INVESTIGATING ORAL PARTICIPATION IN IN-CLASS GROUP WORK BY FIRST YEAR STUDENTS AT ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

1.3.2 Patterns of students 'participation in group work / / 1.3.3 Students ' lack of participation in group work 12 1.4 Influential factors on ESL/EFL students' participation in in-clas

FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TONG THI MY LIEN

INVESTIGATING ORAL PARTICIPATION IN

IN-CLASS GROUP WORK BY FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS

AT ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF

LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

NGHIEN CUU VIEC THAM GIA NOI TRONG HOAT DONG NHOM TREN LOP CUA SINH VIEN NAM THU NHAT TAI KHOA ANH, DAI HOC NGOAI NGU -

DHQG HA N O I

M.A Combined Program Thesis

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 60-14-10

Supervisor: Ms Dinh Hai Yen (M.A.)

HANOI-2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Retention j Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii Table of contents iv

List of abbreviations vii

List of tables viii

List of figures ix

INTRODUCTION

1 Problem statement and rationale 1

2 Aims of the study 2

3 Scope of the study 3

4 Significance of the study 3

5 Organization of the study 4

DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Definitions of key terms 5

/./ / Group work -5

1.1.2 Participation 6

1.2 Overview of group work 7

1.2.1 Group organization 7

L2.2 Benefits of group work 8

1.2.3 Problems oj group work 9

1.3.2 Patterns of students 'participation in group work / /

1.3.3 Students ' lack of participation in group work 12

1.4 Influential factors on ESL/EFL students' participation in in-class group work 13

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODS

2.3 Data collection procedures 23

2.4 Data analysis methods and procedures 25

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Students' perceptions towards group work 26

3.2 Students' participation in in-class group work 32

3.3 Factors affecting students" participation m in-class group work 43

3.4 Teachers' monitoring strategies during group work 60

CONCLUSION

1 Summary of the study 68

2 Pedagogical implications 69

3 Limitations of the study 73

4 Suggestions for further studies 73

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ED: English Department

EFL; English as a Foreign Language

ELT: English Language Teaching

ESL: English as a Second language

ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies

NNS: Non-native English Speaker

NNSs: Non-native English Speakers

NS: Native English Speaker

NSs: Native English Speakers

VNU: Vietnam National University

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Students' perceptions towards group work

Table 3.2: Students' participation in in-class group work

Table 3.3: Student-related factors

Table 3.4: Pedagogy-related factors

Table 3.5: Culture-related factors

Table 3.6: Teachers' monitoring strategies during group work - Teacher application

Table 3.7: Teachers' monitoring strategies during group work - Student preference

Table 3.8: Teachers' observed monitoring strategies during group work

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3,1: Students' perceptions of group work's advantages

Figure 3.2: Students' perceptions of group work's disadvantages

Figure 3.3: Participation patterns in in-class group work

Figure 3.4: Quality of ideas shared in in-class group work

Figure 3.5: Participation imbalance in in-class group work

Figure 3.6: Number of turns taken by different group members

Figure 3.7: Amount of talking time of different group members

Figure 3.8: Student-related factors

Figure 3.9: Pedagogy-related factors

Figure 3,10: Culture-related factors

1 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RATIONALE

Group work has been widely believed to offer various advantages such as enhancing students' interaction, generating a supportive atmosphere, creating chances to use the target language and promoting learner autonomy (Long & Porter, 1985: Brown, 2001) Thus, it has blossomed in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms The emphasis on group activities is particularly noteworthy

in Vietnamese English Language Teaching (ELT) setting where students are EFL learners and have few opportunities to use English in daily life (Vo, 2004) Nonetheless, the effectiveness of group work has been reconsidered closely since Tickoo (1991, p.53) left

the open question "/.v group work a pedagogic universal or a partial remedy'^" after his

experiment comparing the success of a group-work class with a teacher-directed one Since then, the need to examine how group-work theory works in practice has rapidly emerged

Addressing this issue, in the world of language teaching, various studies such as those by Jones (1995), Zhenhui (2001), Martine (2003), Yuenfeng (2005), and Chen (2004) were conducted to discover what actually happened when implementing group activities in language classrooms However, deep empirical investigations in the sub-area of students' participation and influential factors on their participation in group work were few in number - Martine (2003) and Yuenfeng (2005) Pitifully, those merely explored learners' oral participation level measured by the number of turns taken and the amount of talking time Thus, a more comprehensive evaluation of their participation would be highly appreciated in the research field

In addition, although Martine (2003) discovered many possible influential elements, it was targeted at mixed-culture groups of native-English-speaker (NS) and non-native-English-speaker (NNS) postgraduate students, rather than single-culture groups of tertiar> EFL learners, in the meantime, Yuenfeng (2005) examined tertian EFL learners in single-culture groups, but it only focused on two factors, namely task t>pes and teacher roles

1992)

With regard to Vietnam's ELT context, the aforementioned issue has not been thoroughly investigated despite the existence of a few related studies such as the one by Vo (2004) This means thorough exploration into EFL students' oral participation and influential factors in single-culture group work remain a gap

The urgency to do research into the discussed matter becomes significant, when it comes to the ELT context of University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University (ULIS, VNU) Although group work is a familiar ELT method at English Department (ED), it is considerably new for the majority of freshmen, who have had little previous group-learning experience in high school Consequently, it has inevitably posed huge challenges for both teachers and students at this site

The study entitled '"investigating oral participation in in-class group work by first-year

EFL students at ED, VLISy VNlf^ was conducted as an attempt to examine the

perceptions of first-year EFL learners at ULIS, VNU towards group work, investigate their participation level and quality in group work, find out possible influential factors on their participation, and pinpoint teachers' monitoring strategies to motivate students to participate in group activities HopefulK, this research, focusing on single-culture groups

of Vietnamese EFL students at tertiary level, could narrow the abovementioned research gaps and bring new perspectives to the field

2 AIMS OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to investigate the oral participation of first-year EFL

students at ULIS, VNU in in-class group work Specifically, it addressed the following research questions:

4 Which monitoring strategies have EFL teachers at the research site applied to increase the students* oral participation in in-class group work'^ Which ones are preferred by the students?

From the findings, the researcher would recommend several pedagogical implications to motivate and balance the oral participation of first-year EFL students at ULIS, VNU in group work, eliminate negative influential factors on their participation, and boost positive ones

3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Due to time constraints, instead of aiming at group activities in general, the study focused

on those conducted within classroom contexts Besides, the study merely examined the oral participation of EFL students rather than both verbal and non-verbal aspects Moreover, it was carried out with just a sample of 100 first-year EFL students and five teachers of English at ED at ULIS, VNU

4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Although the study was conducted on a small scale with a particular group of first-year EFL students at ULIS, VNU, the researcher hoped that its findings could be of great significance Specifically, it would contribute to the existing knowledge in the field concerning group work, students' participation in group work, infiuential factors on their participation, and teachers' strategies to motivate students to participate Moreover, it could help to raise awareness of first-year EFL students at ULIS, as well as EFL learners about the problems in the participation of their peers in in-class group work and certain elements affecting their participation It could also assist teachers of English to recognize what encourage or discourage a number of their students from participating in group activities so that the\ could adjust their teaching methods to motivate their students in language learning Finally, it would propose several useftil recommendations for teachers

5 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

The research report consists of three parts The Introduction presents the rationale, aims, scope, and significance of the study The Development includes three chapters Chapter One covers an in-depth review of the literature in which relevant theoretical background and reviews of related studies concerning group work, ESL/EFL students' participation in group work, infiuential factors, and teachers' monitoring strategies are discussed Chapter

Two continues with the research methods including the participants of the study, the

methods and procedures of data collection and data analysis Chapter Three demonstrates the findings accompanied by data analysis and interpretation The Conclusion ends the report with the summary of the findings, pedagogical implications, limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter gives an overview of the literature related to the present study In the chapter,

definitions of key terms {group work and participation) and selected theoretical

background such as group organization, benefits, and problems of group work are presented Then the review of the areas relevant to the research questions, namely ESL/EFL students' participation, influential factors on their participation, and teachers' monitoring strategies to encourage them to participate in in-class group work, is also provided

1.1 DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS

Vo (2004) also follows Doffs approach as she defines group work as "any classroom activity in which students perform collaborative tasks with one or more partners" (p 16)

On the whole, it is widely agreed that group work is a process in which two or more learners work together to do a task which involves cooperation and self-generated language

Although applying group work in classroom contexts has been extensively discussed in the literature, not much has been said about the classification of group activities Johnson and

groups are a form of grouping students temporarily within a single class session A class of

any size can be organized into informal groups at any time of the lesson to check students' understanding of the material, or to provide them with chances to apply what they are learning (Johnson and Smith, 1991) For instance, teachers may ask those sitting near each

other to work in teams and spend five minutes discussing a topic Second,/orma/ learning

groups are groups which are formed to do a specific task such as delivering a presentation,

or conducting a project (Johnson and Smith, 1991) In these groups, students work together

in one class session or even for several weeks until they have finished their task, and

teachers will grade their work Finally, study teams are long-term groups with stable

members which usually exist during a semester The objectives of these teams are to encourage and support their members in meeting course requirements and doing assignments or to inform those who have missed a lesson about lectures and assignments (Johnson and Smith, 1991) Due to the small scale of this study, only the type of informal learning groups within a single class session is discussed

In general, in this research the term '"group work" refers to oral activities done in small

groups inside the classroom, normally in the form of group discussions

1.1.2 PARTICIPATION

So far, research has focused greatly on students' participation in classroom discussions concerning both verbal and non-verbal participation (Lee, 2005; Liu, 2001) Verbal participation means speaking in class, answering and asking questions, giving comments, and taking part in discussions (Lee, 2005) Those who do not participate in the aforementioned ways are often regarded as passive learners, and are penalized when participation is graded On the contrar\, non-verbal participation refers to behavioral responses during the lesson such as head nodding, hand raising, body gestures, and eye contact (Lee, 2005)

to investigating students' verbal participation

Besides, when investigating oral participation, researchers have just paid attention to the observable aspects of participation such as the number of turns taken or the amount of talking time (Martine, 2003) However, the researcher of the present study supposed that the quality of ideas students give out during the activities should be also judged so that a more comprehensive evaluation of students' participation can be made

To sum up, this study examined students' oral participation, measured by their number of turns taken, their amount of talking time, and the quality of their ideas shared during group work to create a more comprehensive investigation

1.2 OVERVIEW OF GROUP WORK

1.2.1 GROUP ORGANIZATION

When deciding to use this kind of activity, teachers have to think of group organization involving two factors: how big a group should be (group size), and how students can be allocated to groups (group formation)

There are several arguments about group size According to Honeyfield (1991), a team can contain between five and eight students Meanwhile, Brown (2001) argues that the number

of between two and six learners is appropriate In fact, the size of a group depends on certain elements such as the number of students in the class, the task itself and the duration

of the activity (Zhenhui, 2001; Chen, 2004) Nevertheless, small groups of four or five appear to be the most effective It is likely to create more interesting and challenging tasks with a variety of opinions shared, and adequate negotiation among members to reach agreement (Honeyfield, 1991) Harmer (2001) also stresses students' great involvement and participation that can be generated in such small-group work

In terms of group formation, a review of the literature shows that teams can be created by three major ways, namely random grouping, student-selected grouping and instructor-formed grouping First, random grouping is the way to divide learners into groups by chance (Chen, 2004; Honeyfield, 1991) Depending on the availability of time and kinds of tasks, teachers may either group those sitting near each other or use games or competitions

to form teams Chen (2004) claims that random grouping is by far the most commonly used in in-class activities for its convenience and readiness Second, student-selected grouping or free grouping is the most preferred by students (Chen 2004; Honeyfield, 1991) By this way, they have the right to choose their own members Due to its basis on friendship, it tends to encourage them to take part in the activities actively (David, 1993, as cited in Chen, 2004) Finally, groups might be formed by teachers' own decisions concerning several factors (Chen, 2004) For example, Honeyfield (1991) suggests that they can base on learners' proficiency level to divide teams, specifically same proficiency level grouping and mixed proficiency level grouping AdditionalK they might take students' prior achievements, level of preparation, working habits, or learning preferences

into consideration (Chen, 2004)

In a nutshell, the given discussion on group organization indicates that as there are many available options to choose from, when deciding on group size and group formation teachers have to consider many elements like class size, the duration of the activity, classroom conditions, or students' characteristics

1.2.2 BENEFITS OF GROUP WORK

There is general agreement among scholars that group work brings a variety of advantages, including enhancing students' interaction, generating a supportive atmosphere, creating chances to use the target language and promoting learner autonomy

In the first place, group work contributes to the enhancement of students' interaction (Long

& Porter, 1985) As it offers them more chances to interact with each other, greater involvement and accountability can be produced within a group Thanks to this, their communicative competence, cognitive learning, mteractive skills and interpersonal relationships tend to be promoted (Zhenhui, 2001)

working in teams, learners feel more relaxed and more ready to speak Cooperation and unity among them can be also facilitated (Zhenhui, 2001; Luft, 1984, as cited in Martine, 2003)

Another benefit is generating a better environment for students to use the target language (Chen, 2004) Learning in groups, students, especially the poorly motivated ones, have greater opportunities for active, meaningful and varied use of the target language (Long,

1977, as cited in Zhenhui, 2001; Chen, 2004) Such an ideal interactive environment is essential to communicative language learning

Furthermore, group activities can promote learner autonomy (Brown, 2001; Boumer et al.,

2001, as cited in Yuenfeng, 2005) Because students can make their own decisions without being told what to do by the teacher, they are likely to be more responsible for their learning (Harmer, 2001)

Overall, group work is commonly supposed to bring four main advantages such as enhancing students' interaction, generating a supportive atmosphere, creating chances to use the target language and promoting learner autonomy However, many researchers still question whether those benefits of group work really take place in the real educational setting They have shown that group work displays certain problems, which will be elaborated in the next section 1.2.3

1.2.3 PROBLEMS OF GROUP WORK

There is a fair amount of literature on problems of group work Within the scope of this research, the most common problems in class, namely intolerable noises, overuse of mother tongue, exposure to imperfect language, and unbalanced participation among group members, will be reviewed as follows

First, group work in class inevitably results in a noisy and chaotic classroom Right from

the beginning of a group activity, the organization stage involving grouping students might

cause extensive noises (Harmer, 2001) Moreover, Ngoh (1991) adds that noises can be easily generated from students' conftasion when not understanding the instructions for the assigned task at the instruction stage Even worse, as Chen (2004) claims, once learners are unclear about what they are going to do, they may then fall into mutual arguments or irrelevant chatting conversations

Moreover, students, especially elementary or even intermediate ones, tend to rely much on their native language rather than using the target language (Chen, 2004; Yuenfeng, 2005) This is exactly the distinctive feature of a monolingual class where all share a common mother tongue (Ngoh, 1991; Brown, 2001) As Ngoh (1991) indicates, when engaged in group interaction, those of low linguistic competence often resort to their native language; teacher insistence on using English to communicate might lead to their complete silence

In addition, learners are prone to expose themselves to imperfect language Ngoh (1991) raises the question whether they are really learning from each other in the fear that inaccurate production may allow the fossilization of inaccurate structures As Prabhu (1987, as cited in Tickoo 1991) further explains, working in groups, students have to depend on other members for linguistic data while few are known to possess error-free language Thus, interaction between members in teams certainK causes the great risk of fossilization; in other words, common errors will gradually take firm roots in their individual linguistic systems (Prabhu, 1987, as cited in Tickoo 1991) This is even more dangerous as the teacher has little chance to make corrections and accordingK students will simply reinforce each other's errors (Brown, 2001)

Finally, group activities cause unbalanced participation among members (Chen 2004) This may be because some may fall into roles that easily become fossilized; consequentK they turn out to be passive whereas the others might dominate (Harmer 2001) The lack of participation of some members in groups and many others factors inhibiting students to participate will be further elaborated in the sections 1.3 and 1.4

In summary, it is widely agreed that group work might generate many problems such as intolerable noises, overuse of mother tongue, exposure to imperfect language, and unbalanced participation among members

1.3 ESL/EFL STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN GROUP WORK

L3.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF ESL/ EFL STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN GROUP WORK

In ESL/ EFL settings, participation in classroom activities is evidently important for

efficient learning to occur since participating actively brings students opportunities to use and practice their linguistic and communicative skills (Gomez, 1995) Furthermore, research has shown that students who participate enthusiastically tend to have better academic achievement in comparison with those who do not participate For example, Swain (1993) claims that when producing the language they are studying, students can gradually boost their linguistic fluency

As regards working in groups, without their active participation, learners might not gain any benefits of group work (see 1.2.2) In that case, applying group activities in classroom contexts will become a waste of time and effort Therefore, students' participation is indispensable in this kind of activity It is part of the learning process, which generates interaction and initiates the use of the target language among them (Mclnnis, 2006) Dynamic participation by all members is one of the qualities of an effective group activity

Nevertheless, as Mclnnis (2006) pitifully states, a large number of students are not actually aware of the role of participation in group work The\ might not understand what advantages group activities can bring to them This leads to their hesitance to contribute, which will be discussed in section 1.3.3

1,3.2 PATTERNS OF STUDENTS^ PARTICIPATION IN GROUP WORK

As mentioned earlier, research has concentrated much on students' participation in the classroom Liu (2001) is one example In his research, he even points out four classroom participation patterns, namely total mtegration conditional participation, marginal interaction, and silent observation

Firstly, total integration refers to students who actively participate in classroom discussions, knowing exactly when to speak up and what to say (Liu, 2001) Visibly, they display spontaneous, appropriate, and natural participation

Secondly, conditional participation is constrained by a range of elements such as cultural, cognitive, affective, linguistic or environmental ones (Liu, 2001) Due to those factors, learners' participation and interaction with others and the teacher are often limited Furthermore, during the discussions, they are still confused in finding out when to speak, what to say, and which behavior to display

socio-Marginal interaction is characterized by students who are attentive listeners but rarely speak up (Liu, 2001) Instead of participating actively, they opt for listening or note-taking Still, when attempting to speak up at times, they are often confident since it is the outcome

of careful thinking and internal rehearsal

In the final pattern - silent observation, students tend to withdraw from oral classroom participation (Liu, 2001) They appear to accept whatever is discussed and say nothing to respond to their peers

However, Liu (2001) emphasizes that students do not follow a fixed pattern of participation at all times Instead, their behaviors may differ in different class sessions, depending on their perceptions which are infiuenced by complex factors

In conclusion, there are four participation patterns in the classroom: total integration, conditional participation, marginal interaction, and silent observation Certainly, those patterns can be applied to the case of group activities When students work in teams, they may also behave in the abovementioned ways

1.3.3 STUDENTS' LACK O F PARTICIPATION IN (JROUP WORK

Several studies such as Ngoh (1991), Tickoo (1991), Martine (2003) and Yuenfeng (2005) have demonstrated that working in groups might not be as effective as expected due to students' lack of participation

Learners' lack of participation visibly happens in group activities For instance, in James and Devlin's study (2001, as cited in Melles, 2004), a large number of ESL learners confessed that they found it hard to participate in group work Ngoh (1991) states that this easily occurs at the process stage, where they are involved in oral interaction, or the presentation stage In fact, it is difficult to get everybody involved actively (Yuenfeng, 2005) It may be because some may fall into roles that easily become fossilized; consequently, they turn out to be passive whereas the others might dominate (Harmer, 2001) Moreover, there are numerous factors lying behind learners' lack of participation in group activities, which will be ftirther discussed in the next section 2.4

This lack of participation of several members apparently results in unbalanced participation (Chen, 2004) As Tickoo (1991, p.46) illustrates, "very often one or two group members not only steal turns and grab opportunities but ver> often do almost all the talking The rest may not even be allowed words in edgeways." Evidently, an empirical study on 14 Non-Native English Speakers (NNSs) and four Native English Speakers (NSs)

in two MA teacher-training courses at the University of Birmingham revealed a high level

of dominance of NS learners over NNS ones when discussing in groups (Martine, 2003) This is obvious because NNS students' language proficiency is known to be much lower than NS ones However, it is also the case of groups of EFL learners as identified in the comprehensive study on Chinese first-year students by Yuenfeng (2005) Thus, it can be concluded that the imbalance in students' participation is likely to occur in any classroom contexts

In general, to date, previous studies have indicated a serious lack of participation of ESL/EFL learners in group work, which leads to an imbalance of participation among members of a team The factors lying behind this will be discussed in the next section 1.4

1.4 INFLUENTIAL FACTORS ON ESL/EFL STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN IN-CLASS G R O U P W O R K

So far, a number of studies have elaborated various elements either encouraging or inhibiting ESL/ EFL students from participating in in-class group work Those can be

1.4.1 STUDENT-RELATED FACTORS

Claims about ESL/EFL students' lack of participation in group work largely focus on elements associated with students themselves The first significant factor is language difficulties (Baker & Panko, 1998, as cited in Melles, 2004) As a study on groups of NNS and NS learners in a teacher-training context by Martine (2003) revealed, some participants in small-group discussions showed their anxiety about their language proficiency Owing to their poor vocabulary and grammar, they found it hard to express their ideas; consequently, they stayed silent for most of the time

Secondly, background or subject knowledge is of vital importance (Chong, 1999; Yuenfeng, 2005) As Martine (2003) clarifies, some avoid participating because they do not know much about the discussed topic, and therefore, have few ideas to share He also supposes that sometimes, their lack of confidence as being less knowledgeable than the others can explain for their non-participation

Martine (2003) also figures out students' difficulties with some aspects of discourse as an influential element In his study, many Asian learners expressed their unfamiliarity with turn taking and uncertainty about the applications of turn taking when working with others Specifically, they did not know when and how to take turns

Besides, acceptance of group work might influence student participation In Martines project (2003), some participants claimed that their positive attitudes toward group work stimulated them to raise their voice during group discussions with NSs Meanwhile according to Ngoh (1991), the inability to perceive the value of group work is detrimental

to students' contributions Those who believe that group work brings no benefits might withdraw from the activity, sharing no ideas and giving no responses

Another element is students' previous experience with group work The lack of exposure lo group work of the majority of NNS learners was a great hmdrance in group participation (Marline, 2003) Despite their desire to participate, it was difficult for them to do so since

they were not familiar with working in groups, lacking group work or communication skills to negotiate with others

Lastly, students' personalities might determine their participation level in group work (Vo, 2004) Yuenfeng (2005) exemplifies that some might be too shy to contribute; as a result, they stay silent during the activity

Secondly, teacher role plays a part in learners' participation ratio Vo's (2004) indicates that many students are not motivated to join the group activity if the teacher does not set up clear rules for group-work participation Moreover, an experimental stud\' with 30 first-year EFL Chinese students found that the teacher's clear instructions and his absence during group interaction encouraged students to speak more and created a more balanced performance (Yuenfeng, 2005)

Finally, learners are being seriously influenced by peers According to Ohata (2005), despite their initial intention to participate, students might feel anxious for fear of negative evaluation from their peers Meanwhile, Vo (2004) emphasized the influence of common interests by pointing out students' discomfort and boredom when working with those the\ dislike In other words, the satisfaction level of participation partly depends on group members' willingness to cooperate In addition, Martine (2003) states that the lack of participation of peers has an antagonistic effect on those who participate more, i.e their compulsion to talk more than they like due to the lack of input from others

1.4.3 CULTURE-RELATED FACTORS

The lack of participation in group work might be the matter of cultural influences as well (Ngoh, 1991) A relatively large body of research has reached consensus on the role of culture in ESL/EFL learner participation in groups due to its effects on their approaches to group work (Andrews & Dekkers, 1999; Anyanwu, 2000, as cited in Melles, 2004) Chan (1999, as cited in Melles, 2004) even says that NNS students' lack of participation is sometimes assumed to be a cultural disposition Among the researchers, Martine (2003) goes deep into this issue by giving further clarification about cultural impact, which is strongly supported by Yuenfeng (2005)

First, cultural factor refers to theories on uncertainty avoidance including the concept of face and the fear of losing face, which visibly exists in Asian culture (Martine, 2003) Interestingly, while Martine (2003) draws attention to students' fear of losing face in front

of their peers, Yuenfeng (2005) states that students will keep silent rather than lose face in front of their teacher Furthermore, the fear of losing face is somehow associated with the feelings about their language proficiency and confidence (Martine, 2003)

Cultural influences also include the value of silence in certain cultures (Chong 1999; Martine, 2003) In Asian culture, silence is considered to be important, which leads to the common perception of the classroom as a place of quiet learners (Jones 1995) For instance, as it is a Chinese tradition to listen more and speak less Chinese students get used to listening careftilly (Yuenfeng, 2005) This is also true in the case of Vietnamese students It is ntoiceable that in Martinets study (2003), some Asian participants' non-participation resulted from their unawareness of NS group members' low appreciation of silence in conversations

Thirdly, learners' views on direct disagreement and co-operation have a significant impact

on their involvement in group work (Martine, 2003) This is closely related to the emphasis

of politeness in Asian culture For instance, Yuenfeng (2005) pinpoints that Chinese students tend to consider intemipting as an impolite behavior Moreover, compromising appears to play an important role in certain societies; thus, learners from those societies tr>

to avoid arguments by not expressing their opinions in group activities (Martine, 2003)

As seen, no matter what educational context (single-culture or mixed-culture groups) students belong to, the influence of cultural factors on their participation is still visible

On the whole, to date, previous researchers have elaborated a variety of factors that might motivate or inhibit ESL/EFL students' participation in in-class group work, ranging from student-related, pedagogy-related to culture-related ones

L5 TEACHERS' MONITORING STRATEGIES TO INCREASE STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN GROUP WORK

Literature on teachers' strategies has indicated several basic strategies which teachers can apply to monitor students to ensure their active participation during group activities

First, when teams start working, teachers should keep distance from them for a short period

of time so that they are more comfortable to start the activity, working on the task by themselves (Brown, 2001) They can stand at the front or the side of the class and observe what is happening

However, afterwards, teachers' intervention during group work is absolutely necessary They should move around to unobtrusively listen and observe and encourage interaction monitor groups through listening to them, checking whether they are effectively performing their assigned Jobs, reminding them to stay focused, remind dominant speakers

to share speaking turns with others, and encourage shy members to present their ideas (Hyland, 1991) This can help to ensure that group members are actively participating In addition, teachers should assign further tasks for those who have finished earlier (Ngoh 1991)

Moreover, they should provide language help when needed (Ngoh, 1991) Also, common language errors should be either treated immediately or noted for later correction (Ngoh 1991) Nevertheless, it is highly suggested that only oral errors that affect intelligibilit> of

a message should be corrected (Walz, 1982, as cited in Ngoh, 1991) This supports to build learners' confidence in learning the language

Nevertheless, several educators emphasize that it is essential for teachers not to provide excessive guidance and support for the students For instance, Oakley and Crocker (1977) argue that when teachers intervene to support teams, even as asked by students, this usually ends with the teacher giving directions Thus, the intervention produces far more teacher

talk than student talk

In summary, recent research has shown that there are a series of monitoring strategies

which teachers may apply in group work to stimulate their students to participate more actively Nonetheless, it largely depends on individual teachers to choose the appropriate ones for their own classroom contexts, and determine the sufficient amount of their interference in students' performance during the process of each group activity

1.6 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH

The abovementioned discussion of related studies in the area concerning group work, students^ participation, infiuential factors on students' participation, and teachers' monitoring strategies serves to demonstrate how the present research could fit into the existing literature

In the first place, so far, research has just elaborated on students* participation in classroom discussions (Lee, 2005; Liu, 2001; Gomez, 1995; Swain, 1993) There were merely a few investigations into their participation in group activities (Martine 2003; Yuenfeng, 2005) Therefore, this study could play an important role in exploring this issue more thoroughly

to enrich the literature

Moreover, among all the reviewed studies, only two by Martine (2003) and Yuenfeng (2005) were close to the present research Both of those examined students' oral participation level and factors affecting their participation in group work Meanwhile, not only did this study investigate these issues more deeply but it also looked into students* participation quality, which helped to yield a more comprehensive evaluation of their participation It even touched upon teachers' monitoring strategies to motivate their participation as well Therefore, the present study's inquiry was relevant and significant m the research field

In addition, although Martine (2003) discovered many possible infiuential elements, it was targeted at mixed-culture groups of NS and NNS postgraduate students, rather than single-culture groups of EFL tertiary learners In the meantime, Yuenfeng (2005) examined EFL tertiary learners in single-culture groups, but it only focused on two factors, namely task types and teacher roles Thus, the present research, paying attention to all the factors that might affect the participation of single-culture groups of Vietnamese EFL students at tertiary level, could bring new perspectives to the field for its broader scope, different context and participants

Furthermore, all of the related studies (Martine, 2003; Yuenfeng, 2005; Melles, 2004; Jones, 1995) simply based on the qualitative methods Accordingly, in those investigations, there might be inevitably potential limitations of relying on a single approach (Nunan, 1992) Hence, the present study using both qualitative and quantitative data attempted to address this gap

Lastly, the issue under investigation was not thoroughly explored in Vietnam The study by

Vo (2004) only examined the effects of grouping arrangements on student participation Consequently, this research was an effort to tackle the matter deepl> in Vietnamese ELT context

In general, with its own features in a different context, this research supported to bridge several existing gaps in the literature on group work and students' participation, and bring new perspectives to the field

SUMMARY

This chapter has provided both selected theoretical background and a review of related studies on students' participation in group work, infiuential elements, and teachers' monitoring strategies to motivate students' participation, accompanied by the researcher's iuslification for the present study

The details of the research, including the methodology and the findings, will be described

in the next chapters

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODS

The chapter provides a description of the research implementation, including the participants of the study, the methods and procedures of data collection and data analysis accompanied by the researcher's justifications

2.1 PARTICIPANTS

The target sample of the research consisted of 100 first-year EFL students from five randomly-chosen classes at ED at ULIS, VNU The main reason for choosing those first-year students was that they had just started their study at university for a short period of time; as a result, they might not get used to university studying and teaching methods Particularly, many of them had had little previous experience with working in groups, and consequently, might encounter a range of problems when participating in such activities Thus, investigating this population could be of great benefit to the students themselves and the teachers at the research site, where the researcher had been working as a lecturer of English In addition, the number of 100 participants suited the nature of the study Due to its aim at exploring students' participation, it required a big sample to ensure its credibility

TTie participants were also five teachers of English at ED at ULIS, VNU who were teaching those five classes This sample was selected in order to support data triangulation Moreover, the issues could be seen from the teachers' viewpoints; accordingly, it would undoubtedly increase the research's objectivity

In summary, the choice of the population supported to ensure the validity, reliability and objectivity of the present study

2.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS

To address the research questions raised in the introduction, both quantitative and qualitative approaches were applied in order to reduce potential limitations of relying on a single approach and enhance confidence in the collected data as recommended by Nunan (1992) Quantitative method was favored because it could provide objective, quantifiable

and generalized data (Bordens & Abbott, 1999) In the meantime, qualitative method was

chosen for its ''being close to the insider perspective" and "yielding real, rich and deep

data" (Brown & Rodgers, 2002, p 103) Instead of simply answering how well, how much

or how accurately something is done, qualitative research would bring an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the phenomena (Bordens & Abbott, 1999) Hence, quantitative and qualitative methods could supplement each other (Firestone, 1987, as cited inBumes, 1999)

Tlie data were collected by three instruments, namely questionnaires, semi-structured

interviews, and observations This combination of various means of data collection established a triangulation to enhance data reliability and validity through multiple sources (Bums, 1994, as cited in Bumes, 1999) The data collection methods would be described in details below

In the study, the questionnaire (see Appendix 9) was targeted at students, and aimed at collecting statistical data to answer the research questions It included four main parts: the first part with eight questions about students' perceptions of group work, the second part with nine questions about their oral participation level and qualit\ in group activities, the third part with 23 questions about factors affecting their participation, and the final part with 12 questions about teachers' monitoring strategies applied and preferred during the process of group work implementation Most of those were close-ended, commonly in the form of Likert scale Close-ended questions were favored because they appeared to be easy

for the respondents to answer, convenient for the researcher to collate and analyze

responses and useful to get specific information about the issue examined (Vajendra and Mallick, 1999) Meanwhile, as open-ended questions could "accurately refiect what the

respondents want to say" (Vajendra and Mallick, 1999, p.l43), two open-ended questions were also included in the questionnaire to minimize any superficiality and ensure data reliability Overall, the two types of questions complemented each other well to yield a credible source of data

It is also necessary to note that the design of the questionnaire revealed the exploitation of clear, concise and natural language and the consideration of avoiding leading, double-barreled questions, and double negatives as suggested by Nunan (1992)

2.2.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

Semi-structured interviews were employed for several reasons First, they could bring the interviewer great fiexibility to focus more on remarkable points (Nunan, 1992) Furthermore, interactions in a semi-structured interview were ''incredibly rich"; the collected data could be ''extraordinary evidence about life" that might not be gained in a structured interview or questionnaire (Nunan, 1992, p 93) Accordingly, they could create rich, thick data for a valid and well-researched study

In the research, the interviews were used to triangulate and enrich the questionnaire data There were four interview schedules, two for the teachers and two for the students Each schedule included several main questions for the researcher to base on to keep track with the objectives of the study during the interviews rather than ask random questions, which may lead her too far from the focus of the investigation However, as the interviews went along, possible relevant questions would be added to generate more useful details

In terms of teacher interviews (see Appendix 6), the first schedule with four questions was intended to collect the same information in the student questionnaire but seen from teachers' viewpoints The second schedule with two questions was used lo ask teachers to recall about the observed group activities, focusing on students' oral participation level and quality in those activities, and teachers' monitoring strategies applied

With regard to student interviews (see Appendix 7), the first schedule with three questions collected the relatively same information in the questionnaire, but was expected to generate more details The second schedule with two questions was for students to recall about the

observed discussions, focusing on their oral participation level and quality in those activities, and influential factors on their participation

2.2,3 OBSERVATIONS

Naturalistic observations were ideally exploited since they could create "insight into how behavior occurs in the real world", and, therefore, "increase the research's external validity" (Bordens & Abbott, 1999, p 107) Also, they would be effective to explore interactions inside the classroom (Brown & Rodgers, 2002) As a result, the choice of observations was appropriate to examine students' participation in groups and teachers' strategies to boost their participation Moreover, group discussions were chosen to observe since learners' oral participation level, regarding the number of turns taken and the amount

of talking time, could be shown clearly through this type of group activity (Martine, 2003)

In the study, an observation scheme with two main parts (see Appendix 8) was applied for its convenience in data coding and analysis It was designed lo investigate students'

participation level in the observed group discussions, basing on the times of turns taken and the total amount of talking time of each group member, and discover teachers' specific

strategies to increase students' participation during those activities

2.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

The data were collected during the period of six weeks by the aforementioned instruments The data collection procedures would be demonstrated as follows

First, the first version of the questionnaire was piloted with five first-\ear EFL students at

ED at ULIS, VNU in order to gain constructive feedback Then, it was carefully revised to ensure its accuracy, conciseness, comprehensiveness and focus After being piloted and revised, the questionnaires were directly delivered to 100 first-year EFL students in five random classes at ED at ULIS, VNU in class A short introduction about the study was first made together with the researcher's careful oral instructions to lessen any misunderstanding and ambiguity Afterwards, during the time of questionnaire filling, when any confusion emerged, essential help about language or expressions was provided

by the researcher As a result, several serious limitations of using questionnaires such as

the simplicity and superficiality of answers or respondents' literacy problems could be

minimized (Bordens & Abbott, 1999)

Later, five respondents, one in each class, were randomly chosen for the interviews to yield more interesting points Semi-structured interviews, which based on the first student-

targeted schedule, were administered in Vietnamese with each individual participant In order to eliminate any misunderstanding, main questions were given out at the beginning

of the interviews Afterwards, the interviews took place in an informal atmosphere to minimize the participants' anxiety Those interviews were often fifteen to twenty minutes long Besides, teacher interviews of fifteen to twenty minutes, which used the first teacher-targeted schedule, were conducted in English with five teachers teaching those students in

a relaxing, friendly setting Prepared questions were also distributed beforehand to avoid any misleading or misinterpretation

Next, observations were conducted lo examine data reliability One observation of a particular group discussion was carried out in each of the five classes The researcher strictly followed the observation schemes to take notes and focus on the points investigated Furthennore, those observations were carefulh tape-recorded for later reference and analysis if necessary

Immediately after each lesson, a semi-structured interview of five to ten minutes, using the second student-targeted schedule, was carried out in Vietnamese with one student in the observed group for data triangulation The teachers were also interviewed right after the lessons Those interviews in English based on the second teacher-intended schedule, and lasted approximately ten minutes

All the interviews were tape-recorded to ensure covering all the essential details Certainly tape-recording did not bear an\ threats to the data reliability due to two reasons First, it was recorded only when the interviewees willingly agreed to do so Second, those interviews were carried out in an open, relaxing setting Accordingly, the participants interviewed were under no pressure when giving out their answers

2.4 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS AND PROCEDURES

In terms of the data obtained in the questionnaires, they were condensed, quantified and

analyzed in the form of descriptive statistics (particularly using one measure of central

tendency - the mean) Then, they were illustrated and systematized in charts and tables for

a better demonstration of the findings

As for the teacher interviews, the recordings were transcribed (see Appendices 4 and 5)

Meanwhile, the student interviews, which were all in Vietnamese, were both transcribed

and translated into English (see Appendices 2 and 3) Afterwards, a color-coding system

(see Appendix 1) was applied to highlight and synthesize those data

Besides, the first part of observation schemes, namely group work observation, was analyzed by frequency method combined with duration method recommended by Bordens

& Abbott (1999) Later, the data were illustrated in charts With regard to the second part which focused on teachers' monitoring strategies, the data were illustrated in a table

Lastly, all the data collected from the three instruments were grouped under four main

areas (four sub-headings): students' perceptions of group work, students' oral

participation level and quality in group work, factors affecting students' participation in group work, and teachers ' monitoring strategies to increase students 'participation, which

served to answer the four research questions

SUMMARY

The chapter has presented the methods of the present study concerning the participants of

the study, the methods and procedures of data collection and data analysis Briefiy the study was conducted among 100 first-year EFL students and five teachers of English at ED

at ULIS, VNU The data were collected within six weeks by three instruments: questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations After that, they were analyzed and grouped under four main areas to answer the research questions

The findings will be demonstrated in the following chapter Chapter Three: Findings and

Discussion

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents, compares, and contrasts the data fi-om the three different sources, namely questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations under four main areas These include students' perceptions towards group work, students' participation in in-class group work, factors affecting students' participation in in-class group work, and teachers' monitoring strategies during group work, which strictly correspond with the four research questions In each section, the discussion of the findings is enclosed to highlight the similarities and differences between those of the present study and existing research in the field

3.1 STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS GROUP WORK

The first research question: "'What do first-year EFL students at ULIS VNU think about

group work?" was raised as it would be worth investigating whether students' views on

group work might somehow influence their participation in this kind of activity The data would be demonstrated as follows

3.1.1 DATA FROM THE STUDENT INTERVIEWS

it is noteworthy that all of the interviewees pointed out various benefits which the\ could gain through group activities The first substantial mentioned b\ three out of five was improving their language skills For example, "it can help us to enhance our English skills, especially speaking skills We have chances to reinforce our knowledge through interacting with each other" (Student four - S4, see Appendix 2) Student 2 (S2) even listed more specifically: "We will know many more words, widen our vocabular>, know how to make sentences, and know to make others pay attention to us when we speak" (see Appendix 2) Interestingly, one of them referred to mutual support among team members in enhancing

their English proficiency: "We can help each other through correcting mistakes" (Student

three S3, see Appendix 2)

Another maior advantage of participating in group work stated b> three interviewees was boosting students' confidence through interacting with each other: "Participating in groups

helps us to become more alert and confident, not only in our study but also in our life" (Student five - S5, see Appendix 2)

Besides, two referred to the opportunity to widen their knowledge about certain topics As Student 1 (SI) explained:

Each student has different information and different viewpoints about a topic Nobody can understand everything so when working in groups, all have chance to share their ideas with each other; then they can understand more about it (see Appendix 2)

Nevertheless, all of the interviewees also reflected on the disadvantages of group work First, four of them agreed on students' overuse of their native language resulting from this kind of activity S3 claimed that "we tend to use Vietnamese to discuss our ideas, especially when we find it hard to express those in English, or when the teacher moves away from our groups'' (see Appendix 2) S5 added: "Some students are ver> lazy in speaking English, so working in groups brings them a chance to resort to Vietnamese more easily without being noticed by the teacher'' (see Appendix 2)

Moreover, three acknowledged a noisy and chaotic atmosphere as a problem of group activities According to SI, ^^group work often makes the classroom noisy Many people speak at the same time; many even have a very loud voice Sometimes, this makes me think that it is no longer real learning" (see Appendix 2)

Another disadvantage was the imbalance of participation among group members as assumed by two of the participants:

When working in groups, stronger members tend to dominate Weaker ones like me hardK have a chance to raise our voice Later, when the teacher asks the group to report the product, often it is the strongest member who grabs the opportunity to speak (S5 see Appendix 2)

As seen, those results partly revealed the participants' great consciousness of the benefits

as well as the problems of group work

3.1.2 DATA FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES

The respondents were asked to share their opinions on group work by rating the statements

on the 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, to 5 = Strongly agree

Group work increases students' interactions, and therefore, promotes

their communicative competence, cognitive learning, interactive skills

and interpersonal relationships

Group work generates a relaxing, friendly atmosphere for students to

share their ideas

Group work creates chances for students to use English more

Group work provides chances for students to make their own

decisions, and consequently, promotes learner autonomy

Group work results in a noisy and chaotic classroom

Group work leads to students' overuse of mother tongue

Group work makes students expose to imperfect language fi-om each

3.1 3.66 3.49

3.57

Table 3.1: Students' perceptions towards group work

As regards the first four statements in Table 3.1 (i.e the advantages of group work), notably, the first and second statements had higher mean scores (4.1 and 4.06 respectively), which indicated that those were the most prominent and visible advantages

as perceived by the students In the meantime, the responses to the other two showed a tendency towards the middle with the means lower than 3.4 This demonstrated that even though overall the majority still agreed on those, the participants held a wider range of views for these two benefits

Statement 1 Statement 2 Statement 3 Statement 4

Figure 3.1: Students' perceptions of

group worl(*s advantages

Figure 3.1 above illustrated the situation more clearly Particularly, for the forth statement,

the participants did not want to make absolute claims since '"NeutraP" was marked by the

highest proportion (35%) in comparison with the percentages choosing this level for the other three advantages

In contrast, there were various opinions on disadvantages of group work As seen in Table 3.1 (previous page), the last four statements about this matter all received the mean scores between 3.1 and 3.7, among which overuse of mother tongue was the one which had the greatest tendency to agreement with the highest mean (3.66 > 3.5)

Specifically, although at least approximately 50% took a stand on agreement for the last four statements (see Figure 3.2, next page), there were quite a large number of the respondents who maintained neutral or negative attitudes towards those disadvantages The most noticeable case was the fit\h statement (group work results in a noisy, chaotic

classroom), which received relatively equal percentages for ^'Disagree" and ''Agree"

(around 25%), and had the highest portion of ''Neutrar (40%) among all the

disadvantages Those participants' replies reflected both a possibility of hesitation and a difference in their perceptions towards group activities' negative aspects

10%-Statement 5 10%-Statement 6 10%-Statement 7 10%-Statement 8

Figure 3.2: Students' perceptions of group worl('s disadvantages

In general, the questionnaire data proved that the students were quite well aware of group work's benefits whilst they expressed a larger diversity of opinions on its problems

3.13 DATA FROM THE TEACHER INTERVIEWS

Generally, the teachers supposed that their students had positive attitudes towards group work

In fact, four of them believed the majority of students loved working in groups As Teacher

2 (T2) claimed, "I think most students like working in groups because it gives them an opportunity to speak more It is particularly favored by those who are active and keen on

speaking" (see Appendix 4) Teacher 1 (Tl) and Teacher 3 (T3) even placed a strong emphasis on students' high expectations of the gains achieved through this kind of activity:

Most of my students see group work as a chance to freely express their ideas of a particular issue to their peers Added to this, they expect that they can learn something new from their friends' ideas They may also think that group work fosters better understanding and interaction between group members (Tl, see Appendix 4)

However, there were a minority of the learners who were not really aware of the usefulness

of group work as acknowledged by two of the teachers Teacher 4 (T4) pitifully stated:

"Some of them may view group work as a chance to chat or gossip." Teacher 5 (T5) seemed to be much more pessimistic, which might be due to her negative experiences when applying group activities in her lessons:

In my opinion, first-year students simply think that group work means working with more than two other students in the class to complete one task I don't think they can fully perceive the importance of partnership or being fair in workload, etc (see Appendix 4)

As seen, most teachers reached consensus on students' positive attitudes towards group work whereas some of them still thought that a number of learners were not actually conscious of its benefits

3.1.4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The data collected from the questionnaires, student and teacher interviews supported to confirm the fact that the students commonly had good awareness of group work's advantages and held different attitudes towards its problems Furthermore, the teachers could be conscious of students' perceptions of group activities

As shown, the participants were aware of the benefits of group activities highlighted in the literature For example, Zhenhui (2001) refers lo the promotion of students' communicative competence, cognitive leammg and interaction skills through interaction among group members, or Chen (2004) stresses on greater opportunities for active meaningful and varied use of the target language for poorly motivated learners This great

awareness may be because the students did have several learning achievements after joining group work in the first semester, and now they could refiect on their valuable experience

Additionally, like the researchers in the literature, the participants held different viewpoints

on the problems of group work This could be explained by the fact that the application of this activity worked differently in different contexts, and therefore, whether the problems could be visible or not might depend on a number of agents Another possible reason was that the students may evaluate this matter basing on their personal academic success in the first semester or their learning experiences, which obviously led to various opinions on the same issue

Besides, unlike Mclnnis's study (2006), which indicated a large number of students' lack

of awareness of the role of participation in group work, the present investigation demonstrated the learners' fairly positive perceptions of gains through participating in this kind of activity This could be easily understood as the participants of Mclnnis's study and those of this research were not similar in terms of the ELT context, learning experience or personal achievements

3.2 STUDENTS^ PARTICIPATION IN IN-CLASS GROUP WORK

The second research question: ''How are those students' le\'el and quality of oral

participation in in-class group work?" shed light on the participants* participation level

and quality when working in groups to verify whether those were satisfactory or not The results would be presented below

3.2.1 DATA FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES

The questionnaires supported to find out the respondents" participation level and quality in

in-class group work, basing on the 4-point Likert scale (1 - never, 2 = sometimes 3 = usually, and 4 - always) The data were summarized in Table 3.2 (next page)

Your participation level and quality

Participating actively, knowing exactly when to speak up and what to

say (total integration)

Showing limited participation, being confused as trying to find out when

to speak, what to say, and which behavior to display (conditional

participation)

Listening attentively to peers, and/or taking notes, and rarely speaking

up (marginal interaction)

Observing in silence, seemingly accepting whatever is discussed and

saying nothing to response to peers (silent observation)

Contributing relevant and constructive ideas

Sharing many ideas, even irrelevant and/or unconstructive ones

Sharing only a few ideas, but all of them are carefully brainstormed

Saying only some words or short phrases to make others think you are

concentrating on the group task

Table 3.2: Students' participation in in-class group work

The means of the first four statements concerning participation patterns (see Table 3.2) illustrated that marginal interaction (mean = 2.29) and conditional participation (mean = 2.26) were the most popular participation patterns found among the students in group work while silent observation was the least common (mean = 1.81) However, it is noteworthy that all of the means were below 2.5, which showed the students" tendency to participate differently in different group activities rather than follow a fixed pattern