Luận văn co operative learning as an approach to improving speaking skills for the second year non major students of english at hanoi university of business and technology

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, DANOIL UNTVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES CO-OPERATIVE LEARNING AS AN APPROACII TO IMPROVING SPEAKING SKIL

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, DANOIL UNTVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

CO-OPERATIVE LEARNING AS AN APPROACII TO IMPROVING SPEAKING SKILLS FOR THE SECOND-Y EAR

NON-MAJOR STUDENTS OF ENGLISH AT HANOL UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY

CÁCH THỨC HỌC TẬP HỢP TÁC NHƯ MỘT ĐƯỜNG HƯỚNG

CẢI THIỆN KỸ NĂNG NÓI CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ HAI

KHÔNG CHUYÊỀN TIỀNG ANH TẠI

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH DOANH VÀ CÔNG NGHỆ HÀ NỘI

M.A THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code: 601410

Supervisor : Le Van Canh, M.A

Hanoi, 12 - 2008

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNTVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

CO-OPERATIVE LEARNING AS AN APPROACII TO

IMPROVING SPEAKING SKILLS FOR THE SECOND-YEAR

NON-MAJOR STUDENTS OF ENGLISH AT TIANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECTINOLOGY

CÁCH THỨC HỌC TẬP HỢP TÁC NHƯ MỘT ĐƯỜNG HƯỚNG

CẢI TIIỆN KỸ NĂNG NÓI CHO SINII VIÊN NĂM THỨ HAI

KHÔNG CHUYỂN TIỀNG ANH TẠI

TRUONG PAI HOC KINH DOANH VA CONG NGHE HA NOI

M.A THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code: 601410

Supervisor : Le Van Canh, M.A

Hanoi, 12 - 2008

3 Identification of the problem

4, Scopes, objective and rescarch questions for the study

5 Methods of the study

6 Resign of the sludy

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Tntroduction

2 2 Concepls related Lo the sludy

2 2 1 Communicative language teaching and the teaching of

speaking skills 2.2.2 Speaking skills in General Business Linglish 2.2.3 Cooperative leaning

2 2 3 1, Detinitions of cooperative learning

2 2 3 2 Cooperative leammg structures

2 3 Conclusion

CITAPER 3: THE STUDY

3 1 Introduction

we 2 Context of the study

3 2 1 The learning context

3, 2.2 Lhe leaming materials

| 3 Methods of data collection

3 5.2 3 Implement cooperative learning structured activities

basing om the course book and start the observation schedule and journals

3 5 2 4, Evaluate students’ speaking proficiency

4 5, 2 5, Analyze the data 3.5.2 6 Hindings

3 6 Conclnsion

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

4, 1, The cffeets on the students" pardeipation

4.1.1, Erequency dÊ stndents` participatien Ìu pre and post activities

4, 1 2 Comparison of the students’ participation

4, 2, The effects on the students’ speaking perfonnance

4.3 Students” attitudes towards cooperative learning

4 4, Discussion of the findings

4.4 1 What are the effects of couperilive learuing on students’

palicipaion ou group activities and their progress in speaking skills?

4,4, 2 What are the students’ altitudes towards cooperative learning?

4 5 Conclusion

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

5 1 Sunumary of the major findings

5 2 Limitations of the study and suggestions for furthor studies

3.3 Pedagogical isnplications of the study

LISTS OF APPENDIXES

Appendix 1: Lists of tables

Table 1: Speaking criteria and marking scales

Table 2: Record of students’ scores in the pre-test

Table 3: Frequency of students’ participation in pre- and post- activities

Table 4: Frequency of students’ participation in pre- and post- activities

Table 5: Frequency of students’ participation in pre- and post activities

Table 6: Frequency of students’ participation in pre- and post- activities

Table 7: Frequency of students’ participation in pre- and post- activities

Table 8: Frequency of students’ participation in pre- and post- activities

Table 9: Record of students’ scores in the pre-and post tests

Appendix 2: Lists of charts

Chart 1: Comparison of the students’ participation

Chart 2: Comparison of the students’ participation

Chart 3: Comparison of the students’ participation

Chart 4: Comparison of the students’ participation

Chart 5: Comparison of the students’ participation

Chart 6: Comparison of the students’ participation

Appendix 3: Observation schedules

Appendix 4: Sample ural lests of 4 modules

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

GROUP 3 GROUP 4 GROUP 5 GROUP 6

Appendix 5: Sample cooperative learning lessons

Appendix 6: Oplional prompts for sludents' journals

Appendix 7: Some typical students" journals

Appendix 8: The multiple intelligent test

XXX

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1 1 Introduction

This chapler is concerned with the rationale behind the researcher's devision of choosing the thesis subject, and the way she identified the problem facing her students’ English speaking skills Besides, the scope, the objectives, and the research questions as well as the methods and design of the stury arc also stated elearly

1 2 Rationale

Never before has English become so pervasive as nowadays, and English has formally

‘been an important subject in our educational system “Falter English, more opporlunitics”

is the answer given by most Vietnamese university students when asked about their goal of learning English English can help students prepare well for their future careers as it can nơi only cquip then with a useful source of personal, linguistic, social and cultural

knowledge but also provide them with access to modern technology and information

conceming a variety of issues in modern society specially, our country’s recent regional

and global participation has been incroasing the demand for Fngtistr speaking poopte who are expected to communicate verbally with the outside world and access modem technology Vietnamese students, who are intelligent and hard working, no doubt, have no difficulties in mastering Rnglist grammar aud vocabulary Most of them, however, have difficulties in English commmumeating For these reasons, at the tertiary level where the source of English teachers for the whole country is provided, English teaching has been

graniod speciat suppor! from educational authorities, However, finding out the most appropriate English teaching method that can satisfy the need of the society is still a big problem for generations of teachers in Vietnam

Thanks to the efforts of several international projects and organizations, the teaching and

learning English in Vieurarn has been considerably changing in the pasl years, Various

w approaches, methods and techniques on the teaching of English have been introduced and applied in colleges and universities nationwide Generally, English teaching has shifted from the traditional grammar translation approach to the communicative approach To be

BUC

ful im their teal classroom’s contexts, which are communication-oricntcd and

leamer-centered, teachers of English are doing their best to improve their teaching skills

1 3 Identification of the problem

It is undeniable that it is very important for teachers to analyze, to reflect on and to make

use of their own siluations, To some extent, learner-contered (caching is only thelovical it

‘Vietnam at present Theoretically, leamer-centered teaching requires learners to play the role as negotiators and interactors while teachers as facilitators, analysts, counselors and managers In the real classroom, many people, including the researcher herself, have misunderstood this approach before this rescarch, When this method was first introduced

to Vietnamese education, most teachers just assigned worksheets to students and then left them to work by themselves without observing, analyzing, and reflecting on them while they participated in the task That is a dangerous idea because some students do not have the maturity to do the task by themselves ‘hey may need some help to finish the task If they do not reccive help from anybody, cspocially their teacher, they mighl develop negative altitudes lowards language learning which are very difficult to change If icachers are not clear about this approach, they may create dangerous gaps unconsciously Gradually, if they are concemed about what this approach means exactly, they may promote students’ confidence in language leaning, especially speaking skills

Spenking English is one of the most imporlant skills for studonis ard will lclp tharn find a good job in the future For over several years, the researcher herself has found that students would like to speak but they feel they lack confidence in speaking As a result, they think that English is very difficult for them and they become bored with learning the skills The action research study of how to promote students speaking English through co-operative leaming is very important because it may also help them to develop other skills Moreover,

Richards (2004: 3) stales, “Fmployers loo insist their employecs have gaod English language skulls and tluency in English is a prerequisite for success and advancement in many fields of employment in today's world.”

In order to help English learners make progress in speaking, it is a good idea to focus on their comumication skills Rdge (1993: 17) identified the importance of communication that commumueation is at the heart of modem English Language Teaching (ELT), the goal

of language teaching and part of the learning process, Luoma (2004: ix) added that “the ability to speak in a foreign language is at the very heart of what it means to be able to use

a forcign language.” Wongsuwana (2006: 44) also stated that specch can be trained and it does not depend on talent,

However, one main reason why English speaking leaming in Vietnam is not very successful is thal most Isarners hack the opportunity lo learn, and io speak English im ar

English environment, and for interaction in daily lite Therefore, it is essential to find out the solution to the problem so that English learners have more opportunities to communicated, as welt as to interact will one smother in a so-vallisd closc-Lo-real English speaking environment, One of the teaching, strategies that reflects the prnciple of learner-

centeredness is groupwork, which is designed by Nunan and Lamb (1996: 142) as any

chassroom activity im which students perform collaborative tasks wilh one or more partners

It has been considered one of the major changes to the dynamics of classroom interaction wrought by student-centered teaching Groupwork can greatly increase the amount of active speaking and Histeninys undertaken by all the sudents in the language class

Groupwork lias cspccially reccived more and more emphasis in language classroom and

groupwork activilics are used in many aspools of the second language instructions, particularly in encouraging students’ oral practice, Working in groups, students are not passively sitting and listening to the teachers, but joining actively in the learning process However, it is nol ahvays true thal whenever students ae asked to work in groups, the cooperation will occur, Generally, there are problems such as some group members dominate the group and impede the participation of others Therefore, how to organize groupwork successfully in the classrooms is the question of great conecin for many

language researchers as wel] as language teachers

In leamer-centered approach, group work is the most effective way to reach success, and cooperative leaming is undeniably the most flexible and powerfull grouping strategies as in

cooperative learning, learners work logether lo accomplish a shared goal Therefore, they are motivated to work together for mutual benefit in order to meet their own and each other’s learning, Cooperative learning can create an environment in which students’ need

of love, belongingness, power, freedom and fim can be met ina way thai is beneficial for both academic achievement and the development of the leamers” social and learning skills Cooperative leaming implementing programs have been applied successfully by thousands

of teachers from all over the world, However, lhe application of cooperative loanting has not been popular in Vietiam, There have been few studies on cooperative learning application in teaching English, particularly in teaching speaking

As teaching English at Hanoi University of Business and Technology, the researcher

sometimes failed to organize her second year sludents, who were non-major students of English, to work successfully in group activities The students came from different regions all over Vietnam, and even though their acquisition of English grammar and vocabulary was quile good, most of then gol difficulties in speaking becauss of many reasons The students mostly had very little chance to use English in communication, so they were very shy to spsak Moreover, some students who came from urban areas often had better speaking skills than those who ame from rural arcas During speaking activities, the strong ones talked a lot, the average spoke some, and the week students scemed to keep silent all the time, ‘The researcher had carried some strategies such as talking to them to find out their problems, choosiny the interesting topics, moniloring fequently lo hetp, encouraging the weak ones to speak and asking the strong ones to help their friends by assigning the roles for them and keep asking questions to force them to speak, This did not help a lot Therefore, the fimdanuental reasons causing this problem was really a big question for her She kept on finding the ways to get all her students equally involved in the class speaking activities During the search, the researcher had found some articles and

books about implementing cooperative leaming strategies to improve group activities in

which cooperative learning can bs uscd as a mican lo imprave studenls” cooperation, participation and even ther language proficiency, According to these articles and books, the benefit of cooperative learning had been explored in Vietnam and should bs taken into account,

For all the above reasons, it is strongly desirable for the rescareher Lo propose “Co operative learning as an approach ta improving speaking skills for the second-year non- major students of English at Ianoi University of Business and Technology” as the subjeel of this study

1 4 Scopes, objective and research questi

ns far the sturly

This study was a kind of action rescarch which was designed and conducted by the researcher herself, The study was limited to the investigation of students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning, the Isvel of their participation in groupwork, which was a dimension

of cooperative leaming, in classroom speaking activities as well as the effect of cooperative Ieaming on the students’ speaking performance The study was conducted on the second-year students who were studying English as a minor subject at Hanoi

University of Business and ‘Technology ‘Thus, the first and foremost objective of the study

is for the sake of Ihe sludents al Tanoi University of Business and Tectmology, where the researcher worked as a teacher of English Although any generalization of the findings should be made with caution, it is expected that this study will serve as a source of references for Ioahors of English ơn the Isaching of speaking skills, sspocially for thoss

who consider cooperative learning as one of the best educational innovations

To be more specific, in realizing this study, the main ebjective is:

- To investigate the effects of cooperative learning on students’ participation and achievement in speaking skills

With this objective, the research questions arz

- Whatare the students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning?

- What are the effacts of cooperative leaming on students’ participation on group activities and their progress in speaking skills?

1 5, Methods of the study

‘This research is realized with both qualitative and quantitative analysis

Quantitative analysis is involved in the process of data collection and analysis, which was carried out at Hanoi University of Business and ‘lechnology ‘Ihe instruments for this

researcher's three colleagues and two M.A, classmates, who were working as the

On the olher hand, qualitatively analyzed, the research was based on the students? altitudes

to cooperative learning through their written jownals atter each cooperative-learning- oriented speaking lesson

1 6 Design af the study

‘The study is divided into six main chapters:

Chapter one is the Introduction, which states the rationale, the scope, the objective, and the research questions as well as the methods and design of the study

Chapter two presents all necessary literature review that relates to the study

In chapter three, the study - an action research on the improvement of the nơn-major,

second year student

described

speaking skills at [anol University of Busines

One of the main contents of the study, the data analysis is reported in chapter four In this chapter, the researcher analyzes the data collected quantitatively and qualitatively to reach the findings of the study

Tn choplor five, the discussion of the findings relaicd to the roscurch questions with

reference to the literature review is mentioned,

Chapter six is the conclusion where the main contents of the study are summarized, In addition, the pedagogical imphcations of the study as well as the limitations of the study and the suggestions for further studies are discussed in this chapter

Besides, the ist of references and the appendixes are also parts of this study,

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents some of the Tost imperlanl issues in theory of cooperative learning

in general and in language teaching in particular The main features are taken into consideration, namely, the concepts related to the study including the communicative lamguags teaching and the Leaching of spcaking skills, the dofinitions of cooperative leaming, and cooperative learning stiuetures Moreover, this is the study conducted on the second yeat, nonsmajor student of English at Hanoi University of Business and

‘Technology, where the course book Market Leader (Pre-intermediate) - a book for

‘busi

English - is exploiled, so the speaking skills in General Business English as welt

as the task-based learmung and how it is exploited in business English are also introduced in this part Before reaching the minor conclusion of the chapter, it is the researcher's wish to mention the benefits of cooperative learning and some of the previous studics on cooperative learning with reference to the enhancement of students’ speaking skills

2.2, Concepts related to the study

2 2, 1 Communicative language teaching and the teaching of speaking skills

‘The latest influence on language teaching in Vietnam is communicative language teaching Communicative language teaching is a broad approach to teach, which results from a focus

on communivalion as the organizing principle for the teaching rather than a focus om mastering of grammatical system of the language So far, there have been many definitions

of communicative language teaching, but it is not easy to show which a standard one is

According to Byrne (1981: 71), the communicative approach allows a lot of interactive oral activities in the classroom Studenls leam to use the English language, not English usages, to utter fluently in communication Students works in groups (comsisting of two people upwards), take their own roles to communicate with others who also have their roles, 30 each of them produce intentional utterances that help them reach their goals in

shortes! lime Teachers give students clear targets, create cornmunicative conditions, then

go round to help students by participate themselves in the activities

Nunan (1989: 94) overviews the approach which contains aspects common to many definitions of communicative language teaching

Communicative language teaching views language as a system for the expression of meaning, Activities involve oral communication, carying oul meaning tasks and using language, which is meaningful to the leamers Objectives reflect the needs of the leamers; they include functional skills as well as linguistic objectives ‘I'he leamer’s Tole is as a negotiator and inlogrator, The toachor’s Tole is as a facitilalor of the communication process, Materials promote communicative language use, they are task-based and authentic

‘The definition above represents a particular view of understanding and explaining language acquisition, TLis socially constricted, and, as such, must bs effective if exploited

to teach language speaking,

Speuking plays a vital role in communication Many famons Tinguisls and scholars have discussed to examine the nature of speaking, from the elements of pronunciation to the

connected speech, and the pragmatic aspects Brown (1994: 256) points out some of the

characteristics that can make oral performance difficult such as the clustering, the redueed forms, the colloquialism, the stress, thythm and intonation, the interaction, and the

affective factors

Brown and Yule (1993) suggest that, in contrast with teaching of written language, leachers concern wilh teaching the spoken language must confront such the following types of questions as how important pronunciation is, and whether students should be expected to produce the structures in standard grammar when they speak Linglish

Ur (1996) considers speaking intuitively the most important of the four skills: people who

All of the above authors support the ideas that the success of oral communication involves

a mumber of the features such as ths ability to articulate phonological ones of the language

comprehensibly, the mastery of stress, rhythm, intonation pattems, the acceptable degree

of fluency, the management of inleraction and negoliation; the conversational listening skills, etc, of which the interacting and negotiating skills are more important for communication in general Business English

Cơnelusrvely, the ability to speak a second language well is a very complex task Speaking

is used for many different purposes and each purpose involves a different skill In general Business English, we may usc speaking to describe things, to complain about poople’s behaviour, to make request, to negotiate something in our business, or to entertain people with joke, elo Tach of these different purposes for speaking implies knowledge of the rules that account for how spoken language reflects the context or situation in which speech occur, the participants involved and their specific roles relationships, and the kinds of

activities the speakers are involved in

2 2 2 Speaking skills in General Business English

Speaking skills in Business English are related to business performance areas Although the purpose of this sturly is lo improve the spa

king skills ofa particular objcetive through cooperative learning application, it should be noticed that the students, who severed as the participants of this action research, were pre-experienced in business, and they were sludying General English for business al university (Ihe course book Market Leader Pre — Intermediate) Therefore, the busmess General English speaking skills are considered a

matter of discussion in this part According to Dudley-L'vans and John (1998), Linglish for

Gencral business purposcs courses are usually for pro-expericnee lamers or those al the -vory carly stage of their carcer, They are similar to general English as a forcign language courses with the materials set in business context As for Bllis and Johnson (1994), the

oral presentation, telephoning and socializing,

Meetings and discussions is a vcry broad performanee arca ranging {rom small, informal meetings to large, formal ones, and discussions of all kinds, There are three different kinds

of behaviour that can be identified in this area: controlling, participating, and co-operating, The languages functions required for cach kind is different, too For mectings, it is necessary to acquire the language skills of opening the meeting, nominating the topics for discussion, rejecting topics, asking people to speak, summarizing,

selaling (or rephrasing),

concluding and closing the mecting The language functions relating to participating im

meetings are negotiating, setting out facts and figures, expressing opinions, supporting an argument, agreeing and disagreeing, making suggestions, balancmg poinls of view, interrupting, promising, ete, Therefore, it is very important that teachers should provide their students with clear structures for certain skills, then give students chance to co- operatively practice holding moctings inside as well as outside elassroon

Oral presentation is built on language and good oral skills, which also relates to co-

operative skills In order to give oral presentations, the language functions required are

describing process, expressing possibility and certainty, describing structures, giving

Teasons, expressing causes and effecls, describing trends, comparing and contrasting, expressing conditions, expressing intention, ete Oral presentation work concentrates on

the stand-up, prepared talks accompanied by visual aids as well In addition, the confidence factor is worth mentioning as il has an effect on the handling of fsedback in leaching oral

presentations

Telephoning in English business covers a wide range of situations and types of interaction

‘The language used in telephone conversations is highly conventional and formalized Telephoning also requires well-developed skills in exchanging infirmation, clarifying, and explaining Pair work is the most popular tectmiqus cxploited in tsaching business telephoning skills in English

Socializing means the spoken interactions that suxound the actual discussion of business matters According to Dudley-livans and John (1998), in socializing the social aspect of inicraction is just for cslablisking a good relationship in order to increase the eonducl of business, Therefore, a large varicty of language structures is required here, depending on specific types of situation and behaviour, such as greeting and saying goodbye, complimenting and responding to thanks amd complements, modalily for expressing

possibility or politeness, raising topics, changing topics, accepting or rejecting new topics,

conditionals in negotiating, ete

In summary, General Business English courses provide leamers a board range of English through business settings, and like General English courses, the design of these courses should be task-based According to Ellis and Johnson (1994), the basic fabric ofa Business English course should be tasks that are close to those of students’ real situations It is important that these tasks should have specific objectives and be clearly instructed at the beginning so that students are able lo fallow and achiove thair overall objectives Practice

tasks may be long or short; and the selection of appropriate tasks should depend om the

need of the students in relation to their (future) jobs — what busin

siluations they have ta

deal with, for instance They may include: asking a student to desenbe a (or his/her) company’s produets or to compare different products; asking two group members to imagine they arc business associales meeting for Ihe firsl time; solting up a Islephone Tole play or a simulated meeting; getting the student to prepare a short presentation defending a certain point of view, etc It is also essential that students should get helpful and constructive feedback on their performance The sludents should know whether their mistakes actually affected the suocess or failure of the task: Did they communicate effectively? Were they easy to understand’ Did they manage to clarify misunderstanding? Did they use apprapriate potiteness form? Onity afler thai feedback has been given is il valuable to draw attention to specific language errors that may have contuibuted to lack of overall clarity or precision

2 2 3 Cooperative learning

2 2, 3 1 Definitions of cooperative learning

Cooperative learning is one of the main factors to promote students’ conmmuication It is

by no means @ new idea IJumans, for thousands of years, have recognized the value of cooperation in a broad range of endeavors, including cducation However, the term cooperative learning seems 10 date back to the 1970s when a great deal of research and practical work began on discovering how hest to hamess peer power for the benefit of learning Over the past twenty ycars, different approaches lo cooperative leaming have boon developed by different individuals Thus, cooperative laming takes many forms and definitions,

Cooperative learning is defined by Johnson and Johnson (2001) as “a successful teaching slralogy in which small toams, cach wilh students of different lovels of abilily, use a varicly

of leaming activities to improve their understanding of a subject, Each member of a team is responsible not only tor leaning what is taught but also for helping teammates leam, thus creating an atmosphere of achievement, Students work through the assignment until all group menibers successfully understand and complete it” This is onc of the most satisfactory and comprehensive definitions about cooperative leaming in general situations

and contexts,

Millis (1999) brings a relatively adequate definition into open that “Cooperative learning refers lo [he act af various interactive instructional small groups Students who employ cooperative leaning approach work in groups of two to five to fulfill specific targets They need to be cooperative, pro-social, and positively interdependent ‘They also need to be responsible for thoir own work”,

Johnson (1991) also gives a definition about cooperative leaming as “the instructional use

of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and cach other’s leaming” According to the author, class members are organized into small groups after receiving instructions Ññom the teacher They then work through the assignment until all the group members successfully understand and complete it Cooperative efforts result in participants striving for mutual benefit so that all group members gain from each other's cfloris, recognizing that all the group membs

It can be clearly seen from these definitions that the key to cooperative leaming is the carcful struchsing of teaming groups Goncrally, cooperative

- Students work together in small groups consisting of two to five members

- Students use cooperative, pro-social behaviars to accomplish their common tasks or learning activities

- Students are positively interdependent Activities are structured so that students

need each other to accomplish their common tasks or learning activities

= Students are individually accountable, responsible for their work, or learning,

2 2 3 2 Cooperative learning structures

The specific cooperative teaming siralegies tual teachers can use to organize interaction

botwoon students are called cooperative caning slructures Most structures can be used

with almost any academic contents, but some structures are better than others for certain

ta

Some structures regulate interactions between pairs, some are better for group work,

and others involve the entire class The umportant thing is that we must choose the most

suitable one for a particular instructional purpose According to Dr Spencer Kagan (2003),

there are many structures commonly used in a language class, and in this study, some of the most common ones were used to organize students’ speaking practice in the light of general business Linglish such as round robin, rally table, think-pair-share, team interview, lemmmnalz consul, jigsaw

In round robin simclure (also called round table), sinđenls in leams lake tums rally responding to a question or prompt The question(s) can be written on slips of paper in the middle of the team, or it (they) can be called aloud ‘This structure aimed at giving every lem mamber equal opparlunities lo say oul their ideas, For oxample, the teacher can have lem members in a group round robin their suggestions for finding ont the best way to market a company’s new range of products (a topic in Market Leader Pre- Intermediate)

‘The structure rally table works the same way as round robin, but the students work in pairs insiead of in teams They pass 2 worksheet back and forth as they discuss, wrils answers or

complete a task, This struclire is very simple and effective in a spoaking lesson In their groups, students are divided to work in pairs, (or the teacher can have two groups work together, each member of a group works with a member of another group to share their ideas, then the group members van gathor again aller thoir discussion, cig) The purpose of using this structure is to create more chances for students to speak and enhanee their responsibility for the task because as working in pairs, participants have to work in tums,

so if one participant docs not work, the lask may fait This really helps in organiving telephone conversation practice, one oŸ the performance areas in general business English The aims to structure students in Hink-pair-share are similar to what of rally ¢able, There

is only a slight difference in the way it is conducted In this structure, students are divided into pairs The Leacher calls oul a discussion lope and students #ink of their own answers Then students pair to discuss their ideas, Finally, the teacher asks the students to share their ideas in their groups, and then the teacher can call one student to share their ideas

with the class This works well in discussion to find out how to solve a business problem

Tn team interview, slulents lake lurns slanding and being interview by their leams, They

can be interviewed about 4 company or a produet-tliey have road about This cam bơ dưng

after students’ presentation time as well By using this structure, the teacher can help

students feel more confident as presenting in {rant of many people

Teammate const also works well in general business English, Siudents have the samme worksheet, They discuss the questions, and then silently write down the answers This really helps in a cooperative leaming group, as students can exchange their ideas with one another to find out what they themselves think the best answers for the questions given,

Suudonis arc on “base toams? of five in a jigsene practice, Fach student is assigned a different role as an ‘expert’, AUl ‘experts’ with the same topic meet in a comer of the classroom to learn about their topics Then they prepare a brief presentation on the material

and retum to their base teams ‘I‘hey tell their base team members about the new material

Tn summary, there ara many stralogics used in cooperative learning, all have conmon characterises of leaming activities that are suitable for group work, and small group based tasks The strategies mentioned above, which were chosen carefully by the researcher of this study, cneouraged students’ cooperative bohaviers, positive interdependence, individual accountability and responsibility for task completion, and so on, Thus, the application of cooperative learning strategies is very effective in solving the problems of speaking activities,

2 2 3 3, Menetits of cooperative learning in language teaching

Since springing to life around the seventeenth century, cooperative learning approach has exposed a lot of its strengths rather than its weak points, The source of benefits for cooperative leaming can be seen in different fields, including the teaching of English language as a forsign language Tn the best cooperative leaming speaking lesson in a language classroom, the members of a learning group can benefit in several ways

‘Typically, a teacher who chooses to use this method may not only have a learning goal that

is domain-specific for the course, but alse hopes thal in the process of ying to attain this

goal, the shulents will acquire now slralegics and knowledge By dividing the class inta groups, a new social context is created whereby students have the opportunity to share individual cognitions with their peers and come to a conclusion based on the sum of these

cognitions A group that contains diverse members has the benefit of exposure to đifforent ideas and the challenge of incorporating these ideas inlo the cognitive process of the group

communicatively, The benefits of cooperative leaming have been discussed by several

famous scholars all over the world

According to Johnson and Johnson (1987), cooperative leaming approach is the “ideal” educational target: the “power of self-control”, Students’ ability can be developed and they become confident to do interdependent assignments At first, they try to find out the way to authorize and believe in one another in their own team, then in a larger one such as their class Gradually, they can be confident enough to enter a mneh larger community where the teacher plays the role as the presenter, supervisor, and supporter This is a very good way of building up students” confidence in cooperative leaming, so that they are not reluctanl to speak out their ideas,

Prasongpom (2004; 72) notes the advantages of cooperative learning as promoting members’ relationships and providing cqual opportunity to all members to think, spcak and act while working together It also helps members listen to other ideas and to brainstorm to make decisions in doing something adjust to living and working logether and promols communication among members

As for Johnson & Holubce (1991), “Coop

types of leaming situations what we know about effective instruction indicates that

ive keaning is the most important of the thr

cooperative learning should be used when we want students to learn more Like school better, like themselves better, and loam more cffective social skills, IN is clear thal classrooms should be dominated by cooperation among students” This idea about the usc

of cooperative learning is worth considering for the trend towards the increasing of

cooperative learning application in speaking lessons for Vielnamese shudlents,

Millis (1996-2001) points oul that sludonts studying coopsralively in orionted groups ars strongly believed 1o be successful He also emphasizes that “Working in well-instructed groups permanently or semi-permanently gives students more opportunities to interact with one another Structural expressions also help a lot in everyday classroom practice Roundtable, for instance, is a technique of brainstorming applicd in many kinds of practice for various targets Students choose correct and appropriate structures first, and then use the structures lo produce their own meaningful senlences By doing thal, they pul

to be a cooperative lesson or activity” Obviously, it is a beneficial for students to do so, even il may take a plenty of time, and teachers should carefully think of the allocation of time for other language skills, especially in the Vietnamese classroom context, where the traditional approach is still dominated

Datiley (1994) thanks that in cooperative leaming, students work interdependently in thar groups to fulfill a special target Effective cooperative leaning should include five vital clements; positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction, individual accountability, social skills, and group processing, Positive interdependence refers to the peer support in groups In teach the goal By facs-lo-face inleracting, studenis can help one another mors easily Students also need to account their work individually, so that they can get rid of being plagiarized by others Acquiring social skills can help students strengthen personal relationships among members of their gronp Finally, group procossing is necessary lo

evaluate cach member's work, their success or problems, their attitudes towards the job

Teachers themsclves bencfit from collaborative learning, According to Bruffcc (1993), by applying this approach, they help students form groups or societies in which students get assistance from one another lo make progresses, and lo overcome problems facing them in

their new knowledge environment

Tn conclusion, the reason why cooperative learning is uscd is that cooperative learning enhances students’ learning by:

- providing a shared cognitive set of information between students,

- Imotivating students to leam the malerials,

- onsuring that studcnts construct their own knowledge,

providing formative feedback,

- promoting positive interaction between members of different cultural groups

Cooperative learning small groups also provide a place where:

- leamers actively participate,

- teachers become leamers at times, and leamers sometimes teach,

- respect is given to every member,

projects and questions interest and challenge students,

- diversity is celebrated, and all contributions are valued,

- students learn skills for resolving conflicts wher thi

members draw upon their past experience and knowledge,

- goals are clearly identified and used as a guide,

- research tools such as Internet access are made available,

students are invested in their own learning,

2.2 3 4 Previous studies on cooperative learning with reference to the enhancement

of students’ speaking skills

Cooperative loaming is one of the main factors to promote students’ communication In

this study, cooperative development is not only for language teaching but also language learning, particularly the learning of English speaking skills It provided a way of students

working together with their friends in order to become a better learner who leamed best at

his! her own pace There have been a large amount of studies on cooperative learning,

especially with reference to the enhancement of students’ speaking skills In this part, only

some famous ones are noted

In their study, Tavella and Artusi (2006: 11) did research on the application of cooperative learning lo enhance speaking skills Their study was carried onl with the participation of two groups of secondary school students The study shows that cooperative learning is extremely useftl in mixed-ability classes because it takes into account individual learning

styles, lenming spoods, personality differences, lmguage levels and alfeolive issues The characteristics of cooperative leaming were positive interdependence, individual accountability, social skills, especially speaking skills, and there was a need for the monitoring of behavioral crileria for grouping so thal sludents could orally perform belter Group compositions and interaction patterns could change with goals, They conclude that cooperative learning is more than just an approach to learning a language, or language skills; iLis a way of working, behaving and even rellecting sociely and life iIself

Holmes (2003: 254 - 257) conducted an empirical study in a Malaysian universily to investigale students’ language skill development via cooperative leaning application The study compared students working in pairs and students working alone He found that students who worked together produced better results and had more positive attitudes Moreover, the data analysis in his study revealed that while working in groups, student’s speaking skills were improved, especially the ability of expressing their ideas, However, there were some shorlcomings aboul conflicl manipulation or deception, The overall rosulls of the rescarch indicated thal most sindculs regarded pair work positively Fifly-five

(80%) of the pairs reported that they had had a good experience working with a partner and

38 (57%) said they enjoyed doing the project

Johnson, Johnson and Holubee (1991: 21) observed that college students, especially

freshmen, often feel hopeless and discouraged when facing a difficult class, therefore cooperative learning should be provided After their research, they noted that the most

important aspect of college faculty life is empowering students by organizing them into a

cooperative team They also had another conclusion that by studying in teams, students’

language competence became better, namely speaking and listening skills

Cooperative learning models have been demonstrated to have a markedly positive impact

on student achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1991) In a paper available on the CLC website and presented in 2001, Johnson and Johnson conducted a meta-analysis of only that literature that specifically analyzed the impact of cooperative learning on students” speaking skill achievement In their estimate, students in cooperative leaming situations

Score, on average across many studies, almost two thirds of a standard deviation higher

than their peers in competitive or individualistic learning situations

2 3 Conclusion

In short, the chapter has so far presented the issues and aspects concerning the topic of the study As a learner (learning from students’ feedback), teacher (providing students materials and activities) and researcher (analyzing and reflecting on data) at the same time,

the language teacher should realize that theories and strategies of teaching second language speaking skills need to be understood In the process of developing this study, using

theories relating such as the communicative language teaching and the teaching of

speaking skills, the speaking skills in General Business English, cooperative learning, and

cooperative learning structures, the benefits of cooperative leaming, etc as background

knowledge to plan the activities and materials were a good way to enhance students to learn most The thorough action research — the most important part of this study — will be

presented in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY

3 1 Introduction

Tn this st ction, besides the minor introduction and conclusion, four main categories ars addressed The first one is the context of the study, which houses the description of the

students’ leaming context and learning materials in their second year at Hanoi University

of Business and Technology Tn the second category, the methods of dala calleetion ars presented carefully The introduction of the action research participants lies in the next part, The most important part of the chapter, which is the procedures of the study, desoribes in details the problem identification and the plan of action

3 2 Context of the study

3 2.1 The learning context

‘The students were in their first semester of the second university year, with 90 class hours

of Engtish study They studied in a small-sized class af 30 ones, cach class has ane privals room to study They had just finished the elementary level of English and attend 10 class hous of English every week I'he students, after one year learning English at Hanoi Universily of Business and Technology, were expected to communicate appropriately in various, sunple situations in everyday life as well as in business life

In general, the students al Hanoi University of Business and Technology altend 3 modules

of English in their first year, 4 ones in their second year, and 4 others in their third year At the end of each module, they have to take part in an oral progress test which accounts for 20% of the general module score, (The written test takes 10%, the on-going assessments get 10%, and the final on-computer-test takes 60%),

3 2 2 The learning materials

The course book is Market Leader (Pre-intermediate) by David Cotton, David Falvey, and Simon Kent (2000) The book is clearly laid out with plenty of authentic models of spoken language, commumicative aclivities, pair work, and group work to help studenis practice using the language in the classroom The book is divided into 12 or 14 topic-based units depending on the level ‘he topics have been chosen following research among teachers to calablish which arcas arc of the widest possible intersst to the majority of their students Besides speaking, the book provides input in reading, and hstening, with guidance for

speaking activities such as not even participation, students’ inhibition, nothing to say, use

of mother tongue can be solved, and students can quickly make progress in the process of second lamguage acquisition, as well as mecl the comse requirement al umtiversily

3 3 Methods of data collection

‘The results of the study were developed based on the data collected via the researchers”

observation schedules, Ihe language proficicney tests, the sludents’ writien journals aller each speaking lesson The process of collecting data was carried out during the students” fourth moduls of English at university

Quantitatively, the data collected ftom the observations were used to discover the

performance before and aller applying cooperative leaning,

Qualitatively, the data collected from the students’ journals and the observation in the students’ post-activities were useful sources to reflect their feelings, opinions of cooperative leaming; and to provide a list of skills that students have participated and

improved in cooperative learning,

The first instrument for collecting data was the teachers’ class observations before and

during the application of cooperative Icarning in speaking activitics to record students”

participation, The observations, which consisted of a series of interaction categories including inifiating, responding (simply agreement), responding ‘agreement with development), responding (sanply disagreement), responding (disagreement with reasons), eliciting, evaluating, asking for explanation and clarification, and team building, targeted al recording the mature of students’ participation in pre- and posl- activilies

sr, 2001) The pre-

observation was cairied out before the application of cooperative leammg in speaking

(adapted from The Postgraduate Research Handhook by Wis

lessons to record the students’ participation in ordinary instructional activities, and the

five teachers of English (as mentioned above) following the observation schedules, which

were adapted from terion research for language teachers by Wallace (2001) Ihe observers were explained clearly about the foval topic, the purposes of the sindy as well as

the observation forms They were also provided with the lesson plan and the detailed

aotivities before every lesson so that they could prepare well for the observation During both pre- and posi- observations, all the observers came lo class TC1201 when the

speaking lessons were taking place: cach of them (including the teacher of the class)

observed one group of five students and noted down the students’ behaviors on the

observation sheel Specifically, the students were divided imlo groups based on their tesl scores (which were described carefully in the next sections); each of them was coded with

a mumber (from one upwards, equivalent to the order of their names in the alphabetical list

of names) Tach observer then walched one group, made notes if each student carried oul any interaction category The observers also recorded how many times each student

participated in each speaking activity (the pre- and post- activities were designed with the same length of time) ‘Ihe observation sheets are included in the appendixes

The second instruments were the two sets of oral tests The first one was the oral tests of

the three previous modules (pre-test) and the oral test module 4 Ths oral progress

were designed with two parts and last 5 - 7 minufcs, In the first part, after imtreducing

themsdlves briefly In the examiner, sludents were asked lo read aloud » dialogue in pairs

als,

within 2 - 3 minutes This part aimed to create warm atmosphere for the students with a

‘view to helping them feel comfortable in the examination It also aimed to check the student’ ability to speak fluently with correct stress and intonation in the second part, students were asked to role-play a situation (mainly adapted from the SAills and Case study

in Market Leader Pre-intermediate), within 4 - 5 minutes ‘This aimed to check the students’ ability to manage in discourse and to participate in a conversation in a simple

busi

$ comlexL In general, the frameworks for the oral tsis were well evaluated with their validity, difficulty, reliability, applicability, relevance, inlerprelability, acceptability, cle, The tests were also designed by tcachcrs of English al HURT who had aliended couscs of Language Testing at the Department of Post Graduate - Hanoi National

Universily Throughout the lest, the students ware assessed nol m telalion to cach other bul

according to the following are the speaking ctiteria and marking scales which were adapted from Language resting lectures by Vu Van Phuc M.A.(2007) (included in the appendixes)

2

Although there were some constraints of this instrument such as it could not adequately show the sludents” participation in big cooperative learning groups (with more than lwo students), and thers was only one examiner for each testing desk, these quantitative data were still valid and reliable because the design of the oral tests closely met with the requirements of the standard speaking test, cvaluation, Morsover, pair work is a kind of small groupwork and in the test, the students had to work together to perform theix work in the best way

‘The last instruments were students’ written journals after each speaking lessons to reflect their attitnde towards the lesson The use of students? journals in research into attitudes was supported by Jane (2001) and Peck (1996), The students were instructed to wnte theix joumals in Vietnamese and in English Gf they were interested) to answer the optional Prompls (included in the appendixes), which focused on the research questions (Lis worth mentioning that the sludents had beon tanght how to write a journal before), Also, the students were informed that their journals would not to be marked but used as the data to help to improve their speaking skills, All of these things were cartied out to make the students fecl lotelly free to relleet their Leclings and opinions of the lessons so thal their written journals could provide the researcher with useftil information about the students’ feelings towards language learning, especially speaking skills, in the light of cooperative learning approach

‘Technology ‘he students were at the age of 19 to 20, including 18 girls and 12 boys ‘Their

lovel of proficiency in English was rougtily attribulcd to clemontary (aller one your studying English al university), Most of the students come from different high schools in different regions all over Vietnam, where waditional methods of teaching English are popularly applied Before studying at university, their English leaming had focused on reading and writing but not listening and spcaking, thus they had very little chanee to speak English However, those coming ftom towns and cities seemed to be better at speaking skills because they har more chance lo core and study at foreign Language centres, where

and

they could practice spoaking Fnglish, while tho studznts coming from provini

23

remote regions seemed to be shy and slow Although the students were dynamic, enthusiastic and hard working in the study, their Isvet of speaking competence was mixed Some students (approximately 5) were really active and ‘talkative and dominant’ in par and group activities, Most of the students (about 15) were relatively involved in speaking activities though they wore fill reluctant as contributing their awn idoas, Tho rest (around 10) were quiet and passive, they seemed to keep silent and listen to the other team members most of the time Despite the mentioned difficulties, all of the students were always eager to Team any subjects well, particularly ngtish, as il was neccssary for their

as well as the two students of class 14 MA had graduated from Departments of Foreign Languages in Universities in Viettam They wers from 28 1a 38 years of age They all had four to six yours of expari

co of teaching English lo nen-major studonts They had all participated in one or more Teacher In-service Education programs (held by Vietnam- Australia ‘Training Organizations, the British Council, and some other non-governed Organizations) In addition, aff of thom lad attended a course of Engtish leaching methodology at the department of post-graduate studies in Vietnam national university, and they all showed their interest in the lectures on teaching speaking

3 5 The procedures of the study

3.5 1 Problem identification

In her first English class with the students of class TC1201, the researcher found out a problem: students’ Gaihue and lack of interest in speaking activities, especially the ones

requiring pair work and group work

To clarify the problern, the rescarchor administered and analyved the orat tost scores of the three previous modules of English to discover that the number of students who got good marks (mark 7, 8, and 9) in speaking only covers 17% (five out of thirty students), whereas the average (mark 5, and 6) took about 50% (Giflcen students), and the low shared 33% (len

24

students) which consistently unchanged during their three modules of English ‘I'he mean and standard deviation were also laken inlo account lo compare the sludzris” proficiency and their progress in the three previous modules In addition, an observation (the pre- observation mentioned above) was also carried out to record students” participation in some ordinary instructional activities, The data collected from this pro-obscrvation show the inequality of the students’ participation in term of quantity and the dominant orientation in term of nature \'he record of students” scores in the pre-test (the three end- ofsnodile oral tesis) and the pro-observation are demonstrated in the lables im the

After her failure to monitor students in speaking activities, the teacher-rescarcher decided

to invite three teachers of English and two students of 14MA class (who work as teachers

of English for non-major students) to come and observe the class” speaking lessons I'he

learning thory, The teacher of the elass then discussed the teaching and learning mothods

in speaking, especially focusing on group activities, with the students Finally, all of the students agreed with the teacher that co-operative learning should be applisd to improve

their speaking skills

3 5 2 2 Organize groups

Grouping is a very important part of co-operative leaming application, so it is conducted carsfully and scicntifically The teachers decided to organize student groups so that they could work effectively in speaking activities, Firstly, the teacher of the class let the

well as

students do a multiple intelligent test to discover their strengths and weakness

their personality, diligence, etc The multiple intelligent test, which was designed by Gardiner (2007), was retriaved from the intemet According to Gardner (2007), the use of the test can help teachers and tutors to discover innovalive ways lo help their learners succeed a6 well as their preferable loaning styles, based on their learnars’ intelligences

‘After that, the students were divided into mixed intelligence and ability groups based on

their test scores, together with their test scores in the previous semesters Hach of the

25

students was given a card with a code number used for the observation (the students are numbered from one upward, with a number equivalent lo the order of their names in the alphabetical list of names)

3.5, 2 3, Implement cooperative learning structured activities basing on the course

book and start the observation schedule and journals

‘The teacher designed all the speaking parts in the course book in cooperative loarning

tudcnls how to cmplay collaborative skills to work succes

fully in groups (assigning roles, choosing leaders, keeping listening, questioning, tor clarification, asking and giving reasons, disagreeing and responding politely to disagreement, etc) The teacher also reminded the students of principles of co-opcrative Icarning all the time during the activities There was a common goal set for each group to reach; and during the process of cooperalively working, they were marked in groups and the assessments take 10% of the

students’ final scorss

The ofber teachers of English (mentioned above) were inviled Lo observe the lessons and to

record the data for the study using the observation schedules in this stage, The students

were also asked to write journals to reflect on the lessons after each

3 5 2 4 Evaluate students’ speaking proficiency

The students took the oral test of module 4 with the same format and criteria as the

previous ones, and with most of the same examiners

Tlowever, during the module, the scores of the students (ihe 10% of the final scores) were

counted through an average grade in their groups, with the purpose of encouraging students

to help and be responsible for them fellow group members This means that in a group of

four stidents, students’ marks were calculated by averaging the score on their test and the average of their three group-mates’ scores (For example, if a student gets the score of 7,

and the three other students get 4, 5, 6 (the average of 5), then the student’s score will be 6) (This grade averaging is adapted from George Jacobs, ELT Jounal Volume 2/2 April

1988, Cooperative goal structure: a way to improve proup activities)

26

3.5.2.5, Analyze the data

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were applied to analyze the data collected The researcher quantitatively depended om the dala collzcled from the observation schedules, the comparison of the module 4 oral test scores with the scores of the previous oral tests Qualitatively, the students’ journals and the teachers’ records were taken into account te identify the students” truthful information about their attitude and improvement

in oral communication skill

of cooperative learning groups, the implementation of cooperative learning, structured activities, the observations and students’ written journals It also includes the evaluation of the sindeuts* speaking proficiency and the analysis of the data as well as the findings The next chapter will provide the thorough process of analyzing data,

27

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

‘The previous chapter presents the study which includes the context of study, the methods

of data collection, the participants, and the research procedures ‘This chapter presents the data analysis ‘The chapter begins with the findings related to the impact of cooperative learning on studenis’ participation in speaking activities, and the studsnis” altitudes

towards cooperative Jeaming, As presented in the previous chapter, chapler tines, dala related to students” participation nmder the impact of the experimental cooperative learning were analyzed quantitatively whereas data on students’ attitudes were analyzed

qualitatively The chapter concludes with the discussion of the findings

4.1 The effects on the students? participation

4.1.1 Frequency of students’ participation in pre- and post- activities

As it was mentioned in the previous sections, the students in each group were arranged in the order of their speaking ability In order to compare the students’ participation, observation forms of eight activities (four pre- and four post- activities) were collected, the Frequency and nature of each students’ participation in each activity were counted and inatked, then all the muribers and fealures were presenled on tables and charts, which show the frequency of the students” participation in four pre- and four post- activities, All the tables and charts are presented in the appondixes

On analyzing the figures of the first two siudynts in all groups, the best ones, the researcher

figured out that the frequency of their participation in pre-activities was almost higher than

in pre-activities talked less and the quiet ones talked more in post-activities

As regard to the ficquency of the students’ participation, in the pre- activity 1, student number 13, who was the best student in group 1, interacted 28 times in the conversation, which took 41,17 % of the whole conversation while this student only participated 28.57%

in the post- activity one On the contrary, student number 24, the worst student of group 1 talked more in the post- activity than she did in pre- activity (ten times - 14.29% in comparison with twice - 2.94%), Generally, the frequency of the students’ interaction

28

increased significantly in the post- activity 2, 3, and 4 The difference is clearly described

as following (the first number refers to the quantity of the students’ participation in the pre- aclivily, the second number refers lo the limes the students parlicipated in the post- activity, the lines of tumbers show the activities from 1 te 4)

60 38 Student 16:

Student 5:

27-20 52-38 58-35

37 39 Student 19:

23-16 45—32 45—32

Student 21:

20-16

45-30

42 30 46-35

Student 17:

29 —18 53-39 51-35

37 37 Student 22:

22 28 Student 1:

8-11 20-25 32-30

40 — 32

GROUP4

Student 13:

4-10

in pre- and post-activities, taking account of their own achievement (the weak ones) and

the hannony of all the group members

4 1 2 Comparison of the students’ participation

‘The bar charts (which are placed in the appendixes) visually show the students”

achievement (especially the weak ones) via the comparisons of their participation in speaking activities between pre- and post- activities It is also revealed from the charts that the smdents seemed to harmonize with one another in producing interaction categories: the

most able students talkodl less (although ths orat icst results shows thal they wore making

progress) lo give the least able students the Noor Lo parlicipale

As it can be seen from the charts, the dark columns, which reflect the students” participation in pre - activities vary much more than the light columns, which reflect the students’ participation in posl — activities The Inighest dark colurm comes up to 41.17%

and the lowes! is al 2.94% while the highest light colurm only goes 32.85% ard the lowes! one is at 10% Moreover, the disparity in students’ participation in each group in post- activities is little, in comparison with the big disproportion performed in the pre-activitics This proves the advantages of cooperative leaming, where students can help each other to achieve certain goals

30

One more noticeable feature is that the participation of the most of good students went down in almost all post activities, however, no one made a significant decrease ‘This is to say they did not lose interest in Ihe subject The decrease of their participation was jus due

lo the imercase of the weak students’ participation The fallowing figures show the

percentage of the students’ participation that seems to be more equal in post- activities

(The first number refers to the percentage of the students’ participation in the pre- activity, the second number refers to the percentage that the students patticipated in the post- activity, and the lines of numbers show the activities fiom 1 to 4)

is clearly that cooperative learning structured activities create more equal participation among the students

4, 2 The effects on the students’ speaking performance

‘The improvement of students speaking skills after the implementation of cooperative learning cam be seen clearly fiom the descriptive stalisties of the tests (included in the

is clearer as looking, at the range for the pre-test (5, 4, 4) and the post-test (3) In addition,

as the standard deviation for the post test was smaller than that of the pre-test, itis said that the single marks in the post-losl were thors lightly grouped around its mean than those in the pre-test Therefore, we can confirm that the post test was more homogeneous than the

pre-test

Table 10; The central tendency and dispersion of the test scores

In conclusion, the improvement in speaking test performance was recognized as regards both central tendeney and dispersion As the tests had the same format and criteria, and the

chers im all the fests, under official ics!

4.3 Students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning

In general, the students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning were positively reflected in their written journals The joumals were mostly written in Vietnamese and were informed not for marking, so the students told truthfully and thoroughly about the classroom atmosphere in cooperative leaming activities, their feeling and opinions of working in cooperalive learning groups The students alse lisled oul the difficulties facing them as working in groups and gave some suggestions to the teacher The following are some of their typical ideas (some of which have been translated from Vietnamese into English):

- Lenjoy working with my group members because we all try our best, help each other a lot

work hard to fulfill individual tasks Working in groups, we all have to try our best because

we do noi wani to affect others in the group

- The friends in my groups are very helpful and supportive, I feel more confident to talk in

groups, and then I can talk in front of the class confidenily as appointed by the teacher.

33

- f think I have made a great progress in speaking I used to speak little, in speaking lessons, [ used to keep silent and listen to other without responding Everything is different

now, my friend listen to me, encourage me to speak, correct me when I gel wrong

pronunciation I myself have to try hard because I do not want ay group to have bad mark

hecause of my bad performance

- Like working cooperatively like this way In the speaking lesvon today, we interviewed in puirs, and then reported io other members in the group aboul our pariners, se we had to ask a lot ef questions as well as to listen to them carefully It was so fir

As working in cooperative leamng groups, students can develop not only their academic

skills but also social skills, especially the oral communication skills such as questioning and responding, explaining and clarifying Their skills of pronouncing and listening can be

improved as well This discovery fiom the study is quite in harmony with Brown's points

of view (1994: 256) Following are some of their reflection which commonly appeared in

their journals:

- L usually ask questions for clarification and explanation because if do not understand, I can not report [also have to keep asking questions to get information I need for my group

T think T have improved my speaking and thinking skills through questioning and

responding my friends’ questions

- J improve my explaining and clarifving skills when I share, present ar report information

to other people in my group, T think T also understand more through explaining and

clarifying information to others

- f think my pronunciation has impraved as 1 have to try to speak clearly with correct pronunciation so that the others can understand me

- think I.can improve my listening skill through cooperative learning, because when the other speak, Ihave to listen attentively so that I can respond or get the information { need

However, the students also wrote about some difficulties they encountered when working

in cooperative learnings groups:

- It takes a lot of time for us to contact, especially the outside classroom activities

- Sometimes we find it difficult to come to a conclusion ar solution to a problem

- Sometimes being responsible for others and the group makes me worried

34

- Sometimes I feel impatient because some members in our group are a bit slow, but in the

end, everything goes well

- We sometimes do nat have enough time for discussing

Their reveal of the aspects thai we had not deall with in the sluly is very helpfiit for our

application of cooperative learning in the future

4 4 Discussion of the findings

This action rescarch aims at solving the biggest problems facing the students of class

“C1201 in the speaking lessons such as the students’ unequal participation and their slow improvement in speaking activities It can be recognized through the data analysis that cooporalive learning application has brought the significant improvernsnt in sludents? speaking skills This is in agreement with the ideas stated by Johnson and Johnson (2001) Most of the students found satisfied for being able to work in an environment in which the

The tables and charts show that cooperative leaming carefully structured activities

decreased the number of interactive turns of the advanced students and increased that of