000032452 THE EFFECTS OF PAIRWORK AND GROUPWORK ACTIVITIES ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF SPEAKING FLUENCY OF THE FIRST-YEAR NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY ẢNH HƯỞNG CỦA HOẠT ĐỘNG LÀM VIỆC CẶP ĐÔI VÀ LÀM VIỆC NHÓM ĐẾN VIỆC CẢI THIỆN KỸ NĂNG NÓI TRÔI CHẢY CỦA SINH VIÊN NĂM NHẤT KHÔNG NGÀNH TIẾNG ANH TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH DOANH VÀ CÔNG NGHỆ HÀ NỘI
B a c k g r o u n d t o t h e s t u d y a n d s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p r o b l e m I 1.2 T h e a i m o f t h e s t u d y
Language teachers and researchers have shifted toward communicative language teaching (CLT), a learner-centered approach that emphasizes active learner involvement and the meaningful use of the target language for effective communication CLT aims to motivate students and engage them through a range of realistic, worthwhile, and attainable tasks, enabling learners’ ability and willingness to use the language accurately and appropriately for real-life communication (Sheils, 1993).
Scholars often identify the most important change in language teaching methodology as the widespread use of pair and group work to generate natural language activities in the classroom, a development that also drives the creation of new materials and activities (Nolasco and Arthur).
Learner involvement in language learning is fully realized when students work together in pairs and small groups Sheils (1993) states that pair and group work activities increase learner–learner interaction and reduce teacher-led, whole-class talk Harmer (1991) notes that failing to employ a variety of student groupings (pairs, groups, etc.) may waste valuable opportunities for language practice Across the literature, researchers emphasize that pair and group work provides learners with opportunities to actively practice the target language.
In general, theses activities can help m otivate language learning, increase students’ participation and learning effectiveness Therefore, these activities are usually suggested in language teaching and learning.
Vietnam, on its path to full integration with the world, is adopting advanced methods across almost every field, especially in education This movement is clearly visible in foreign language teaching, where new materials and methodologies—including course books aligned with the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach and the use of pair and group work as CLT activities—are being adopted Across schools and universities, Vietnam continually strives to apply the latest methodologies to maximize language learning effectiveness Hanoi University of Business and Technology (HUBT) is no exception.
Since its establishment, HUBT has prioritized English as a core subject to ensure graduates can use English confidently in professional settings, particularly in international business transactions The university requires all students—including non-English majors—to complete a six-term English program totaling 72 credits (12 credits per term) In the first three terms, non-English majors share the same English course and study the “English File” course book series, with the authors noting that students should complete the book’s activities in a communicative way.
Despite the requirements of the course books and the clear benefits of pair and group work, many teachers at HUBT are reluctant to organize these activities, reporting that students remain not very active in pair and group work and some do not participate at all This often leads teachers to revert to traditional, teacher-centered methods for teaching speaking and to avoid integrating pair and group activities into language classes As a result, HUBT students do not develop strong speaking skills and speak too little in class; when they do speak, they rely heavily on canned phrases from prefabricated materials and struggle to combine words into sentences that convey their ideas In oral practice, students frequently take a passive role and stay quiet, with a significant number consistently unprepared for the active participation required in conversations, while only a handful of more advanced learners dominate the discussion Consequently, many graduates who study English cannot use it fluently to communicate with English-speaking people and perform poorly on speaking tests.
Therefore, teachers should cultivate a positive attitude toward English speaking among students to help them become eager speakers, enjoy practicing English, and develop a genuine, lasting interest in language learning.
Pair and group work activities have proven effective in English language teaching and learning, but they have received relatively little attention at HUBT Limited research has compared the effects of pair and group work with traditional speaking instruction to determine whether collaborative tasks can better enhance students’ speaking skills, especially speaking fluency Therefore, this study investigates pair and group work as a teaching procedure A quasi-experimental design was used to compare the effects of pair and group work with the traditional method—individual work—on students’ speaking fluency at HUBT, with the goal of identifying which approach is more effective for HUBT learners.
This study investigates the effects of pair work and group work activities on the development of speaking fluency among students at HUBT It also examines students' attitudes toward these collaborative approaches in their speaking lessons to understand how interactive tasks influence fluency, motivation, and overall classroom engagement.
R e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s
The study was carried out w ith a view to answ ering the follow ing research questions:
1 Does the use o f pair w ork'and group work activities improve the students’ speaking fluency in term s o f the size o f speech, the frequency o f hesitation and repetition?
2 W hat are the students’ attitudes tow ards pair and group work activities in their classes?
T h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e s t u d y
Extensive research on pair work and group work as teaching strategies shows that these collaborative activities are useful and effective for language learners in both ESL and EFL contexts The evidence points to improved communicative competence, greater learner engagement, and enhanced learning outcomes when students work in pairs or small groups Therefore, deploying pair work and group work more widely and effectively can be advantageous at HUBT, supporting interactive language instruction and better results.
Investigating the advantages of pair work and group work over traditional individual tasks at HUBT gave English teachers a new teaching approach to adopt—the use of collaborative speaking activities Increasing the use of pair and group work can foster a more positive attitude toward speaking English among learners In today’s integrated world, effective spoken English practice is essential for students, especially ESP learners who must communicate across contexts This collaborative practice also helps students develop self-directed study habits, enabling them to keep pace with a changing world during university and throughout their lifelong learning.
T h e s c o p e o f t h e s t u d y
Speaking fluency is a complex phenomenon, as subsequent literature shows Quasi-experimental studies allow researchers to examine how variables such as effort, language aptitude, personality traits, parental influence, and learner commitment affect fluency This study, however, concentrates on the effects of two activity formats—pair work and group work—and individual work on students’ speaking fluency, measuring outcomes in terms of speech length, hesitation frequency, and repetition in speaking classes Time and financial constraints limit the investigation to two first-year classes, matched on speaking level within a classroom setting It is also assumed that factors such as students’ personality traits and parental influence are similar across the two groups.
O u t l i n e o f t h e t h e s i s
The thesis consists o f five chapters:
TH E INTRODU CTIO N states the statem ent o f the problem , the aims, and the significance o f the study It also includes the scope and the outline o f the thesis.
Chapter Two provides the literature review, outlining the theoretical foundations related to speaking, pair work, and group work, and it examines the attitudes toward these collaborative activities It also summarizes and synthesizes relevant prior research to contextualize the study within existing scholarship.
Chapter Three outlines the research methodology, detailing the study design, the characteristics of the participants, the data collection tool, and the procedures used to gather and manage the data It explains participant selection, the instruments employed, and the step-by-step data collection process to ensure rigor, reliability, and validity The chapter ends with a concise summary of the methodological framework and its role in supporting the study’s objectives and findings.
CH A PTER FO UR presents and analyses the collected data, discusses the results and sum m arizes the findings from the quasi-experim ent.
C H A PTER FIVE consists o f some recom m endations drawn out by the author from the research Suggestions for further research are also included in this chapter.
This chapter deals with the theoretical backgrounds relating to speaking, pair work, group work, and the attitudes towards pair and group work activities.
T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f sp e a k i n g in d i f f e r e n t te a c h i n g a p p r o a c h e s
The Grammar-Translation M ethod
Under the grammar-translation method, students learn to analyze grammar and to translate texts from one language to another, usually in writing The primary instructional goal is to read the literature of a particular culture According to Richards and Rodgers (1986), the main characteristics of the grammar-translation method include a focus on explicit grammar rules, translation practice, memorization of vocabulary, and classroom activities that emphasize reading and writing over speaking and listening.
(a) reading and writing are the main focus;
(b) the vocabulary studied is determ ined by the reading texts;
(c) “the sentence is the basic unit o f teaching and language practice” (p 4);
(d) the prim ary em phasis is on accuracy;
(e) teaching is deductive (i.e., gram m ar rules are presented and then practiced through translating); and
(f) the medium o f instruction is typically the students’ native language.
Richards and Rodgers also note that although the “gram m ar-translation method is still widely practiced, it has no advocates; it is a method for which there is no theory” (p 5).
The grammar-translation method fails to equip learners to speak English, making it unsuitable for adults who want to improve their speaking skills Bailey (2002) argues that this approach does not align with goals such as increasing fluency, oral production, or communicative competence among adult learners (p 18) In typical grammar-translation classrooms, speaking practice largely involves reading translations aloud or performing grammar exercises orally, leaving few opportunities to express original thoughts or personal needs and feelings in English.
The A udio-lingual M ethod
In the audio-lingual method, speaking skills are taught by repeating sentences and reciting memorized textbook dialogues, with repetition drills designed to familiarize learners with the sound and structural patterns of the language (Bailey, 2002) The theory behind this approach is that learners acquire spoken proficiency by practicing grammatical structures until their production becomes automatic, after which they are able to engage in natural conversation.
Bailey (2002) argues that the theoretical basis of the audio-lingual method is good habit formation, meaning language lessons must involve frequent repetition and correction to help learners develop correct habits Teachers address spoken errors quickly to prevent the formation of bad habits The approach offers little or no explicit vocabulary or grammar explanations; instead, intense repetition and practice are used to establish speaking habits that become fluent and automatic, allowing learners to utter utterances without stopping to think Bailey also notes that learners spend time in the lab listening to native speakers in rehearsed dialogues and often repeat after the tape-recorded voice, with few opportunities to express their own intended meaning in English As Lazaraton (2001, p 103) observes, this tightly controlled practice is designed to reinforce the correct habit formation of linguistic rules, but such control does not necessarily prepare students for the spontaneous, fluid interaction that occurs outside the classroom.
Audiolingualism lost popularity, as Ellis (1990) explains, due to strong theoretical criticisms and disappointment with classroom results Learners grew bored with pattern practice and drills, and the method downplayed explicit grammar instruction, leaving many feeling hindered in their learning Moreover, memorizing patterns did not translate into fluent or effective communication in real-life situations.
Com m unicative Language Teaching M eth od
As a basic start for investigating Com m unicative Language Teaching (CLT), many researchers begin by defining what com m unicative com petence According to Ellis
(1994, p 696), com m unicative competence is “the knowledge that users o f a language have internalized to enable them to understand and produce m essages in the language”
As a result, several m odels o f com m unicative com petence have been proposed (Ellis,
Chomsky (1965) distinguished grammatical (linguistic) competence—the underlying knowledge of a language—from performance, the actual realization of language in concrete situations Building on this distinction, Hymes (1971) introduced communicative competence to emphasize social interaction and the negotiated process of language use, and he, along with Taylor (1983) and others, extended the concept to cover performance rules in addition to grammar Canale and Swain (1980) outlined three components of communicative competence: grammatical competence (knowledge of lexical items, morphology, syntax, semantics, and phonology); sociolinguistic competence (awareness of how context shapes language production and interpretation); and strategic competence (the ability to sustain communication through verbal or nonverbal strategies when misunderstandings arise) Later, Canale (1983) refined the model by adding a fourth dimension—discourse competence—resulting in a four-part framework: grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence.
Today, much of what happens in the ESL classroom is labeled "communicative," meaning that the teaching approach emphasizes developing communicative competence (Hymes, 1971) In this framework, the focus is on meaningful interaction, authentic language use, and the ability to convey and negotiate meaning rather than on isolated linguistic drills According to Richards and Rodgers (1986), the communicative approach shapes curriculum design and instructional practice by prioritizing authentic communication and the functional use of language.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) treats language as a tool for real communication, with the classroom goal of developing learners’ communicative competence and inviting them to use the target language from the very beginning through interaction In CLT, meaning is the focus, and almost everything is carried out with a communicative intent, making meaning negotiation essential as learners converse Accuracy is downplayed in favor of learners’ ability to convey messages, with errors tolerated and explicit instruction on language rules kept minimal To develop communicative competence, learners need many opportunities to communicate without focusing on form, because being understood is more important than using perfect vocabulary or grammar The emphasis is on fluency and comprehensibility rather than accuracy, which leads to a preference for small-group activities that maximize each student’s chances to negotiate meaning CLT frequently relies on role-plays and information-gap tasks, and curricular choices such as task-based and project-based learning are designed to promote interaction among students in language classrooms Finally, pair work and group work are core organizational features of interaction-based CLT lessons.
One of the core features of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is its learner-centered approach to second language instruction (Richards and Rodgers, 1986, p 69) In this view, the instructor's role shifts from controlling learning to acting as a facilitator, empowering students to take charge of their own learning The teacher still designs exercises and guides the class, but learners engage in much more speaking than in traditional classrooms This increased participation often leads to greater confidence in using the language (Bacon, 2006).
CLT em phasizes the use o f authentic m aterials in teaching language (W iddowson,
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) emphasizes giving learners opportunities to respond to genuine communicative needs in real-life contexts In CLT, students practice real-life situations—such as buying food at the market or asking someone for directions—where the goal is to communicate their needs and thoughts without worrying about having perfect grammar This approach centers on meaningful communication over grammatical accuracy, and is illustrated by the example shown in the picture below (Bacon, 2006).
Figure 2.1: In CLT, students practice everyday situations that involve communication, such as asking someone for the time
TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) has evolved to emphasize communicative competence, aligning language teaching with real-world use Among the three main approaches, the advantages of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) appear to outweigh the others, especially in developing students’ speaking skills In CLT classrooms, learners actively practice speaking, leading to fluent and effective communication in everyday life.
D i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f t e a c h i n g s p e a k i n g
How to teach sp ea k in g
Speaking is the process of constructing and sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal cues across diverse contexts It represents a central element of communication and a fundamental aspect of second language learning and teaching, highlighting its role in language education as described by Chaney (1998) and Kayi (2006).
• Produce the English speech sounds and sound patterns.
• Use word and sentence stress, intonation patterns and the rhythm o f the second language.
• Select o f appropriate words and sentences according to the proper social setting, audience, situation and subject matter.
• O rganize their thoughts in a m eaningful and logical sequence.
• Use the language as a means o f expressing values and judgm ents.
• Use the language quickly and confidently with few unnatural pauses, which is called as fluency.
Speaking has long been undervalued in English-language teaching, with many teachers relying on drills and memorized dialogues Today, however, the goal of teaching speaking is to improve students' communicative skills so they can express themselves and follow the social and cultural rules appropriate to each communicative context (Kayi, 2006) Many linguists and ESL educators agree that second-language speaking is best learned through meaningful interaction and authentic communication, rather than through rote repetition alone.
“ interacting” C L T and collaborative learning serve best for this aim A ccording to Kayi
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is grounded in real-life situations that require learners to communicate, so in ESL classes students have opportunities to use the target language to interact with one another Teachers should cultivate a classroom environment that supports authentic communication, authentic activities, and meaningful tasks that promote oral language Drawing on Kayi's 2006 work, suggested speaking activities include discussions, role plays, simulations, information-gap tasks, brainstorming, storytelling, interviews, card games, picture narrating, picture describing, and finding differences; these activities work well in pairs or small groups Kayi also offers practical guidance for teachers on how to teach speaking.
• Provide m axim um opportunities to students to speak the target language by providing a rich environm ent that contains collaborative work, authentic m aterials and tasks, and shared knowledge.
• Try to involve each student in every speaking activity; for this aim, practice different ways o f student participation.
• Reduce teacher speaking time in class while increasing student speaking time Step back and observe the students.
• Indicate positive signs when com m enting on a student’s response.
• Ask eliciting questions such as “ W hat do you mean? How do you reach that conclusion?” in order to prompt students to speak more.
• Provide written feedback like “Your presentation was really great It was a good job I really appreciated your efforts in preparing the m aterials and efficient use o f your v o ic e ”
• Do not correct students’ pronunciation mistakes very often while they are speaking Correction should not distract student from his or her speech.
• Involve speaking activities not only in class but also out o f class; contact parents and other people who can help.
• Circulate around classroom to ensure that students are on the right track and see w hether they need your help while they work in groups or pairs.
• Provide the vocabulary beforehand that students need in speaking activities.
• Diagnose problems faced by students who have difficulty in expressing them selves in the target language and provide more opportunities to practice the spoken language.
Teaching speaking is a vital component of second language learning because the ability to communicate clearly in a target language drives academic success and real‑world effectiveness Therefore, language teachers should devote substantial attention to developing learners’ speaking skills Rather than relying on rote memorization, educators should create a rich communicative environment where meaningful spoken interaction takes place With this approach, a variety of engaging speaking activities can foster the basic interactive skills learners need for life and work, aligning classroom practice with the demands of real‑life communication.
The assessm ent o f speaking proficiency
Testing oral proficiency has become one o f the m ost important issues in language testing since the role o f speaking ability has become more central in language teaching
An oral test’s marking system is a core element of assessment, typically pairing category-based marks with rating scales for each category to produce a scoring grid or chart Traditionally, these mark categories focus on the language produced, reflecting the belief that accurate command of language is an end in itself, regardless of who is speaking or the communicative context Underhill notes that the familiar components of language proficiency most commonly used in assessment include grammar, along with other core linguistic features.
“ V ocabulary”, “ Pronunciation, Intonation and Stress”, “ Style and Fluency”, and
On the other hand, Underhill (1993) points out the perform ance criteria, “which requires a consideration o f the speakers and the context as well as the correctness o f what is said
- they cover all aspects o f a speaker’s perform ance”, with the shift in em phasis to language as a tool for comm unication as follows: a) Size (how long are the utterances produced?) b) Com plexity (how far does the speaker attem pt com plex language?) c) Speed (how fast does he speak?) d) Flexibility (can the speaker adapt quickly to changes in the topic or task?) e) Accuracy (is it correct English?)
0 A ppropriacy (is the style or register appropriate?) g) Independence (does the speaker rely on a question or stim ulus, or can he initiate speech on his own?) h) Repetition (how often does the question or stim ulus have to be repeated?) i) Hesitation (how much does the speaker hesitate before and while speaking?)
Hughes (1994, p 50) asserts that the required levels of performance for different levels of success should be specified To illustrate this, he cites the basic level oral interaction specifications of the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) Test of the Oral Interaction, showing how explicit criteria can define what constitutes success at each level.
Com m unicative Use o f English as a Foreign Language” These specifications refer to accuracy, appropriacy, range, flexibility, and size Hughes (1994) also m entions the
The RSA test at the intermediate level evaluates five core areas of spoken English: Accuracy, Appropriacy, Range, Flexibility, and Size In Accuracy, pronunciation remains noticeably influenced by the speaker’s first language (L1) but stays clearly intelligible, and grammatical and lexical accuracy tends to be high, with occasional errors that do not hinder communication In Appropriacy, language use generally suits the function of the task, and the speaker’s overall communicative intent is clear In Range, the candidate has a fair range of language and can express themselves without having to search for words excessively In Flexibility, the speaker can take initiative in conversation and adapt to new topics or changes in direction, though these abilities may not be shown consistently In Size, the majority of contributions are short, but there is evidence of the ability to produce more complex utterances and develop them into extended discourse.
To make the assessment more analytical, the new scale evaluates IELTS speaking based on four performance criteria: fluency and coherence; lexical resource; grammatical range and accuracy; and pronunciation As outlined in the IELTS Handbook (2005), this four-criterion framework offers a structured, evidence-based method for measuring spoken language performance.
Fluency and coherence refer to the ability to speak with natural levels of continuity, pace, and effort, linking ideas and language together to produce coherent, connected speech The key indicators of fluency are speech rate and speech continuity, which together measure how smoothly a speaker expresses thoughts and maintains logical flow across spoken discourse.
Lexical Resource refers to the breadth of vocabulary a candidate can use and the precision with which meanings and attitudes can be expressed The key indicators are the variety of words used, the adequacy and appropriacy of the words chosen, and the ability to circumlocute—navigating a vocabulary gap by using alternative expressions—whether with noticeable hesitation or not.
Grammatical range and accuracy refer to the breadth of grammatical resources a candidate can draw on and to their correct and appropriate use of those resources The key indicators of grammatical accuracy are the number of grammatical errors in a given amount of speech and the communicative effect of those errors on meaning A strong performance in this domain demonstrates a wide repertoire of sentence structures, accurate agreement and tense usage, and appropriate punctuation, all of which support clear and effective communication.
• Pronunciation: refers to the ability to produce com prehensible speech to fulfill the speaking test requirem ents (IELTS Handbook, 2005)
Special-purpose tests typically employ dedicated marking categories aligned with their objectives Across all the speaking assessments described, the two assessment criteria—fluency and accuracy—are always presented, making these two factors central to teaching speaking The roles of fluency and accuracy are explained more clearly in the next section.
Speaking flu en cy and a ccuracy
Bygate (1987) frames speaking as encoding communicative intent in real time, the here-and-now of interaction, shaped by time constraints and reciprocal expectations in listener–speaker exchanges, as well as the need to anticipate and manage unpredictable listener responses Therefore, spoken language proficiency means producing fluent, accurate, autonomous utterances that are well suited to the specific context of the speech situation.
Fluency in a language is the ability to use its structures accurately while prioritizing meaning over form, relying on automatic recall of common units and patterns at normal conversational speed when needed As Hartman and Stork (1976, p 86) put it, "A person is said to be a fluent speaker of a language when he can use its structures accurately while concentrating on content rather than form, using the units and patterns automatically at normal conversational speed when they are needed." In other words, fluent speakers communicate smoothly by focusing on content and meaning, letting grammatical form come automatically and spontaneously in real-time conversation.
According to Fillmore (1979), fluency encompasses several interrelated abilities: keeping conversation flowing without extended awkward silences; delivering coherent, reasoned utterances built from semantically dense sentences; contributing appropriately across a wide range of contexts; and using language creatively and imaginatively.
Brumfit (1984, p 56) argued that fluency means “to be regarded as natural use.” He also noted Fillmore’s four fluency skills and pointed out that they are related to four key characteristics: speed and continuity, coherence, context-sensitivity, and creativity.
Fluency, as defined by Richards, Platt, and Weber (1985), encompasses the features that give speech its natural, normal quality—native-like pausing, rhythm, intonation, stress, rate of speech, and the use of interjections and interruptions They further note that in second and foreign language learning, fluency serves as a marker of a learner's overall communication proficiency, reflecting the ability to produce spoken or written output with ease, to speak with good but not necessarily perfect command of pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar, to convey ideas effectively, and to maintain continuous speech without causing comprehension difficulties or communication breakdowns.
Lennon (1990, p 388) says that the term fluency is used in tw o different ways in the literature, w hat he calls its board and narrow meanings The board definition operates
Fluency functions as a cover term for oral proficiency, signaling the highest point on a scale that measures a speaker's command of a foreign language (p 389) In the narrower view, fluency is one, presumably isolatable component of oral proficiency, a perspective that is especially evident in how oral examinations are graded (p 389).
Schmidt (1992) describes fluency as an automatic, procedural skill, a claim echoed by Carlson, Sullivan, and Schneider (1989) He further argues that L2 fluency is a performance phenomenon that depends on procedural knowledge (Faerch & Kasper).
1984], or know ing how to do som ething, rather than declarative knowledge, or know ledge about som ething.”
Fluency, as defined by Richards, Platt, J., and Platt, H (1993), is the level of proficiency in communication that includes the ability to produce written and spoken language with ease, the capacity to speak with a good but not necessarily perfect command of intonation, vocabulary, and grammar, and the ability to produce continuous speech without causing comprehension difficulties or breakdowns in communication.
Fluency in oral communication is the ability to keep talking when speaking spontaneously Gower, Phillips, and Walters (1995) define fluency as sustaining speech without long pauses while ideas are still forming To convey meaning clearly, learners should draw on all available knowledge, resources, and abilities, and accept that grammar mistakes or other errors may occur as part of effective spontaneous communication.
Fluency is defined in contrast to accuracy: accuracy refers to the ability to produce grammatically correct sentences, but this may not capture the speaker's or writer's fluency in actual communication (Richard et al., 1985, p 109).
Accuracy in language learning is defined similarly by Bryne (1986), Gower et al (1995), and Ano (2005) Bryne notes that accuracy refers to the use of correct forms with utterances that do not contain errors affecting the phonological, syntactic, semantic, or discourse features of a language Gower et al describe accuracy as the correct use of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation Accuracy is the focus of controlled and guided activities, while in freer activities, communicative effectiveness takes precedence, encouraging learners to use what they have learned to communicate Ano defines accuracy in terms of standardized tests, including grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, sociolinguistic competence, and pragmatic competence.
These definitions provide a solid starting point by embracing different perspectives on fluency and accuracy and by clarifying what fluency and accuracy mean in language learning To assess the fluent level of a learner’s English, the study analyzed three factors on a fixed time scale, selected based on Underhill’s 1993 recommendations for fluency: size, defined as the total number of words spoken in a fixed period; hesitation, the number of pauses for thinking within that period; and repetition, the number of repetitions of words, phrases, or clauses within that period.
In language learning, proficient speakers are both fluent and accurate, but at lower proficiency levels fluency and accuracy can conflict—efforts to apply learned rules may yield hesitant or halting speech Therefore, instructional implications suggest that teachers should balance accuracy- and fluency-building activities in speaking classes rather than focusing solely on one facet (Bailey, 2002) Under the criterion of "Size," learners' speech must be intelligible to their interlocutors, meaning it should be comprehensible, with a sufficient number of comprehensible words produced within a fixed time (Bailey, 2002).
How to im prove speaking flu e n c y
Brown (2003) raises a question “Can we really develop o u r-stu d e n ts’ fluency?”
To enhance teaching fluency, educators may need to rethink traditional approaches and complement lectures that broaden students’ awareness of the language choices, tools, and strategies at their disposal In teaching fluency, it helps to relinquish some classroom control, let students share responsibility, and create situations that promote real communication Fluency development doesn’t require constant instruction; at times, short, guided communication allows learners to turn their knowledge of language into fluent use Brown (2003) identifies five classroom strategies that promote fluency: encourage constructive errors, create plentiful opportunities to practice, design activities that require students to convey a message, assess fluency rather than mere accuracy, and talk openly with students about fluency.
Because o f the scope o f the thesis, the researcher only m entions two o f five approaches above that is (b) and (d) For (b), Brown (2003) w rites
Effective language teaching relies on teachers designing purposeful activities and then stepping back to let students talk in pairs or small groups For many teachers trained in traditional, teacher-centered classrooms, creating and managing student-centered activities such as pair work, group work, and role plays—and then simply letting students take the lead—can feel challenging Yet this approach is exactly what learners need to develop speaking fluency, because frequent, collaborative practice in authentic conversation builds confidence and communicative competence.
Use interactive assessment methods such as pair work, interviews, and role-plays to mirror real-world tasks and encourage practical application Students will prepare for the assessments we set, and we can channel that energy into deliberate practice that targets the specific skills we want them to demonstrate This approach emphasizes authentic contexts, promotes active learning, and delivers clear evidence of progress through performance-based outcomes.
In communicative language teaching, the emphasis is on fluency and comprehensibility rather than accuracy (Olson, 2002) Real communication arises only when learners interact with another person, and how “real” that interaction feels depends largely on the kinds of activities students undertake Maurice (1983) introduces the 4/3/2 technique to develop fluency efficiently: learners work in pairs, with one speaker and one listener; the speaker talks for four minutes on a topic while the partner listens, then pairs rotate so each speaker conveys the same information to a new partner for three minutes, followed by another rotation for a two-minute talk From the fluency perspective, this activity has three important features according to Nation.
In 4/3/2 fluency activities, the speaker performs without interruption and delivers the talk three times, while the demands of the activity are deliberately kept smaller than in uncontrolled learning settings The speaker chooses the ideas, language items, and the organization of the talk, and the 4- and 3-minute deliveries help keep these elements under control so that fluency becomes the learning goal The learner is then helped to reach a higher level of performance by having the opportunity to repeat and by facing the challenge of conveying the same message in less time Research by Nation (1989) and Arevart and Nation (1990) shows that, in the 4/3/2 format, increases in speaking rate (measured in words per minute) are accompanied by improvements in talk quality, including fewer hesitations and greater grammatical accuracy and complexity, illustrating the significant impact of fluency-focused practice.
Ur (1996, p 120) identifies the characteristics of an effective speaking activity as: learners talk a lot; participation is even; motivation is high; and language is at an acceptable level He conducted an experiment to compare two types of oral fluency activities—topic-based and task-based—and examined how each type measures up against these criteria.
Some tasks merely invite participants to discuss a controversial topic, with the discussion process itself as the primary aim; in contrast, other tasks require doing something where the discussion is a means to an end, making the group's objective the central focus (p 123) In the experiment, the researcher tracked how much people talked, the language they used, and how engaged and motivated they appeared The result is that task-centered activities score higher across most criteria: more talk, more evenly distributed participation, and greater motivation and enjoyment (p 124).
He also em phasized that “ it is probably advisable to base m ost oral fluency activities” (ibid, p 124)
To boost speaking fluency, numerous researchers point out that pair and group work activities create ample opportunities for students to practice oral skills, and this collaborative approach will be explored in detail in the next section.
P a i r w o r k a n d g r o u p w o r k a c t i v i t i e s
D efinition o f p air work and group work a ctivities
According to Richard, et al (1993, p 261), pair work is any language activity in which learners collaborate in pairs, while group work is a learning activity involving a small group of learners who work together; the group may tackle a single task or divide the work into different parts of a larger task.
The group work is generally given as an um brella term covering pair work which is defined as “the work o f two people” As Brown (2001) states:
Group work is a generic term covering a m ultiplicity o f techniques in which two or m ore students assigned a task that involves collaboration and se lf initiated language.
Atkinson (1993) and Bowen (2004) treat 'pair work' and 'group work' as a single idea, often described as 'pair and group' in the introduction to the English File Elementary Teacher's Book The conjunction 'and' signals addition beyond two participants when it follows 'pair' both mathematically and linguistically Although there is no universal definition of 'group work' across all English File volumes (Oxeden, Seligson & Latham-Koenig, 1997), it is clear that activities labeled as 'groups' involve more than two people.
Attitudes towards pair work and group work activities
There is a fair am ount o f literature prom oting pair and group work as a positive aspect o f second language acquisition and as a beneficial form o f learning (M acaro 1996,
Roberts (1998) and Luft (1984, p 41) note that group work promotes unity among learners Rabow, Charness, Kipperman and Radcliffe-Vasile (1994, pp 2–3) emphasize using discussion to stimulate learning and to enhance students’ enjoyment of the learning process This suggests the idea is not merely a Western construct imposed on international students, and a Greek member of the research project confirms this interpretation.
I feel quite happy to join this kind o f group work Yes I (w ish) 'cause People from different cultural background can share different opinions which m ake the classroom quite interesting.
O r as one non-native speaker student from C hina reveals:
Currently, there is not much group work in our teaching situations, but increasing collaborative activities would be beneficial, especially in large classes When students work together, they learn how to cooperate, get to know one another, and practice teamwork, which can boost student engagement Group work also makes learning more enjoyable by turning lessons into interactive, social experiences By incorporating well-structured group projects and cooperative tasks, educators can foster effective communication, peer support, and deeper understanding while keeping the classroom dynamic and fun.
It is this involvem ent o f the students in their own learning process, Rabow, Charness,
K ipperm an and Radcliffe-V asile (1992, p 2-8, 9) say that is crucial to the true acquisition o f the m aterial.
Phan Thi Tuan Yen (2003) conducted a study exploring teachers' and students' attitudes toward using pair and group work to develop speaking skills The findings show that both teachers and students recognize the usefulness and effectiveness of these activities in teaching and learning speaking The majority of students in the study report that these activities boost their confidence to practice, discuss problems, and think of solutions.
Promoting group work within the formal educational systems of other countries appears to be a significant issue Discussion participants identified familiarity with and prior experience of this collaborative learning style as influential factors shaping its effectiveness.
Several students indicated that prior experience with working in small groups was a very important factor European students reported they had participated quite often in small-group work tasks at university and in the public school systems in their countries, contrasting with Asian students, who identified this lack of exposure to small-group work as a problem Maley (1986, p 104) highlights difficulties prevalent in the Chinese educational system, noting a predominant focus on rote memorization Anderson (1993, p 105, in Wadden ed.) indicates this is also a characteristic of the Japanese style of communication In Japan, formulated speech making is highly esteemed and often used as a way of practicing a foreign language.
Martine (2004) showed that native English-speaking students expected non-native peers to be more comfortable and forthcoming in small-group activities, a belief that overlooked that some learners had little or no experience with this learning format and that the situation could be intimidating for non-native students The findings suggest that native speakers may need greater awareness of the varied educational systems that exist across countries It also notes that the few non-native students who exerted some control in two of the three small-group tasks were European, while the non-native students who contributed the least were Asian, indicating that although many desired to participate, some were unable or uncomfortable acting on that desire.
Positive effects o f p a ir work and group work activities on speaking flu e n c y
The development of communicative language teaching (CLT) has popularized pair and group work as effective strategies for advancing language learning Integrated into learner-centered classroom practice, these activities have become a key feature of modern language study due to their numerous advantages They are widely cited as effective means of boosting students’ motivation and increasing learning effectiveness In terms of outcomes, pair and group work expand students’ opportunities for in-class practice and promote cooperative learning, contributing to improved language proficiency.
2.3.3.1 Pair and group w ork activities can help increase students’ motivation in learning speaking
As pointed out by many researchers such as Spolsky (1992), Brown (1994a), and
According to Norris-Holt (2001), motivation plays a crucial role in language learning, so researchers continually seek ways to boost learners’ motivation Many studies have found that pair- and group-work activities can increase motivation by helping students save face, by creating a supportive classroom atmosphere, and by adding variety and dynamism to language learning.
Pair work and group work are often viewed as effective strategies to motivate students and protect their face in language lessons Mistakes are inevitable for language learners, but embarrassment diminishes when the audience is small, and learners tend to be less self-conscious in pairs and small groups Building on Long and Porter’s (1985) view of the pedagogical benefits of collaborative work, Jacobs (1998) outlines ten advantages of group work and contrasts them with teacher-centered classroom practices According to Jacobs, motivation can rise in group work because students are less competitive and tend to encourage one another, and group activities foster greater independence Research by Kramsch (1987) and Heal (1998) similarly shows that when teachers organize pair and group tasks, students gain opportunities to use language with minimal fear of losing face.
(1987), the students can avoid losing face when participating in a group conversation even if they have nothing new to say, these students can com m ent, paraphrase or expand on other students’ ideas They can also save their face as m em bers o f groups when they can correct them selves or ask for their friends’ help in case o f difficulties so they can create m ore com prehensible sentences and speak m ore fluently In H eal’s study (1998), the students are m otivated by pride Heal noticed that “ low-scoring team s began to score very highly” Different team s tried to avoid the em barrassm ent o f being on the last place As a result3 students’ less em barrassm ent in pair and group work leads to their higher m otivation in learning They may feel more confident and their speech may be longer and com prehensible. b) C reating a supportive atm osphere
Pair work and group work, as Brown (1994b) has m entioned, are usually used to increase students’ interest and m otivation by helping create “an embracing supportive clim ate”, one kind o f environm ents which, according to Krashen (1988), provides “the necessary input for acquisition", and are a necessary condition to increase students’ m otivation The work and experiences o f many researchers have proved this to be true
Gower et al (1995) point out that pair work and group work activities are useful because they provide opportunities for shy or unconfident students to participate, which they might withhold from contributing in front of the whole class This collaborative approach supports inclusive learning, enhances student engagement, and helps build confidence through peer interaction.
(1997) work shows that in bonded groups with “a feeling o f w arm th” ; “mutual support”;
An absence of fear, a sense of cooperation, and unity within the class help quiet and shy students feel relaxed, less vulnerable, and less nervous about practicing the language, making them more motivated to join class activities Jacobs (1998) lists ten potential advantages of pair- and group-work activities and notes that anxiety can be reduced because students feel less nervous speaking in front of their peers than in front of the whole class As a result, students gain confidence when they speak, which leads to faster, more fluent speech with less hesitation during language practice These findings are supported by Zhenhui (2001) and Hriblán (2002).
Bertin (2003) and Kemaloglu, Aydin, and Tepiroglu (2005) share the same viewpoint on the role of collaborative learning in language development As Zhenhui observes, in a supportive environment created by pair and group work, students are likely to take the kinds of risks necessary for successful language acquisition In his study, Hribl’an (2002) mentions related considerations about how social interaction and supportive peer contexts can facilitate language learning.
Small-group settings provide a supportive learning environment for students, which feels less threatening than direct interaction with the teacher For some students, losing face in front of classmates is more humiliating than doing so in front of the teacher.
Patterns o f rivalry, friendship, and aspiration can encourage the students to achieve the task.
“A chieve the task” here means when the students speak in a relaxing atm osphere, they m ay m ake few er mistakes and speak faster with more com prehensible sentences.
Bertin (2003) observed that students in pairs engage in the activity more than when the teacher works with the whole class (p 7) Kemaloglu, Aydin, and Tepiroglu (2005) highlight the “Security” benefits of pair and group work, noting that such activities help students feel secure; speaking in front of the whole class can be anxiety-inducing, whereas working in pairs or small groups creates a safer affective climate through peer intimacy (Brown, 2001) In these settings there is relatively lower authority, since students tend to correct each other’s mistakes less frequently than the teacher (Tsui, 1995), enabling learners to produce more comprehensible utterances and to speak more quickly This approach thus offers variety and dynamism in language learning.
Pair work and group work bring variety and dynamism to language teaching, a view supported by Davies and Pearse (2000) and Nauman (2001) Nolasco and Arthur (1988) show that collaborative activities pave the way for genuine communicative methodology, enable authentic information exchange, and provide practice opportunities that may not be available to students who are not in an English-speaking environment Harmer (1991) highlights the vast potential of pair and group work for oral development, with tasks that require decisions, joint reading, listening, cooperative writing, and other interactive activities Together, these insights point to collaborative learning as a powerful driver of communicative competence and varied language practice.
(2005) also em phasizes that pair and group activities can bring Variety for students
Sharing a variety of information and experiences among students ensures that each learner brings unique strengths and learning preferences to the classroom This collaborative approach boosts English learning as students articulate their ideas, while also enriching their life perspectives (Bryne, 1987) Pair work and group work expose students to diverse activities, which increases motivation and engagement across different language-learning tasks.
Pair and group work activities are widely recognized as effective means to boost students' interest in language learning When students collaborate, they practice the language more actively, which leads to improved speaking, listening, and overall communicative competence Consequently, pair and group work enhance learning outcomes by making language learning more engaging and effective Structured collaborative tasks also foster confidence, reinforce vocabulary and grammar, and develop essential skills such as teamwork and critical thinking.
2.3.3.2 Pair and group w ork activities can help increase stu dents’ learning effectiveness a) Increase in practice opportunities
Pair and group work activities provide learners with abundant opportunities to communicate and practice what they have learned, transforming passive, quiet learning into a more communicative and interactive process Early studies of group work (Pica & Doughty, 1985; Porter, 1986) demonstrated that it facilitates negotiation of meaning, a core mechanism in Long's Interaction Hypothesis that supports acquisition when tasks are appropriately designed In contrast to teacher-centered instruction, group work yields extensive negotiation of meaning and meaningful modifications in learners' interlanguage As Scheibl (1984, cited in Prodromou 1992) argues, group work is especially advantageous in large classes or mixed-ability settings, because a maximum number of students remain active and occupied Byrne (1987) finds that students work harder in groups because they are more engaged, while Doff (1988) notes that working in pairs or groups increases involvement, concentration on the task, motivation, and a sense of security Overall, these findings support the view that group and pair work are valuable techniques for increasing practice opportunities and improving learning outcomes, enabling learners to speak longer and more fluently with comprehensible sentences as they focus on the task.
In agreem ent with the above m entioned opinion, a great num ber o f other researchers such as N olasco and Arthur (1988), Harm er (1991), Brown (1994b), G ow er et al (1995),
Ur (1996), Jacobs (1998), and Davied & Pearse (2000) argue that pair work and group work provide the best opportunities for language practice In traditional large classes, teacher-centered instruction dominates: lectures, explanations of new vocabulary and structures, and whole-class discussions that leave most students with little chance to speak Pair and group work address this limitation by increasing speaking opportunities and active student participation, a point emphasized by Ur (1996).
In group-w ork, learners perform a learning task through small group interaction.
Negative effects o f pair work and group work activities on speaking f lu e n c y
Pair work and group work offer clear benefits for language learning, but these approaches are not without challenges A prominent issue in monolingual classrooms is that learners often resort to their first language (L1) when talking with peers, which can limit practice in the target language Additionally, students are not always enthusiastic about group work, and their varied attitudes can influence engagement and effectiveness Addressing these concerns typically involves deliberate classroom strategies that encourage target-language use and foster positive perceptions of collaboration.
Willing's 1987 Australian survey found that learners ranked pair work and language games among their least preferred activities, signaling a reluctance toward collaborative tasks Complementing this, Nunan (1989) argues that learners often favor traditional over communicative activities, revealing a tendency toward teacher-centered rather than student-centered participation.
Pair and group work have been challenged because they do not always ensure the conditions needed for satisfactory task outcomes or effective language learning While Jacob (1998) contends that group work can help reduce anxiety, Prabhu (1987) notes that some students find it more humiliating to make mistakes in front of peers than in front of the teacher McDonough and Shaw (1993, p 237) point out that a key disadvantage of pair work in monolingual classes is the tendency to default to the mother tongue, especially when discussions become animated, and that interacting in English may initially feel artificial.
Wheeler (1994) champions interactive learning and the use of pair and group work in the language classroom, highlighting clear benefits in collaboration and student engagement Yet he also notes practical hurdles when applying these methods: students often switch to their mother tongue during collaborative tasks, the simultaneous talk of many participants can turn the room noisy and chaotic, and power dynamics emerge as some learners dominate while others stay quiet or passively participate These tensions underscore the need for careful structuring of pair and group activities to maximize communication and inclusive participation.
Wells (1999) argues that the ephemeral nature of spoken discourse makes it hard for participants to pursue a consistent line of reasoning, to determine whether progress has been made, and to understand the nature of that progress He notes that memory for exact words is extremely short, and without a definitive textual record of what was said, it is difficult to systematically improve speech and grasp how spoken communication embodies meaning Additionally, Bertin (2003) identifies several disadvantages of pair work and group work activities.
In group work, students may not like the people they are grouped with, and one student may tend to dominate while others stay silent, reducing collaboration and learning outcomes The less formal atmosphere of group tasks can also encourage disruptive behavior, as some students feel freer to act out When students share the same first language, they may revert to that language instead of English, especially when the teacher is not guiding the discussion, which can limit language practice in multilingual classrooms.
To reconcile the potential advantages of pair and group work with the problems they can raise, the approach should hinge on factors such as students’ experience and expectations, their level, and whether the group is monolingual or multilingual (Gower et al., 1995) For pair and group work to be successful, Byrne (1986) notes that certain procedures must be followed: students must know exactly what they have to do; selection checking should be carried out; noise levels should be controlled; the amount of time should be gauged; and necessary feedback should be provided Gower et al (1995) also highlight the need to introduce pair and group activities with clearly defined tasks and a clear rationale and advantages Bertin (2003) offers practical strategies to make group work work, such as explaining at the start of the course why English is used, speaking English as much as possible, positioning yourself near the group likely to speak the least English, moving around to encourage English use, assigning a group member to remind others to speak English, and reminding learners before activities to speak English and to keep reminding them.
Bertin recommends thoughtful student grouping and outlines the characteristics of successful group dynamics: a supportive, positive classroom climate with open communication; group members who negotiate, compromise, and build trust while accepting and understanding one another; and a shared sense of fun that sustains engagement and collaboration.
Pair work and group work can support language acquisition, but they are not essential and come with notable drawbacks Nevertheless, strong theoretical arguments contend that involving students in the progressive discourse that emerges from cooperative learning can foster language development Achieving such discourse is challenging and depends partly on the design of the task and partly on ensuring the conditions that enable true cooperation are in place.
Lim itation o f previous studies on the use o f p air work and group work activities in
So far in Vietnam, research examining the impact of pair work and group work on students’ English speaking fluency has been limited An early study by Luong (2001) conducted action research to improve the speaking skills of pre-intermediate adult learners by implementing pair work and group work in a Hanoi-based class, highlighting how collaborative speaking activities can enhance fluency in real classroom settings.
Luong’s action research at Ho Chi Minh National Political Academy comprises three cycles but is marred by methodological ambiguities: in the first cycle, a survey questionnaire was given to 70 students in two classes, yet the subjects were not identified, so it is impossible to know which students belonged to which class; in the second cycle, observations of pair work and group work are described as involving “the students in two classes” without confirming that these were the same students as in cycle one, and the researcher relied on wandering around without an observation sheet, limiting comprehensive data collection; in the third cycle, experimental teaching took place in two classes identified as D22 and D24, but it is unclear whether these correspond to the classes mentioned earlier; further, the claim that “most of the students have learned English for the first time” (p.34) contradicts notes that the students were at a pre-intermediate level in the prior cycles These confusions could undermine the reliability of the conclusion that pair work and group work activities improved English speaking ability.