Group processing a survey on teachers and learners views in freshman listening speaking classes of the faculty of english linguistics and literature university of social sciences and humanities

57 4.1.2.2 The relationship between students‟ attitudes towards group processing and their anxiety in English Listening- Speaking classes .... 129 Appendix 9: Guideline for teachers‟ es

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HOCHIMINH CITY

UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE

o0o

GROUP PROCESSING: A SURVEY ON TEACHERS’

AND LEARNERS’ VIEWS IN FRESHMAN

LISTENING-SPEAKING CLASSES OF THE

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE – UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL

SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature

in partial fulfillment of the Master‟s degree in TESOL

by

LAM NHU BAO TRAN

Supervised by

NGUYEN THI KIEU THU, Ph.D

HO CHI MINH CITY, FEBRUARY 2014

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis, entitled “Group processing: a survey on teachers‟ and learners‟ views in freshman Listening-Speaking classes of the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature – University of Social Sciences and Humanities” is my own work

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other situation

Ho Chi Minh City, February 1, 2014

Lam Nhu Bao Tran

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, Lam Nhu Bao Tran, being the candidate for the degree of Master of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master‟s Theses deposited in the Library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for the purpose of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the library for the care, loan or reproduction of the thesis

Ho Chi Minh City, February 1, 2014

Lam Nhu Bao Tran

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my teacher and instructor, Dr Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu for all her kindness and the profound knowledge that she has given me ever since I was one of her students at university

As a graduate student, I have been fortunate enough to be instructed by her in my graduate thesis Just as I was fumbling with research terms and methodology, her advice lightened the whole path through the forest and her push was the catalyst for my endeavor to further myself in the academic field

My special thanks go to all of my colleagues at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature, especially Ms Dang Thi Van Di, Ms Hoang Thi Nhat Tam, Ms Nguyen Nha Tran, Ms Bui Huynh Thuy Thuong, Ms Pham Ngoc Kim Tuyen,

Ms Dang Hoai Phuong and many others for their affectionate consideration and help Their persistence in their own theses despite all difficulties is a source of motivation and inspiration to me

I also owe earnest thankfulness to the teachers and the students who were willing

to participate in the research Without them, this research could never have been finished

Last but not least, I am truly indebted to my entire family, who have tried to facilitate my completion of the thesis It is my parents who instilled in me the love for English in the first place and molded a disciplined English teacher as I am today And it is my dear husband, Nguyen Tang Vu, who is always an example of hard work and creativity to me and gives me continuous encouragement when I seem to get lost

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III TABLE OF CONTENTS IV LIST OF FIGURES IX LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS X ABSTRACT XI CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH 1

1.2 RATIONALE OF THE RESEARCH 3

1.3 AIM OF THE RESEARCH 5

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH 6

1.5 TERMINOLOGY 6

1.6 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH 7

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE RESEARCH 8

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 10

2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH 10

2.1.1 Group processing within the framework of Cooperative Language Learning 10

2.1.1.1 Group processing as a component of Cooperative Language Learning 10

2.1.1.2 Nature of group processing 12

2.1.1.3 How to differ group processing, group processes, peer assessment and group reflection 15

2.1.1.4 Origin of group processing theory 16

2.1.1.5 Rationale for group processing 17

2.1.1.6 Group processing as proposed by Johnson & Johnson (1987a) 19

2.1.2 The importance of teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes in classroom context 24 2.1.2.1 Definitions and components of attitude 24

2.1.2.2 Attitude as a key element in the teaching and learning process 26

2.1.3 Students‟ anxiety in oral communication 27

2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON GROUP PROCESSING 28

2.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY 30

2.4 SUMMARY 32

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 33

3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 33

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 33

3.2.1 Research process 33

3.2.2 Pilot interview 37

3.2.3 Main survey 40

3.2.2.1 Participants 40

3.2.2.2 Instruments 41

3.2.4 Data collection and analysis procedures 54

3.3 SUMMARY 55

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 56

4.1 RESULTS 56

4.1.1 Reliability of the scales 56

4.1.2 The implementation of questionnaires 57

4.1.2.1 Students‟ attitudes towards group processing 57

4.1.2.2 The relationship between students‟ attitudes towards group processing and their anxiety in English Listening- Speaking classes 69

4.1.2.3 Teachers‟ attitudes towards group processing 72

4.1.3 Interviews on students‟ and teachers‟ attitudes towards the method of group processing 77

4.2 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS 83

4.3 SUMMARY 86

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87

5.1 CONCLUSION 87

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 88

5.2.1 A framework for group processing in a cooperative Listening-Speaking classrooms at EF-USSH 88

5.2.2 Recommendations for educational administrators at EF 94

5.2.3 Recommendations for future research 95

REFERENCES 97

APPENDICES 104

Appendix 1: Syllabus for Language Skills 1B (listening-speaking) (in english) 104 Appendix 2: Interview questions for teachers (pilot study) 112

Appendix 3: Questionnaires for students (in english) 113

Appendix 4: Questionnare for students (in vietnamese) 119

Appendix 5: Questionnaire for teachers (in english) 124

Appendix 6: Interview questions for teachers (in english) 127

Appendix 7: Interview questions for students (in english) 128

Appendix 8: Interview questions (for students) (in vietnamese) 129

Appendix 9: Guideline for teachers‟ establishing cooperative learning structure 130 Appendix 10: Guideline for teachers‟ application of group processing within a co-operative Listening - Speaking classroom 131

Appendix 11A: Suggested group processing open questions (for students) 134

Appendix 11B: Group processing question sheet (for students) 1343

Appendix 12: Observation sheet (for teacher/student observer) 136

Appendix 13: Researcher‟s checklist for teachers‟ instruction of group processing session 137

Appendix 14: Students‟ guideline for applying social skills/teamwork skills in Listening-Speaking classrooms 138

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Group processing strategies 34

Table 3.2: Summary of participants 41

Table 3.3: Summary of the strategies for item design in the students‟ attitude questionnaire 50

Table 3.4: Summary of the strategies for item design in the teachers‟ attitudes questionnaire 53

Table 4.1: Reliability statistics of the scales 56

Table 4.2: Summary of students‟ views on their enthusiasm 57

Table 4.3: Summary students‟ views on their cooperation 59

Table 4.4: Summary of students‟ views on their range of attention 61

Table 4.5: Summary of students‟ views on their awareness 62

Table 4.6: Summary of students‟ views on their motivation 63

Table 4.7: Summary of students‟ views on their patience 64

Table 4.8: Summary of students‟ views on the feasibility of group processing in Listening-Speaking classes 65

Table 4.9: Test of normality of the students‟ overall attitudes scales 67

Table 4.10: Descriptive statistics of students‟ overall attitudes towards GP 68

Table 4.11: The surveyed classes‟ proficiency level presented through their entrance exam scores 68

Table 4.12: Test of homogeneity of variances for students‟ attitudes towards group processing 69

Table 4.13: ANOVA test for students‟ attitudes towards group processing 69

Table 4.15: Test of normality to Students‟ anxiety in Listening-Speaking classes 70 Table 4.16: Table of correlations between Student‟s attitudes towards GP and Students‟ anxiety in Listening-Speaking classes 72

Table 4.17: Teachers‟ views on students‟ enthusiasm 73

Table 4.18: Teachers‟ views on students‟ cooperation 73

Table 4.19: Students‟ views on students‟ range of attention 74

Table 4.20: Teachers‟ views on students‟ awareness 74

Table 4.21: Teachers‟ views on students‟ motivation 75 Table 4.22: Teachers‟ views on students‟ patience 76 Table 4.23: Teachers‟ views on the feasibility of group processing in Listening-Speaking classes 76 Table 5.1: Overview of selected cooperative structures by Kagan (1989) 93

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Experiential learning cycle by Kolb (1984) 14

Figure 2.2: A model of reflection in learning process by Boud et al (1985) 14

Figure 2.3: The hierarchical model of attitude 25

Figure 2.4: Conceptual framework of the study 31

Figure 3.1: Steps implemented in the thesis 36

Figure 4.1: Students‟ views on their enthusiasm 58

Figure 4.2: Students‟ views on their cooperation 60

Figure 4.3: Students‟ views on their rate of attention 61

Figure 4.4: Students‟ views on their awareness 62

Figure 4.5: Students‟ views on their motivation 63

Figure 4.6: Students‟ views towards their patience 64

Figure 4.7: Students‟ views towards the feasibility of group processing in Listening-Speaking classes 66

Figure 4.8: Students‟ overall attitude towards group processing 67

Figure 4.9: Students‟ anxiety in English Listening-Speaking classrooms 70

Figure 4.10: Scatterplot of students‟ attitudes towards group processing 71

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CLL Communicative Language Learning

CLT Communicative Language Teaching

ESL English as a Second Language

FLCAS Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale

EF Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature

USSH-HCM University of Social Sciences and Humanities – Ho Chi Minh

City

ABSTRACT

Group processing (GP), or the activity of reflection on group‟s productivity, has long been proven to enhance group cohesion, social skills, students‟ sense of efficacy and thus promote their achievement Despite the fact, GP has been relatively ignored in most cooperative classrooms This thesis thereby attempted to explore its practicality in Listening-Speaking classes through the teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes in three experimental freshman classes at EF – USSH The students‟ attitudes were then measured against their levels of English proficiency and speaking anxiety with an aim to find out their differences and correlation Three main instruments, attitudinal questionnaires, anxiety questionnaires, and interviews, were utilized to study six benefits of GP, including the enhancement of (1) enthusiasm for subsequent activities, (2) group cooperation, (3) range of attention to their study, (4) awareness of their roles, (5) motivation to improve their roles and (6) listening patience The factor of GP‟s feasibility in the classes were also explored

Results indicated that the technique received the majority‟s embrace regardless of students‟ levels of proficiency and their communicative nervousness in classrooms In addition, responses from the interviews revealed other unexpected benefits of GP: preventing free-riding in group work and promoting students‟ learning autonomy Yet, there were concerns over teachers‟ heavy workload and students‟ resistance due to their lack of critical thinking and different prior learning experiences Recommendations were thus made to the faculty‟s administrators to modify Johnson and Johnson‟s GP model (1987a), carry out prior training to faculty and students, and build a reflective culture at EF, starting with Listening-Speaking classes

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH

Ever since EF-USSH adopted the credit training system in the school year

2005-2006, there has been a shift in the approach to the teaching and learning of English skills The skills such as listening, speaking, writing and reading are no longer taught separately Instead, they are taught with the integration of grammar, reading and writing as Language Skills module A (LSA) and listening and speaking together as Language Skills module B (LSB) Freshmen at EF, who are subjects of this research, set off with the course of Language Skills 1B (LS1B), among others

In LS1B, the development of students‟ social skills1 such as communicative skills and cooperative skills has been enlisted in the module‟s syllabus (see appendix 1)

as principal learning outcomes It is maintained in the syllabus that the course

“pays special attention to the development of sub-skills with the aim to equip with the skills necessary to be applied in practical situations” Indeed, the present course for LS1B for English freshmen at EF reflects the commitment of the faculty to enhance students‟ real-life communicative competence in English and social skills

to better equip students in the outside-classroom world To this end, Cooperative Learning has been employed in courses of LSB by most instructors, usually in the forms of pair work and group work

1

The term “social skills” in this research refers to “a set of goal directed, inter-related, situationally appropriate social behaviours which can be learned and which are under the control of the individual”, as cited by Hargie, Saunders & Dickson (1994, p 2) on the definition provided by Hargie (1986).

The main textbook used in the course LS1B - Interactions 2 (Silver edition) published by McGRAW-HILL - also reflects this aspect of the Faculty‟s aim It comprises a plethora of “activities that promote human interaction in pair work, small group work, and whole class activities” that “present opportunities for real world contact and real-world use of language” as declared by its authors as one of the principle of the textbook (Tanka J & Baker L R, 2007, p.vii) The course covers eight first among ten chapters of the textbook, all revolving around topics

of direct relevance to students‟ real life such as Education and Student Life, City Life, Business and Money, Jobs and Professions, Lifestyles Around the World, Global Connections, Language and Communication, and Tastes and Preferences These topics provide ample space for teachers to create interactive learning environment through cooperative activities for their students Taking a closer look

at the contents, listening and speaking tasks in the textbook are also structured to make use of students‟ cooperative skills: the listening tasks of each chapter always end with an “On the spot” discussion where the students are given a situation to discuss in small groups As for speaking exercises, there are multiple role-play activities and small group discussions to practice language functions and communicative skills For instance, a task in Chapter One requires students to role-play making, accepting and refusing invitations (ibid, p.21) or in chapter two (ibid, p.35) students are divided into groups of five or six to practice phone conversations, relaying the teacher‟s “secret message” from the first students to the last one Generally speaking, the principle of cooperative learning is well presented throughout the textbook, making it a perfect match for the whole Language Skills module B with an aim to promote students‟ social skills

A close investigation of the general context at EF shows that communicative learning and cooperative learning have already been well attended to by the academic administrators at EF in terms of syllabi and textbooks and thus provide a favorable condition for the research to be carried out because this study explore a specific principle of Cooperative Language Learning in the teaching and learning context of EF: Group processing

1.2 RATIONALE OF THE RESEARCH

The paradigm shift in EF reflects that of Vietnam in general In Vietnam, the teaching and learning of English as a second language (ESL) has experienced significant changes, which are congruent with those in the world According to Nguyen (2010) “for a long period of time, the language teaching in Vietnam has been dominated by grammar-translation methods, which results in the often heard complaint that Vietnamese learners are good at grammar, reading and writing but cannot conduct a short conversation As the use of English in international contexts increases, the needs to improve the skills become urgent The old methods

of teaching and studying speaking and listening become out-dated, giving way to the communicative and cooperative approach” (p.10) Johnson and Johnson (1999, p.67) posited that the method provides students the opportunity to share and learn the value of joint effort In the past three decades, modern cooperative learning has become a widely used instructional procedure in preschool through different school levels, in all subject areas, in all aspects of instruction and learning, and even in after-school and non-school educational programs (Johnson

D W., Johnson R T, and Stanne M B., 2000) Cohen E G., Brody C M and Sapon-Shevin M (2004, p.3) reviewed literature from McTighe and Lyman (1988); Jones and Steinbrink (1991) Almasi (1995); Gambrell (1996) and Hoover

and Patton (1995), stating that it is a fact cooperative learning has been used

extensively within “regular education” classrooms and “special education” classrooms In terms of second language (L2) teaching, Liang X., Mohan B A and Early M (1998) stated that the application of cooperative learning in classroom maximizes L2 acquisition by providing opportunities for both language input and output He further stated that the existing body of research supports the belief that cooperative learning offers L2 learners more opportunities for interaction and helps them improve L2 proficiency

In other words, cooperative learning is one of the most widespread and fruitful areas of theory, research, and practice in education and its effectiveness is well documented However, when it comes to “Group processing”, which is the fifth

elements of cooperative learning, relevant studies are very few and far in between while its effectiveness has received much attention Johnson and Johnson (1987a,

p 148) commented on the common situation of GP that theoretically, empirically and practically, GP had been ignored although a great deal of attention had been paid to structuring materials and organizing instruction to promote cooperative learning To the best of the researcher‟s knowledge, and as confirmed by the researcher‟s rigorous investigation into the field, the statement holds true to the circumstance of GP today, that even less attention has been focused on the utilization of GP in the present teaching and learning context Teachers may well acknowledge the advantages of group work in creating a cooperative environment, but fail in their roles to generate student‟s awareness of the importance of cooperative groups or to maintain and prolong the skills and students‟ working relationship

Furthermore, in the field of research, although the importance of GP in the enhancing students‟ achievement and efficacy is well-documented, hardly any study is found in the teaching of foreign languages, even less in English Listening-Speaking classrooms in Vietnam and at USSH in particular Apart from a few studies on the effectiveness of GP on the performance of students, hardly any research has been conducted on the attitudes of teachers and students towards this teaching method This creates an urge for more research on the matter to find out how teachers and students react to the introduction of this method in classroooms and what their views towards the method are This is especially important in English Listening-Speaking classes in Vietnam, where self-reflection and critical feedbacks are rare as a result of deep-rooted rote-learning and memmorization practice in Vietnamese classrooms

Apart from group cohesion and skill enhancement, another concern rising from the experience of the researcher during the five year teaching at EF is students‟ speaking anxiety in language classrooms In most of her classes, a number of students expressed their reluctance to articulate when being called out by the teacher to speak in English These students tended to cluster in the end rows of the

class and rarely joined open class discussions One of the major causes of the unwillingness, as they confided, is their intrinsic nervousness when it came to speaking As the researcher applied GP in her classroom, asking students to do reflection in small groups, it was noticed that most of those who were seemingly nervous tended to shun the activity or did not show much enthusiasm for the practice Meanwhile those who showed favorable attitudes towards the practice also exuded a sense of confidence in speaking activities This particular situation prompts the researcher to investigate the correlation between students‟ attitudes toward GP and their level of speaking anxiety The results will hopefully shed light

to the understanding of students‟ reactions to a new practice in classroom with respect to two kinds of students: those who are constantly anxious in speaking and those who are not Teachers or educational administrators may then have appropriate actions to treat the two groups of students when introducing a new approach into Listening-Speaking classrooms

1.3 AIM OF THE RESEARCH

Because the effectiveness of GP has been well documented on students‟ achievement, the main objectives of the research is to find out whether teachers and students in the surveyed Listening and Speaking classes have a negative or positive attitudes towards the practice so as to give appropriate suggestions for future application of GP in teaching listening and speaking skills The research also set out to explore the relationship between students‟ attitudes and their anxiety

in class The research questions and the sub-question of this study are as follows:

1 What are students‟ attitudes towards GP in English Listening-Speaking classes?

1.1 Do the students‟ attitudes differ among different proficiency levels? 1.2 What is the relationship between students‟ attitudes towards GP and their anxiety in English Listening-Speaking classes?

2 What are teachers‟ attitudes towards GP in English Listening-Speaking classes?

To this end, a comprehensive survey was conducted after the freshmen‟s speaking and listening classes in the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature of the university had taken place for five weeks Subjects of the study were freshman students in three classes at EF - USSH A pilot interview was conducted at the beginning of the course to check teachers‟ knowledge of the method Teachers with no prior experience of GP would be trained to use the approach in their cooperative classrooms After five weeks, questionnaires were delivered and interviews were conducted on the target students‟ and teachers‟ attitudes on the application of GP Data were then collected and analyzed to give the final results

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

First and foremost, the study can help to generate an insight and to direct the attention of both teachers and students to the feasibility of applying GP in Listening-Speaking classes in particular in the language teaching and learning context of Vietnam

Secondly, this study plays an even more important role in highlighting the significance of students‟ developing a reflective practice in group setting within classroom and school community to better improve themselves and their relation with their group mates so as to be better social players in the outside world

Last but not least, as few study has been implemented in EF on this field, this research may act as a stepping stone, which lay a ground work for future research (1) to prove the effectiveness of GP in Listening-Speaking classes or (2) to investigate its feasibility in other classes apart from Listening-Speaking ones in Vietnam context

1.5 TERMINOLOGY

For the sake of clarity, the major terms used in this study would be clarified in this section First, the research‟s title is “Group processing: a survey on teacher‟s and students‟ views in freshman Listening-Speaking classes at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature – USSH-HCMC” According to the Oxford Advanced

Learner‟s Dictionary, “view” is defined as “a personal opinion about something or

an attitude about something” In the same way, “perception” is defined as “an idea,

a belief, or an image you have as a result of how you see or understand something”, which shows a level of similarity with “views” Therefore, the term

“views”, “opinion”, “perception”, and “attitude” are used interchangeable to refer

to the same concept of personal thinking and feeling towards an investigated object Secondly, this study was carried out with “Group processing” (GP) in the context of Cooperative Learning (CL) as the main focus As applied into the context of second language teaching, CL is usually referred to as Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) According to Richards and Rogers (2001, p.193), CLL

is part of a more general instructional approach also known as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) According to Kagan (1995), CLL bears resemblance to CLT in the two major components: (1) socially oriented lessons and (2) small group interaction With CLL, teachers put students in pairs or small groups in various learning activities to improve and maximize their own and each other‟s understanding or skills Olsen and Kagan (1992) stated that CLL is: “A group learning activity which is organized so that learning is dependent on the socially structured exchange of information between learners in groups and in which each learner is responsible for his own learning, and is motivated to enhance the learning of others” (p.8)

As for GP, the Johnson brothers, Johnson D.W and Johnson R T (1987b), who first included the term as a principle of CLL and gave it the status as the fifth element of CLL, stated that when members of a group engage in GP, they discuss

“how well their group is functioning, and how they may improve the group‟s effectiveness” (p.143) In other words, GP is a specific type of reflection, conducted in conjunction with CLL instruction to yield the desired results in the teaching and learning of the English language

1.6 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

First, the study was geared towards the psychological aspects in language classroom wherein teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards a specific practice

during the class procedures were of primary concern Students‟ speaking anxiety was also examined, yet is of secondary consideration in this thesis In fact, it was explored as a whole scale in conjunction with the attitude factor to elicit the correlation between the two variables Secondly, it should be noted that the scope

of research was comparatively small due to objective circumstances The study was first intended to be carried out on all the seven freshman Listening-Speaking classes at EF and five teachers in charge; yet it met with withdrawal from a few of the teachers, leaving only three teachers and three Listening-Speaking classes As

a result, only 118 students together with three teachers participated in the study and the experimental teaching In addition, the research was confined in the realm

of Listening-Speaking only and the subjects of the current study was freshmen at university because, as a characteristic of EF, freshmen are classified into classes depending on their English score ranges in their preceding entrance exam into the university This provided a favorable condition for the research to delve deep into differences in students attitudes in terms of their command of English The lack of control as to the participating teachers, however, pose a delimitation to the scope

of the research: students‟ core ranges were not equally distributed in the three experimental classes Instead there were two classes with scores ranging from 9.0

to 9.5 and one class of 6.0 to 6.5 Considering the scoring system of 10, the students can be only tentatively considered as at advanced level for getting 9.0-9.5 out of 10 and at intermediate level for scoring 6.0-6.5 out of 10

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE RESEARCH

Besides the introduction chapter, which includes the rationale of the study, the aim and purpose, the significance of the study as well as the conclusion, the thesis consists of the following chapters:

Chapter 1 is the introductory chapter

Chapter 2 is the literature review This chapter presents the literature framework

on which the research is based for the research design and the direction for the research This chapter covers three strands of literature that are important to the research, including theories on GP in the context of cooperative language learning,

research on the importance of teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes in classroom and

students‟ anxiety in oral communication activities in Listening-Speaking classes

Chapter 3 describes how the research was carried out In this chapter, the author

points out how the research was conducted, the method that was used, the

presentation of research questionnaires, the research design which describes the

participants, the treatment and the procedure of the data collection and analysis

Chapter 4 is the data analysis of the research Attitudinal questionnaires collected

from the surveyed teachers and students were coded after the implementation of

GP in their cooperative classroom Results of the study analysis were used to find

out whether teachers and students bear positive or negative attitude towards the

method used The results draw attention to GP as a viable method in the teaching

of listening and speaking skills in English classrooms From there, the author will

make the suggestions and recommendations

Chapter 5 attempts to draw conclusions from the analysis and put forward

suggestions for a further research Due to the time constraint and the scope of the

research, findings of this study may be limited Further research should be

conducted in a larger scale so that better insight into the method could be gained

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The previous chapter provides the introduction to the research This chapter reviews the three strands essential to this research The first one is from the area of CLL: Group processing The second discusses literature about attitude research and the third one focuses on the factor of students‟ anxiety in Listening- Speaking classrooms with anxiety in oral communication as a focus of the study The three strands interweave to form the theoretical framework of this study, which seeks to understand the teachers‟ and learners‟ views towards the implementation of GP method in a Listening-Speaking classroom as well as the relationship between students‟ attitudes towards GP and their level of anxiety when it comes to speaking English in class

2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH

2.1.1 Group processing within the framework of Cooperative Language

Learning

To group workers, the term “group processing” may evoke a sense of familiarity

To language teachers and learners, however, the term may cause confusion as the pilot study of this research has pointed out Some teachers may define it as “group process” and others refer to the method as “peer assessment” It is thus necessary

to revisit and examine the term and its use in group work to clarify its meaning and increase its utility within a language classroom

2.1.1.1 Group processing as a component of Cooperative Language Learning

According to Richards and Rogers (2001, p.193), CLL is a studying or teaching method that students are put in pairs or small groups in various learning activities

to improve and maximize their own and each other‟s understanding or skills Olsen and Kagan (1992, p.8) as cited by Richards and Roger (2001) have defined it as

“group learning activity organized so that learning is dependent on the socially structured exchange of information between learners in groups and in which each learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is motivated to increase the learning of others” (p.193)

According to Richards and Roger (2001), CLL is an approach that crosses both mainstream education and second and foreign language teaching In second language teaching, CLL has been embraced as a way of promoting communicative interaction in the classroom and is seen as an extension of the principles of Communicative Language Teaching It is viewed as a learner-centered approach to teaching held to offer advantages over teacher-fronted classroom methods

Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1994, p.4-5) described three types of cooperative learning groups: Formal cooperative learning groups, informal cooperative learning groups and cooperative base groups

1 Formal cooperative learning groups last from one class period to several

weeks These are established for a specific task and involve students working together to achieve shared learning goals (e.g problem solving, writing a report, conducting a survey or experiment, learning vocabulary, or answering questions at the end of the chapter) (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998b)

2 Informal cooperative learning groups are ad-hoc groups that last from a

few minutes to a class period and are used to focus student attention or to facilitate learning during direct teaching

3 Cooperative base groups are long term, lasting for at least a year and

consist of heterogeneous learning group with stable membership whose primary purpose is to allow members to give each other the support, help, encouragement and assistance they need in order to succeed academically

Considering the nature of the designed Listening-Speaking classrooms in this research, which involved students practicing the specific tasks assigned for each

class session as instructed by the teacher, formal cooperative learning groups and

informal cooperative learning groups would be utilized as means of instruction in

the three classes under observation

The nature and organization of group work play crucial roles in the success of CLL This requires a structured program of learning carefully designed so that learners interact with each other and are motivated to increase each other‟s learning The elements of CLL varied among different theorists Olson and Kagan (1992), for instance, have proposed the following key elements of successful group-based learning in CLL:

1 Positive interdependence

2 Group formation

3 Individual accountability

4 Social skills

5 Structuring and structures

Meanwhile, Johnson D W and Johnson T R (1999, p.67) cited Johnson and Johnson (1989) and Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1998), and Kagan S and Kagan M (2009) as proposing five basic and essential elements to CLL as follows:

2.1.1.2 Nature of group processing

Processing may be defined as an “activity in which individuals and groups regularly examine and reflect upon their behavior in order to extract meaning, integrate the resulting knowledge, and thereby improve functioning and outcome” (Ward & Litchy, 2004, p.98) Ward and Litchy have just corroborated the

definition previously proposed by its founding fathers, Johnson D W and Johnson

R T (1987a, p.143), who have stated that GP occurs when the members:

(a) describe which members‟ actions are helpful and unhelpful to find out how well the group is functioning, and

(b) make decisions about what actions to continue or change so as to improve the group‟s effectiveness

In Kagan‟s Cooperative Learning (Kagan & Kagan, 2009, p 301), the step is referred to as Reflection and Planning with Reflection as looking back and Planning as looking forward The terminology may be different, but the basic structure of the activity remains the same between the two definitions

Kagan and Kagan (2009, p.301) furthered that the two processes are related and work as a package, which is among the most powerful of all strategies for fostering social skills because it engages students in an ongoing self-improvement process Students look back to see how well they have been using a social skill and then look forward, planning how they can improve For example, if teachers want students to improve better at staying on task, they may have students reflect on how well they have been staying on task The teachers may have students make a plan to improve the skill

At the center of GP lies the core practice: reflection, a term which has been widely

discussed as part of the experiential learning cycle by Kolb (1984), which can be

described as the process by which the learners reflect upon the experience to draw insights into their learning The Kolb cycle involves four parts: “concrete experience” leads to “reflective observation”, the reflection then turns into theory

or “abstract conceptualisation” and these reformulated hypotheses are tested in new situations as “active experimenting” The cycle is represented as a continuous spiral and can start at any of the four points on the cycle

Figure 2.1 Experiential learning cycle by Kolb (1984)

Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985, p 33) have clarified the process of reflection from the point of view of the learners with emphasis on the relationship between the experience and reflection, pointing out that “reflection is a form of response of the learner to experience” It is a “processing phase” where the learners “recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it” (ibid, p.33) Their model consists of three parts: experiences, reflective processes and outcomes

Figure 2.2: A model of reflection in learning process by Boud et al (1985)

As stated by Boud et al (1985), behaviour, ideas and feelings form the learners‟ experience, which may enhance or impede reflection Reflective process consists

of three stages: (1) Returning to experience is the recollection and replaying of salient events in learners‟ minds; (2) Attending to feelings has two aspects: utilizing positive feelings and removing obstructing feelings; (3) Re-evaluating

experience involves re-examining experience in light of the learners‟ intent and

self-knowledge and bringing in new knowledge that has been gained through the process Finally, outcome provides new perspectives on learning, may involve a change in behaviour or result in the application of some actions The emphasis on emotions is an important feature of the work of Boud et al (ibid)

There is one common thing between the two models of reflection, that by Kolb (1984) and by Boud et al (1985): reflection is put at the center of the cycle and it

is considered as an indispensable part of the learning process

2.1.1.3 How to differ group processing, group processes, peer assessment and group reflection

The terms group processing, group process, peer assessment and group reflection

bear a degree of similarity to each other It is, however, important to figure out the difference By clarifying the meanings, it may be possible to improve their conceptualization and to increase the effectiveness of the application of each one

According to Do¨rnyei and Malderez (1997), the term “group processes” comes from group dynamics theory as applied to language classrooms Group dynamics

concerns “the scientific analysis of the behavior of small groups” and “has been addressing a very broad range of issues concerning group life and group characteristics” (ibid, 1997) In order to explain why some foreign language classes feel “bad” and others “good”, how to make the learners into cohesive groups and keep them that way, group dynamics introduce different concepts such

as group structure and group composition, norms, roles and interaction patterns, group cohesion and climate, group formation and development, etc., which are all key issues of group dynamics

Meanwhile, peer assessment is generally defined by Falchikov & Goldfinch

(2001) as a process in which students grade their peers‟ works and vice versa by using appropriate standards Topping (2009), who aimed at determining and examining the level, value or quality of a product or of the performances of other learners at the same level, stated that peer assessment activities can be applied in different program domains and subjects Various products and outputs including writing, portfolio, oral presentation, test performance and other skills can be assessed by the peers

GP, on the other hand, does not involve “the scientific analysis of the behavior of small groups” like group process theory or “the grading of the works and performance of peers” like peer assessment practice Rather, it is much more the same as the activity of group reflection where group members are allowed a specific amount of time each class session in order to reflect on their performance

as a group and receive feedback from their teachers so as to make any necessary adjustment for their future improvement Therefore, the term “group processing” and “group reflection” are used interchangeably in this thesis to refer to the activity of group members reflecting on their group work and planning on their future improvement

2.1.1.4 Origin of group processing theory

The concept of “group processing” is not a new one in the realm of English learning and teaching However, its origin can be traced back to the development

of T-group2 in group psychotherapy by Kurt Lewin and his colleagues, according

to Ward & Litchy (2004, p.106) Ward and Litchy (2004) stated that Lewin emphasized the importance of experiential learning or “learning by doing” as the fundamental premise upon which this influential, heuristic approach to group work began By emphasizing experience and discussion, including shared perceptions of personal, interpersonal, and group-as-a-whole behavior through the use of

feedback, the deliberate use of processing in groups was established His premise

was that if all the potential for working in groups were to be harnessed, group workers needed to facilitate the development of therapeutic factors, the most

central and necessary of which are group cohesiveness and interpersonal learning

Thus, in the words of Yalom (1995) the group “doubles back on itself; it performs

a self-reflective loop and examines the here-and-now that has just occurred” (Ward

& Litchy, 2004, p.107)

2.1.1.5 Rationale for group processing

According to Johnson and Johnson (1987a, p.144), one of the disagreements among proponents of cooperative learning is whether or not cooperative learning groups need to process how well they are functioning For example, Sharan and Sharan (1976) and Slavin (1983) have emphasized the group achievement of outcome goals only Meanwhile, Johnson and Johnson (1984) have emphasized that cooperative learning groups need to process how well they are functioning in order to maximize their effectiveness

In group counseling theory, Trotzer (1999) quoted DeLucia-Waack (1997a) and Kees and Jacobs (1990) as postulating that “the processing phase when using communication exercises is the most important dimension” and going on to emphasize the importance of processing in groups:

2 “T” stands for “training” According to Walrond-Skinner (2014) in the Dictionary of Psychotherapy, a Group is „an intensive effort at interpersonal self study, and an attempt to learn from raw experience of member participation in a group, how to improve interpersonal skills and to understand the phenomena of group dynamics” (p.346) The group members maximize the use of feedback, problem solving, and role play to gain insights into themselves and others

T-“Without adequate processing, the leader cannot be sure what learning has taken place If done correctly, processing can provide members with additional learning about themselves and other members of the group Through processing, members may also develop a plan of action for transferring this learning to their lives outside of the group.”

Research by Chapman K J and Stuart V A (2001), although conducted in business courses, indicated that students instinctively tend to focus on the product rather than the process This is particularly the situation when students work in group projects The researcher‟s own experience with students in the Listening-Speaking classes support the research by Chapman and Stuart that students seemingly appreciate the elements that are assessed by the teachers rather than the working process Johnson and Johnson (1987a, p.148) have also commented that when groups first begin to work together, they tend to be very task-oriented Reflecting on the process would indicate to students that teachers value the process

as much as the products and give the groups the time they need to maintain effective working relationship Therefore, it is important to instill in students an appreciation for the process so that they take action to review or reflect on their behavior and performance during the process

As regards the field of second language learning, it is the more important for the consideration of applying GP in a second language Listening-Speaking class Students will gain more benefits than loss It is undeniable that listening and speaking is intrinsically collaborative by nature Because it takes two to tangle, listening and speaking activities, especially in classrooms where integrated skills are taught as at EF, typically involve pair work and group work The obvious collaborative nature of Listening-Speaking classes makes it imperative that there

be a practice to address the aspect of students‟ interpersonal skills and group cohesion GP, as a result, may play vital roles as a mirror for students to reflect on their working relationship, their skills and individual and group performance Last but not least, GP should be put in practice for it benefits learners in a number

of ways Johnson and Johnson (1987a) noted that effective GP promotes

self-efficacy and group-self-efficacy In other words, it increases “members‟ feelings of

efficacy by empowering group members to feel that they can increase their productivity” (ibid, p.146) In addition, at the center of GP is the practice of small-group reflection The benefits of GP, as a result, should have a direct link with those of reflection activities in classroom There has been myriad documented research to prove the advantages of reflection in language learning context, one of which is from Hinett, K (2002) In the words of Hinett, K (2002), “expressing reflection means finding a „voice‟ by which to express thoughts and inevitably this increases confidence and self-awareness in ability.” Furthermore, reflection also aids “deep learning of particular subject matter”, develops students‟ “interpersonal skills”, and helps “sustain motivation for their studies by monitoring and taking responsibility for their own development” All the above-mentioned advantages of

GP and its core practice, reflection, would lay the framework for the design of research questionnaires to elicit teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes on the implementation of GP in cooperative classrooms

2.1.1.6 Group processing as proposed by Johnson and Johnson (1987a)

The models of GP proposed by Johnson and Johnson (1987a) were adopted in this thesis That is why it is of vital importance to revisit the elements of GP to have an insight into the practice

Models of group processing

According to Johnson and Johnson (1987a, p.145), there are at least two views of

GP One is a counseling model, positing that self examination leads to insight, which leads to increased effectiveness In this view, GP consists of members of the group examining the group‟s functioning (self-examination) The examination facilitates identification of and insight into strengths and problems in functioning and leads to planning for more effective actions to be taken by group members in the future

The second model, according to Johnson and Johnson (1987a, p.145), is the feedback model In this model, GP aimed at providing accurate and nonthreatening feedback concerning the procedures the group is using to achieve its outcome

goals The feedback gives students information that helps them improve performance Further, it enforces students for engaging in collaborative skills Because both the self-examination and non-threatening feedback are important aspects of GP, this thesis would attempt to incorporate both models in the

experimental teaching to investigate what the surveyed teachers‟ and students‟

responses and reactions to the practice would be

Procedures for group processing

Johnson and Johnson (1987a, p.149) proposed that scheduling processing involves two main elements:

1 Teachers must set aside time for students to reflect on their experiences in working with each other in their cooperative learning groups

2 Teachers must give students a structure and a set of procedures for discussing how well the group is functioning and how well the members are using collaborative skills

Teachers have two basic options for providing students time to process how well they are collaborating The first is to provide ten minutes at the end of each group session for immediate processing The second is to take a longer period of time, such as thirty minutes, once every week or so When cooperative groups first meet,

it is best to use the first option and leave ten or fifteen minutes each day for the students to process This helps emphasize the self-examination and reflection that

is necessary for the groups to be effective This also gives students an opportunity

to discuss the group process while it is fresh in their memory, and helps immediately reinforce the group skills After students become used to processing sessions can then become intermittent, perhaps once a week or so, just to remind students to stay focused on improving their collaborative skills

Observing

To process how productively cooperative learning groups have functioned, there must be observation Observation is aimed at recording and describing members‟ behavior as it occurs in the group From the behavior of group member, an observer can make inferences about the ways in which the group is functioning

The purpose of observation is for the group to have an objective assessment of how well they used the group skills so that they can discuss and modify group procedures and members‟ behavior

There are two ways to obtain information about group functioning through observing The teacher can directly observe the cooperative learning groups or the teacher can assign students to the role of observer Often, both methods are used

 The teacher as observer:

After the students are organized into cooperative learning groups and the lesson begins, the teacher‟s job starts in earnest Besides checking the groups to determine what, if any, problems they are having in completing the assignment, the teacher must monitor the learning groups Whenever possible, teachers should

use a formal observation sheet to count the number of times they observe

appropriate behaviors being used by students This is because the more concrete the information the teacher gathers, the more useful it is to both the teacher and students The teacher should look for positive behaviors in order to praise them when they are appropriately present and discuss them when they are absent

At other times, teachers may wish to make more unstructured observations The observations made through eavesdropping are specific and brief enough to be written down quickly; they capture an important aspect of the behavior of one or more students, and they provide help in answering question about the successful implementation of cooperative learning

 Students as observers

As students become more familiar with observation procedures, the teacher may wish to train them as observers A student observer focusing on one group can collect considerably more information about interaction among members than can

a teacher circulating among all the groups in the class Furthermore, one of the most effective ways of teaching students collaborative skills is to assign them the role of observer and have them record how frequently their classmates engage in the targeted skills When they listen and look for the emphasized collaborative skills, this helps them clarify for them what those skills are and how to engage in them And as the responsibility for observing rotates to each group member, all

students understand more clearly the nature of the collaborative skills they are learning

Providing constructive feedback

When observers tell how often and how well the group engaged in collaborative

skills, they are giving feedback Feedback is the information that allows students to

compare their actual performance within standards of performance Feedback is necessary to help students correct errors, identify problems in learning the skill, identify progress in skill mastery, and compare their actual performance with the desired standard of performance People who provide feedback should give it in a helpful, nonthreatening way:

1 Focus feedback on the person‟s behavior, not on his personality Refer to what the person did, not to what you imagine his personality traits to be

2 Focus feedback on descriptions rather than general or abstract behavior

3 Focus feedback on specific rather than general or abstract behavior

4 Make feedback as immediate as possible

5 Do not overload receivers with more feedback than they understand at the time

6 Phrase feedback so that it will review the definitions of the collaborative skills hand help students better conceptualize what the skills are and how to perform them

7 Make the feedback personal rather than impersonal

Teacher intervention

The teacher need to monitor how well the groups are working and, when necessary, intervene to increase the effectiveness of the learning groups The teacher may wish to stop group‟s work and intervene immediately or may wait until the processing period In a skillful intervention, the teacher do not solve the problem for the group but rather highlight a problem in functioning for the group

to solve If the teacher is too active in solving problems of collaboration, they will not get a chance to do so

Setting goals for improved functioning

As a result of analyzing how well their group functioned, students (a) identify problems by comparing their desired level of collaborative skills with their actual behavior and (b) set goals for improving the functioning of their group At the end

of each processing session, students should publicly announce the behavior they could improve on Or they should write the behavior down and review it at the beginning of the next group session

Goal setting can have a powerful impact on students‟ behavior in future cooperative learning situations There is a powerful sense of ownership of and commitment to behaviors that a student has decided to engage in (as opposed to assigned behaviors)

Obstacles to group processing

Johnson and Johnson (1987a) cited Dishon and O‟leary, listing common problems

of GP and suggesting a number of solutions to it:

1 There is not enough time for GP Suggestions to this problem are:

a Do quick processing by asking the class to tell how well their groups are functioning

b Do processing now and either have students finish the work at home or else do it tomorrow in class

2 Processing stays vague When the students conclude: “We did OK”, “We did a good job” or “Everyone was involved” several times, the teacher knows that the group‟s processing is not specific enough Solutions are as follows

a Use specific statements to which students have to respond specifically

b Use students observers so that specific frequencies are recorded

c Give the group specific questions to be answered about their functioning

3 Students stay uninvolved in processing Some suggestions remedies are:

a Asking for a written report from the group reporting the strengths and weaknesses of their functioning

b Using processing sheets that require participation from everyone

c Assigning to the student most uninvolved in the processing the job or recorder or spokesperson for the group

d Having all members sign the processing statements to indicate they participated in the GP and agree with the groups‟ conclusion

e Giving bonus points for good processing reports

4 Written process reports are incomplete or messy The teacher may wish to try:

a Having group members sign each other‟s processing sheets to show that each has been checked for completeness and neatness

b Giving bonus points for neatness and completeness

5 Student use poor collaborative skills during processing Here are a few solutions:

a Assigning specific roles for processing

b Having one group member observe the processing and have the group discuss the result

2.1.2 The importance of teachers’ and students’ attitudes in classroom context 2.1.2.1 Definitions and components of attitude

According to Baker C (1992, p 8), attitude is a term of common usage in multiple realms ranging from social psychology study to the study of bilingualism In terms

of social psychology, Oppenheim (1992) defined attitude as “a state of readiness, a tendency to respond in a certain manner when confronted with certain stimuli Most of an individual‟s attitudes are usually dormant and are expressed in speech

or behavior only when the object of the attitude is perceived” (p.174) Eagly and Chaiken (1998) conceptually referred to attitude as a psychological tendency expressed in a particularly way - favorable or unfavorable - at any given level Dittmar (1976, p.181) and Wenden (1991, p.120) have stated that there are three components of attitude: cognitive, affective and conative component The cognitive component is made up of the beliefs and ideas or opinions about the object of the attitude The affective one refers to the feeling and emotions that one has towards an object, “likes” or “dislikes”, “with” or “against” Finally,

conation refers to one‟s consisting actions or behavioral intentions towards the object In other words, attitude can be reinforced by beliefs (the cognitive component) and often attract strong feelings (the emotional component), which may lead to particular behavioral intents (the conative component)

When reviewing the literature of attitude, Ajzen (1989, p.246) found that there are two different strands of views on the hierarchical model of attitude One is from the multi-dimension views with the model of Rosenberg and Hovland (1960) serving as the starting point of most contemporary analyses The model includes cognition, affect and conation as first-order factors and attitude as a single second-order factor The three components are defined independently and yet parallel, at a higher level of abstraction, with the overall evaluation, or general attitude The hierarchical three-component model of attitude is presented schematically in the figure below

Figure 2.3: The hierarchical model of attitude Ajzen (1989, p.247) presented another model first proposed by Fishbein an Ajzen (1975) and Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), in which attitudes are not merely related to beliefs, they are actually a function of belief In other words, beliefs are assumed

to have causal effects on attitudes Attitudes, in turn, are assumed to exert a dynamic or directive influence on behavior It is due to the two-way relationship

of attitude and behavior of Fishbein and Ajzen‟s model that this research proposed that students‟ and teachers‟ attitudes should be considered as important in the teaching and learning process for positive or negative attitude may have considerable effects on their behaviors in classrooms Further discussion on the importance of attitude would be given in the following section

Attitude

2.1.2.2 Attitude as a key element in the teaching and learning process

This research was carried out based mainly on the assumption that attitude is an essential element in the teaching and learning process The first reason has already been mentioned in the previous part: attitudes may affect one‟s behavior Favorable or unfavorable attitudes towards a teaching and learning approach may lead to welcoming or disruptive reaction to the method Although this is not always the case, the possibility is worth concerning

In addition, Baker (1992) observed that “a survey of attitudes provides an indicator

of current community thoughts and beliefs, preferences and desires and the chances of success in policy implementation” (p.8) He further cited Lewis (1981)

as suggesting:

“Any policy for language, especially in the system of education, has to take account of the attitude of those likely to be affected In the long run, no policy will succeed which does not do one of three things: conformed to the expressed attitudes of those involved, persuade those who expressed negative attitudes about the rightness of the policy, or seek to remove the causes of the disagreements In any case, knowledge about attitudes is fundamental to the formulation of a policy

as well as to success in its implementation.”

The statement makes even more sense when considering a classroom as a small society and the teacher as its authority Knowing students‟ attitudes towards a particular teaching method would help teachers make any necessary adjustment to their teaching methodology within their class In a larger context, with an insight into students‟ and teachers‟ expressed preferences and positive attitudes towards the specific method, the school administrators might consider the promotion and application of that method into their education system

Baker (1992, p.12) furthered his explanation that attitude in educational research can be both considered as an input and output On one hand, attitude is a predisposing factor which may affect the outcomes of education A student who has already had an interest for a particular language may gain significant achievement in that language On the other hand, attitude may act as an outcome as when students develop a negative or favorable attitude towards reading after

participating in a language course “Sometimes, attitude may be as important an outcome as achievement A skilled reader may shun books after formal education while a less skilled reader with a love of books may, because of a favorable attitude, carries on reading until adulthood.” (Baker, 1992, p.12)

This study explore teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes as an outcome of an experiential course using GP as a facilitating factor

2.1.3 Students’ anxiety in oral communication

The online version of Oxford dictionary defined anxiety as “a feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease about something with an uncertain outcome” The definition is in line with that proposed by Horwitz E K., Horwitz M B and Cope J., (1986) They viewed anxiety as “a subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the autonomic nervous system.” Just as anxiety prevents some people from performing successfully in science or mathematics, many others find foreign language learning, especially

in classroom situations, particularly stressful They also noticed that anxious students are common in foreign language classrooms, at least in beginning classes on the university level Principally, it has been found that anxiety centers

on the two basic task requirements of second language learning: listening and speaking Difficulties in speaking in class is probably the most frequently cited concern of the anxious foreign language students Horwitz et al (1986) noted that students often report that they feel fairly comfortable responding to a drill or delivering prepared speeches in their foreign language class but tend to “freeze” in

a role-play situation The rise of foreign language requirements is occurring in conjunction with an increased emphasis on spontaneous speaking in the foreign language class Since speaking in the target language seems to be the most threatening aspect of foreign language learning, the current emphasis on the development of communicative competence poses particularly great difficulties for the anxious students

In a project funded by the Japan‟s government, Saito (2003) set out to explore the phenomenon of students‟ anxiety in oral activities He cited a number of researchers on the issue For example, Nimmannit (1998) described these learner

anxieties as, “fear of losing face, insecurity, and lack of confidence, all of which slow down progress and impede success in foreign language teaching” Katchen (1996) held the same viewpoint, noting, “speaking in public is a potentially face-threatening activity and students fear it” (p.3) Thus, these anxieties can prevent students from participating fully in oral communicative activities in classrooms Students who experience moderate anxiety may simply procrastinate in doing homework, avoid speaking in class, or crouch in the last row Greer (2000, p.183) identified at least seven kinds of anxieties that may make students unwilling to talk

in L2: (1) peers may not comprehend what the students say, (2) peers may misunderstand the students, (3) the students‟ low proficiency of L2 may stop communication, (4) the students‟ topic is not thought important enough to speak about, (5) the students may sound comical, (6) the students feel awkward after their peers talk in Ll, and (7) the students are afraid of making errors It can be concluded that students tend to be afraid that their oral competence in L2 is poor and fear that their weaknesses may get revealed in oral activities

2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON GROUP PROCESSING

As mentioned in the introduction of the study, despite growing interest in CLL in the world of educational research, investigation into GP with an aim at teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards the method is scare, at least in Vietnam education context There were enough research to corroborate the theory of GP in cooperative learning proposed by Johnson D W and Johnson R T (1987a), confirming the effectiveness of the method in improving the cooperation among group members For example, Yager, Johnson and Johnson (in the press) studied the impact of (a) cooperative learning in which members discussed how well their group was functioning and how they could improve its effectiveness, (b) cooperative learning without any GP, and (c) individualistic learning, on daily achievement, post-instructional achievement, and retention The results indicate that the high-, medium, and low-achieving students in the cooperation with group-processing condition achieved higher than did the students in the other two conditions Students in the cooperation without GP condition achieved higher on