 Questionnaires tor students

+ The quantitative pre-intervention questionnaire consisted of two parts (Appendix 4)

‘The first part with two items aimed to elicit the information concerning students’ English proficiency and speaking ability ‘The second part comprised 14 items used to serve two main

purposes: (1) to ascertain if the students investigated sxpericnoc araxicly in speaking lessons, and (2) to determe whether the causes are more of intrinsic causes (questions 1-7) or more of extrinsic causes (questions 8-14) to decide on ths suitable intervention techniques

The rescarcher adapted the 33-itcem suvcy from the Forcign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale developed by Horwitz et al (1986), (Appendix 3) Among 33 items, 8 of them were selected and 6 items wore (ailorcdo stil the sludy purpose The questiommaire was later translated into Vietnamese and administered to the students to determine their anxiety levels Each item was designed on a S-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree” to Strongly agree” with the numerical value 1-5 assigned to descriptors respectively Those who

responded “Agree” or “Strongly agree” were assumed to have a high level of FLA (H)

‘Therefore, highly anxious students could have a minimum FLA score of 56 points (4 points x

14 ilem = 56) lì contrasl, as the response of “Disagree” was assigned 2 points, thoss wha were reported to have a low level of FLA (L) could have a maximum score of 28 (2 points x

14 items = 28) Accordingly, the total score ranging fram 29 to $5 points signifies moderate ansioty (M) The rating crilcria can be illustrated in Table 1 as follows

Table 1: Criteria to identify groups of FLA levels

28

aimed to test the effectiveness of Teacher & stidents interaction: Questions 7- 10 aimed to test

the effectiveness of Students & students’ interaction

2.5, Procedures

The study took place for eleven weeks of the

During the first three weeks, the researcher taught speaking in the traditional way, which

strictly follows the textbook English 11, Hoang Van Van et al (2006) — (Unit 11+ Unit 12)

were aimed at creating a CLE by means of Jeacher d Students imeraction and Sndens &

Students interaction After the inlervention- the last wook, the follow-up questionnaire was delivered to these 32 students to get their evaluation on the implemented intervention techniques

The intervention resulls were sludied and adjusted accordingly aller the Gist tues weeks before bang continued in the next three weeks, After this phase, the follow-up questionnaire was given to 32 students lo gel their feedback aller the intervention

29

(come from within ths leamers) and extrinsic sources of anxiety (coms from the teacher and their peers) Detailed information of the students’ scores and levels of speaking anxiety is indicated in Appendix 7

| In the next phase, the post survey questionnaire was also treated quantitatively

Specifically, cach itern was designed on a 3-point scale with the numerical value from 1 to 3

points assigned to each corresponding option with the mid-point set at 1.5 The degree of

improvement was judged as follows:

+ 10-15 points —> no improvement (ND

slight improvement (ST)

remarkable improvement (RD)

C1

ER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Research results

3.1.1 Lrom classroom observations

Before the intervention, the researcher observed ard kept diarics of the class duing

two speaking periods The observation focused on the procedures and various classroom

activities of each lesson, in which student’s participation, behaviors, signs and levels of

anxicty were mostly paid attention to

In these two periods, the following pattern in terms of procedure of the observed speaking lessons can be drawn (Unil LL + 12- English 1 L- Speaking)

+ Lead-in: Questions- Answers about the Lopies (Umit 11- Sourees of energy; Unit 12- The Asian Games)

| Pre-teach vocabulary: words and phrases selected from the textbook + Read and retell the model dialogue in pairs

+ Discuss in groups and do presentations

In general, what was laugh scemed strictly loyal Lo the textbook Te sore extent, the

teacher was successful 1n teaching the required content of the textbook However, if viewed

from other sides, there remained things as food for thoughts after these two lessons as noted in

my diaries First, a heavy load of vocabulary and intended structures to be taught had occupied

a quite large portion of class time Besides, sometimes several students showed no care, the

teacher felt rather annoyed and tended to be strict, trying to get them more involved in

Second, class distribution was mainly in the form of class work (about $5%), individual work (20%), group /pair work (25%), Obviously, time spent on oral practice made up only a small percentage Murthermore, students’ participation in groups was found to be uneven as some students were shy, keeping silent almost all the fine, Conscquenily, some individuals dominated group work, This signifies that the actual talking time of some may be very limited With regard to student interaction, most resorted to working individually to fuléil task requirements, sometimes they shared ideas but nol in a matuzl way Not much active interaction between teacher and students was recorded The teacher just explained some language items and task requirements for students to do Most oral mistakes were corrected in

some Way In response to their peers” mistakes, some were constmetive enough, some paid little attention, and some gave an unfiiendly look These ways of reaction might deface the speakers and discourage them from speaking next time ‘Ihe forth point to mention was students’ psychological manifestation ‘The signs such as: turning red in the face, feelings of

being shy and nerveus were most frequently noticed Three in four students with

ethnic minority background were very puzzled when expressing ideas, Surprisingly, for some students with high scores in written tests showed signs of SA of various ranges Some stumbled, some found it difficult to oxpress their idcas and intention It scoms that such a psychological phenomenon affects Ieamers of different levels of language proficiency, However, iL was shown Ihal Ihe tiajorily of ths able learners proved to be better speakers

others, afraid of being caltsd lo spoak, speaking loo sofily among other things

My colleagues also helped outline the major causes of SA in speaking As for them, anxiety in speaking lessons is mainly attributed to

+ The lack of confidence or fear af'bcing defaced duc 1a a poor linguistic knowledge

- Feeling inferior to other leamers as far as English is concerned

- ‘The fear of not being able to make themselves understood in English or when they their idcas, others will appose them

- Some rigid topics that students have nothing to say

~The lack of careful preparations in advance

- The critical, sniggcring/ scornful attitude from classmates

~ Teacher’s abrupt interruption

These causes were detected from actual teaching Thus, they are found to be very prominent and valuable in providing us more insights into the nature of SA The causes of SA

in speaking proposed by such scholars as Bailey (1983), Young (1991), Horwitz and Cope

we o

(1986) are a broad level, so we- as teachers may sometimes find it hard to comprehend and to appreciate them In contrast, what picked up fiom teaching experience like those seems practical and concrete

‘To deal with 8A, the teachers suggested the following ways:

= Teachers should pnt them to work in groups or pairs to discuss firs!

- Before doing a task, answering the questions or presenting, students should be provided with needed linguistic inputs, model practice and so on to get prepared

- Teachers should build up students’ confidence by using some language games to gct them involved and encourage them to overcome their shyness and to take risks

+ Students should be assured that iLis natural to make oral mistakes

- Teachers should not criticize their students if they say something wrong,

- Teachers are advised not to interrupt but help students feel free to express their ideas

- The topics for discussions should be interesting and suitable for their age group

- Teachers should create a cheerful, friendly classroom atmosphere If possible, try to make use of their sense of humor sometimes to make students delighted

Tt oan be scen that many of these snggoslions arc worth mentioning as thoy arc derived from practical pedagogical context Interestingly enough, most of these ideas coincide with those put forward by Young (1991), ‘To help reduce SA, he strongly emphasizes the need for crating a low-arsicty classroom atmosphere by dealing with corrcetions in a non- threakening way as well as developing an encouraging attitude to leamers He also advises teachers to tailor their solo activities to suit students’ need and the use of group work and pair work in

had assisted the researcher greatly in selecting and adjusting the techniques used in the empirical course

we “

3.1.3 From questionnaires for the students

3.1.3.1 Pre-intervention questionnaire

a) Student linguistic background

‘Table 2: Saedent self- assessment on their linguistic background

Items Very good | Good (%) | Fatr (%) | Bad(%)| Very bad

‘The rest of 25% admitted that their Linglish was poor With regard to spoken Lnglish, the largest percentage of 43.8% reported having fair oral performance Those who claimed to be good al this skill accounted for only 18.8% Noticeably, a quite large remaining percentage of over one-third helonged to the students with bad or very bad speaking competence making up 28.1% and 9.3% respectively It is indicated that oven in a specializing USS like ous the number of students with good English proficiency as well as speaking skill was rather small Those figures atse revcal thai, for some studonis, their proficiency level docs nol always

guarantee their communicative competence

b)The lovel of anxicty perceived hy students in speaking Iesvons (Appendix 7)

To verify whether the students under investigation experienced SA, the scores were calculated, summed and averaged in Table 3 and Figure 1

Table 3: The suznmed score of student anxiety

As can be seen from table 3, the average level of SA reported by the respondents was 3.12 which

was significantly higher than the mid-point value of five point Liker scale (3 points)

Figure 1: Scores and levels of FLA

M(71.9%)

A closer look at the individual score of the respondents (Figure 1) indicates that only 4

out of 32 students (12.5%) reported free from anxiety, while 71.9 % admitted having moderate

level of anxiety, not to mention 15.6% of them expenenced high anxiety level In addition, among 32 subjects, the numbers of students whose SA score was higher than the average mid-

point (3 points x 14 items = 42 points) was calculated at 18 (appendix 7) These figures suggest

that SA does exist among the students surveyed in this study

©) The factors contributing to student anxiety in English speaking lessons

+ Intrinsic factors causing anxiety

As noted in section 3.4.3, items 1-7 were constructed to measure the degree of SA

within each cause to gain a more thorough understanding of the most serious causes The first seven factors were grouped under the category of intrinsic sources of anxiety This is because they have roots in students’ psychology personally Responses to these items are presented in Table 4

we on

Table 4: Levels of anxiety caused hy intrinsic factors ‘Ttems [-7)

oral mistakes

ll romained a serious concern of a vast mnajorily of learners The sccond rang

of basic causes were found in Inferiority complex (item 5), Limited vocabulary and grammar (item 1), and Lack of practice (item 4) with the mean score measured at 3.43, 3.28, and 3.22

ctively Specifically, of these thre items, the most prominent cause regarding Inferionty

complex bore a large number of students in agreement accounting for 59.2% Although Limited vocabulary & grammar and Lack of practice hold the lower mean scores of 3.28, and

3.22 respectively, they also had the comparable percentage of responses showing agreement of 62.5 % for the former and 53.2% for the latter Surprisingly, 40.6% did not think that SA was attributed to Lack of practice ‘Thus, it can be inferred that students’ poor vocabulary and grammar, feeling inferior to other learners as well as the lack of practice could really be an

obstacle for them to articulate their ideas

It is indicated that Personality (item 2), Bad pronunciation (item 3), and Lack of familiarity with the environment (item 7) did not strongly generate anxiety as the mean scores

of these items all fell below the mid-poml of 3 The point that courts here is when asked about Parsonwlity and Pronunciation , many of the participants showed their reservodnoss by choosing “not sure” to item 2(31.3%) and item 3 (25%)

In general, there is a big difference among the mean scores of the seven items above, fluctuating from 2.75 to 3.84 The average of mean scores stood at as high as 3.15 suggesting thal intrinsic factors are virlually worth taking inta sorious consideration

+ Extrinsic factors causing anxiety

The rest seven causes (item 8-14) were grouped under the category of extrinsic sources

of anxiety These causes are supposed to stem from the affective outside factors known as the interpersonal factors ‘he findings are presented in ‘Table 5